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

Continued deletion of complaints about biased editing abuses

I strongly object to the removal of my complaints about abusive biased editing practices which I placed on the talk page of the article that the editor in question edits abusively most frequently, to serve as a warning to other editors and, I hoped, to request administrator action against the abuses: [1], [2], [3]. I ask that User:Cadiomals's attempt to censor my complaints and warnings be reverted, and that User:VictorD7 be appropriately sanctioned for the clear abuses documented in the section which Cadiomals thinks is okay to delete.

I would also like some guidance about how to report such abuses in the future, please. EllenCT (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

See? Was it so hard posting your grievances here rather than on the Talk page of an article, where it is inappropriate and irrelevant? The first and foremost rule from WP:TALK is that article Talk pages exist for the sole purpose of discussing direct changes/improvements to the articles. Kudos for finding your way. Cadiomals (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Use user talk pages and, in extreme cases, noticeboards next time. Dark Sun (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Overall, what I'm seeing from EllenCT looks far more like tattletaling in order to 'win' a dispute than a sincere and well-founded attempt to help an editor with their behaviour. I'm not 100% sure that the removed section strictly matches the rather narrow criteria by which one can remove talk-page comments, and WP:Hatting the section might have been a better choice, but it's at best borderline and Cadiomals' action seems to have been a good-faith attempt to stop a dispute or at least point it to a more appropriate venue. No action against Cadiomals is warranted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ellen failed to even try to make a rational argument that I should be "sanctioned". Her low quality, POV pushing edits have been reverted by several different editors across multiple articles, not just me (e.g. [4],[5], [6]). In this example: [7], [8] she was reverted after trying to covertly slip in highly contentious economic/taxation material already under discussion (and ultimately rejected by strong consensus) with a totally misleading edit summary that pretended she was simply undoing some small, recent change to a different section. It's difficult to maintain assumptions of good faith under such conditions. Editors have been extremely patient with her for a long time, but she's been a persistently disruptive influence on multiple articles and Talk Pages, and perhaps it's time to examine whether she should be sanctioned. VictorD7 (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Uninvolvededitor Sounds like we're in Australia again... Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

While commenting on this probably won't help relations in our current discussions, I do feel Ellen has a WP:TEDIOUS editing style and I'd welcome any review or intervention that might help us become more productive. Morphh ^(talk) 20:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Though I will certainly not vouch for much of VictorD7's past behavior, EllenCT is being hypocritical plain and simple for reporting Victor's "biased editing abuses" when she also has quite the history of her own "biased editing abuses". I'm less familiar with her activity on other articles, but in United States she has a history of either childish attempts at circumventing discussion or being a general drag on the discussion and consensus-building process (though Victor too has a history of being confrontational and disagreeable). I think Ellen is misguided in how United States is supposed to look based on WP:SUMMARY, and often has a hard time letting things go even when consensus has repeatedly shown itself to be against her. At least she has stopped trying to insert content into the article without first consulting Talk, but she continues to be a general drag in progress there by continuing her advocacy of irrelevant content, and the recent off-topic dispute crossed the line to merit removal.

I don't think much more can reasonably be done except telling both of them to cool it. To prevent drawn out back-and-forth, instead of directly addressing one another, they should only seek opinions and consensus from others from now on. Otherwise, Ellen's post to this noticeboard was just a failed attempt at trying to make herself look like a victim. Cadiomals (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course I reject any attempt to equate me with Ellen (how about the other people debating her, including yourself?), especially one based on no evidence. A baseless "pox on both their houses" attitude is intellectually lazy at best. All my edits and posts have been in good faith, and I've always been willing to rationally and civilly discuss any of them. VictorD7 (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

VictorD7 is trying to include his political opinions by relying on non-peer reviewed sources, while the sources he complains about my inserting in opposition are peer reviewed and secondary. He has also been following my contributions to other articles, harassing me in an attempt to try to make that work out somehow. I have only asked that VictorD7 be encouraged to edit without conflicts, while he has asked that I be "banned from Wikipedia". I ask that VictorD7 be instructed to either edit based on peer reviewed sources or stop editing on the topics where we disagree. EllenCT (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

False on all counts. I've repeatedly bent over backwards to make good faith efforts to engage you on the issues where we've disagreed, and I'm not the one who ran to report you to admin (and falsely at that). VictorD7 (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Having commented on the substantive issue at Talk:Taxation_in_the_United_States#Fourth_opinion, I would suggest that you two cool it a bit and refrain from the personal insults for a while. Also avoid trading long biting exchanges on the talkpage if you can. Maybe take it to talk to clarify the confusion or even have a phone conversation. You both seem to be capable of making rational contributions to the encyclopedia. I'll admit I lean left (and believe that reality has a left-wing bias), so I'm favorably inclined towards Ellen's position (and have seen quite a bit of good work from her) and naturally a bit suspicious of self-described conservatives. I suppose that goes both ways but the bottom line is that the US taxes as a whole are not really very progressive (due largely to the payroll taxes exemption starting around 100k and the 15% long-term capital gains / qualified dividends rate) and it is difficult to paint the picture otherwise, although this seems like a valiant attempt. II | (t - c) 07:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the point of the political commentary here is, but I'll note that in the section he linked to I and another editor politely corrected II's mistakes, and today he politely conceded "looks like I was wrong". That's the way discussions among editors are supposed to unfold. It's when Ellen gets involved that all too often rationality and civility go out the window. VictorD7 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree with this characterization. I was wrong about some federal tax numbers, but I think there is still a legitimate argument to be made about corporate tax incidence assumptions, which are highly debatable per e.g. Corporate Tax Incidence and Its Implications for Progressivity (2009) and How TPC Distributes The Corporate Income Tax (2012). It's not clear to me that either of you are really engaging that well on this point exactly either; seems to have just descended into insults. In addition, I lean towards agreeing with Ellen on the omission of the effects of state and local taxes as it seems somewhat arbitrary (and hence potentially politically-motivated) although I understand that there may be data limitations. As far as your political self-identification, it's a reasonable heuristic. Nobody should be using Wikipedia as a political platform but in my seven years floating around here I've seen more conservatives run afoul of that then the other way around. By definition, a heuristic is not perfect, but if you associate yourself with a group where the majority don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, evolution, etc then you should expect to receive additional scrutiny. The economics wikiproject is probably overrepresented with libertarians and it's a bit of a problem. Also, keep in mind that we don't always do things based on majorities around here. It's !votes, not votes. If a majority of people !vote to change evolution so it says it's just a theory and the world is 13,000 years sold similar to Conservapedia, the one person dissenting (and hopefully reverting) is in the right. II | (t - c) 00:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

All I did was quote your edit summary to illustrate the reasonable give and take found in healthy editor discussions. I don't recall Ellen ever saying something like that, no matter undeniably wrong she's proved to be on a particular point. She keeps essentially insisting that 2+2=5 (or sometimes "green"). While I disagree with much of what you say (especially your 180 degree wrong liberal/conservative run afoul claim) and would love to debate you on various political issues, this page is hardly the proper place. VictorD7 (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

VictorD7 says that it is "false" that he has been trying to push his political point of view using cherry picked non-peer reviewed sources against my attempts to prevent him from doing so using peer reviewed secondary sources. If he wishes to substantiate that claim, he has had ample opportunity to try to find a single peer-reviewed source which agrees with the several non-peer reviewed sources he has found. Again, VictorD7 should be instructed to use peer reviewed sources or refrain from editing when he can't find any which agree with him, please. And Cadiomals should be instructed to treat those who are trying to encourage other editors to rely on accurate sources instead of pushing their POV with inaccurate sources with respect, please. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

As usual, you provide no evidence. You're a serial partisan soapboxer who's annoyed even some editors who share your politics, and, far from cherry-picking, I and other editors used all available sources, including the ones you posted, to systematically debunk all your claims.VictorD7 (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Further harassment by VictorD7

VictorD7 continues to follow my contributions, harassing me with reverts without even discussing them on the talk page. Can anything be done about this? EllenCT (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually I followed Morphh there because I had asked him a question on another page and was checking to see if he was active. And I explained my revert of your massive, undiscussed, POV stuffing change. Mutiple editors have reverted it, so please discuss it before trying to make it again. Also, please stop harassing me with false accusations and wasting admin's time. I was editing at the United States page long before you showed up, and our paths have crossed on some other articles since then because we apparently have an overlapping interest in tax/fiscal matters. I couldn't care less about whatever unrelated articles you post on. VictorD7 (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe you. You started following me and reverting without discussion long before my most recent interactions with Morphh. The evidence is in the diffs shown as deleted in the diffs from my first post to the parent section. You only had a few edits to articles other than United States before then. EllenCT (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I had been on Wikipedia less than a year before you showed up at the US article, and my first interactions with Morphh were on my user page after I edited Taxation in the United States (none of which involved you). I've been looking up various related articles lately, but I don't think I had ever been on the TP and EI page until several hours ago, after following him and finding you (big shock) rewriting a massive chunk of the article at once without discussion and making a mockery of NPOV. Frankly I've demonstrated a great deal more knowledge than you have on these topics and I have at least as much right to be on those pages as you do. I've also always been willing to discuss edits and reverts, and have done so, as I just linked. VictorD7 (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You only just found your first peer reviewed source, you had to go back to 1962 to find it, and it's nowhere near secondary. Essentially all your edits before I came along were POV pushing on United States. If you can find the secondary literature, I will consider upgrading the esteem, but I would need to see a clear willingness to undo your past inaccuracies. Are you ready to make that kind of a commitment? EllenCT (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I've quoted from numerous peer reviewed sources, including your own source that you misread that described the 1962 paper as "seminal" and explained how it's shaped scholarship since, I quoted all that stuff a long time ago (along with similar material from the CBO and even your own ITEP source that started this whole debate), you have yet to find a single source (peer review or not) supporting any of your claims, the "peer review" tangent is irrelevant anyway since your assumptions about your ITEP chart's (which isn't any more peer reviewed than the sources contradicting its figures) methodology were refuted by quotes and numbers from its own site, I had branched out to other articles before you came along and will continue to do so, and all of my edits have been quality and in good faith while you've got numerous editors admonishing you for serial POV pushing and tendentious behavior. At one point you even claimed labor and consumption were the same thing, causing astonished editors to patiently try to explain the difference to you. Do you still believe that? It's hard to tell since you never seem to acknowledge facts posted by others or admit you're wrong when proved incorrect. That's especially problematic since you're demonstrably wrong a great deal of the time. VictorD7 (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Further harassment by Morphh

Now User:Morphh, who VictorD7 recently convinced that the Tax Policy Center web site was peer reviewed, culls graphical information to try to hide the truth: one summary argument for how many graphs? Complete disregard for WP:BRD in a pathetic attempt to avoid facing the fact that he's been misled by the likes of VictorD7. Sad, but not a lost cause. I ask that Morphh be instructed to abide by WP:BRD. EllenCT (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

In support of Morphh, I have also noted and reverted EllenCT's continued use of misleading graphs, even after she has participated in long discussions, and RFCs that have found the same material lacking. For instance, her insertion of this graph [9] was done weeks after long discussions on the Progressive tax talk page, including this RFC Talk:Progressive_tax#RFC_on_graph_linking_top_marginal_tax_rates_to_job_growth in which the vast majority of editors found the graph misleading and WP:SYN.Mattnad (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ellen is also seriously warping both my and Morphh's views, not that this content discussion is pertinent to this page. I'm pretty sure neither of us has ever claimed the "web site" is peer reviewed. I'm not even sure what that would mean. VictorD7 (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ellen, it is courtesy for you to notify someone if you lodge a complaint against them on ANI. I just happen to be watching this page and noticed the accusation. Again, another personal attack. The summary you linked to includes two discussion threads which cover all three graphs. So the discussion is already taking place and in some cases concluded. Admittedly, not the best summary, but you're fully aware of the debates regarding all three graphs. They were removed on the main articles where they were discussed and I thought it appropriate to remove them, at least temporarily until a consensus determines inclusion, for all the various articles that were unaware of the contention. If these were specific articles about the graph topic, then I would say let's teach the controversy and include the proper balance, explain the criticism, but many of these are higher level articles or ones that have little relevance to the graph's content. Morphh ^(talk) 16:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure how I'm the one harassing Ellen. She followed all my edits and reverted them, not the other way around. I then reverted with a link to the discussion (requested in her summary), which was already taking place (and had taken place on several articles). She then reverted again. And to Victor's point, I never said the TPC website was peer reviewed. In fact, I said the opposite regarding institute websites and pointed to peer reviewed methodologies. I don't say this as a point to start a discussion, but as defense to the original charge. Morphh ^(talk) 18:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb

Joefromrandb (talk · contribs)

Accusations that IPs are socks of a banned user. When I have reverted this on the basis that there is no evidence that the IP is a sock there have been accusation of meatpuppetry.

1. Józef Kowalski Accuses 213.49.104.71 (talk · contribs) of being "Robert", presumably referring to User Ryoung122. Note that this IP is located in Brussels. I also note that the IP provides no edit summary and that Robert Young is extremely unlikely to have edited any longevity related articles without commenting (usually to promote his own epertise).
2. List of people with the longest marriages. [10] and [11] accuses 81.11.203.160 (talk · contribs) and 213.49.104.90 (talk · contribs) of being socks. These IPs are also from Brussels. [12] Claims to have restored to "last clean version". A blanket reversion of (mostly) valid changes.
3. List of oldest twins. [13] Another claim to restoration of "last clean version". Seems to have followed 83.134.143.22 (talk · contribs) (presumably the same person as other IPs as the location is Brussles) from above and blanket reverted all changes although again they appear to be valid.
4. Accusations of meatpuppetry: [14] and [15]. Another clear example of this user throwing around false accusations and attempting to bully other editors. Joefromrandb seems to be under the impression that I am one of the GRG fan club which is so far from the truth it is actually laughable.

DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm just slower tonight, but it took me a while to realise what's going on. DerbyCountyinNZ is saying that Joe's making baseless accusations regarding edits to the following pages. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Accusations of sock puppetry with no apparent evidence. Accusations of meat puppetry with no evidence. Sorry if that wasn't clear. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It's amusing that Derby has reported his own edit-warring. Last time I reverted this user's errors, he got his buddy, administrator Canadian Paul to block me. Apparently he considers himself so bulletproof that he's brazen enough to make multiple baseless reverts and then report someone else. A small group of users have long asserted ownership of all longevity-related articles. It would be nice if these articles were eventually returned to the community, but it really isn't an ANi issue. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've been involved in this area, but it looks more or less the same from when I was there, so if I may quickly comment before returning to isolation mode. The IPs don't strike me as being Ryoung122, because as DerbyCountyinNZ says usually Ryoung122 hastens to point out his work in the GRG. There are plenty of other IPs who edit the topic area who likely come from the Yahoo World's Oldest People group, to which Ryoung122 is openly a contributor; one could debate whether it's a meatpuppetting issue, but my experience has been they'll come over without invitation. A lot of times their edits are less than helpful, and I frequently found myself reverting them as well. DerbyCountyinNZ and I didn't always see eye-to-eye on some of the MoS issues in that project, but he's absolutely not one of the Yahoo WOP acolytes (a look at the archives of Talk:List of the verified oldest people should show that) and has always been willing to discuss things. Although I generally agree with the thrust of Joefromrandb's edits, I can see why his approach is somewhat off-putting. If he could write with a little more tact, I think the issues at each article could be resolved without too much difficulty. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

By "sock of Robert Young", I didn't mean it literally, as in Robert typing the edits. I was referring to Robert's promise to edit Wikipedia by proxy, as his legion of followers will update Wikipedia as Robert updates his sites. Perhaps I should have said "meat of banned editor"; after 3 years, I'm still learning the lingo. Yes, my tact could still use some improvement, but even if I wrote with the tact of a Dennis Brown, these issues are unlikely to be resolved until someone steps in and enforces Wikipedia's core policies on longevity-related articles. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not as bad as it once was, the area has definitely improved since the arbitration case which I was marginally involved in, but I see many of the same problems you do. It doesn't hugely matter whether the IPs are acting as proxies for him or not, they're essentially serving that function and should be treated as if they were. I think what the area needs, more than anything else, is some fresh eyes, and that would be more than a hint for anyone happening across this thread... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no evidence that these edits are being made by anyone with a link to Robert Young or the GRG, and don't recall ever seeing anything on their website on any of these topics. The IP appears to be merely someone with an interest in marriages/twins, presumably with a first language other than English. If they hadn't also edited the Kowalski article we wouldn't be here! I have been trying to reduce the OR and fanfluff aspects of these articles (check the edit history and talk pages) and eventually might be able to turn them into properly encyclopedic articles although I might have to settle for merely wiki compliant. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• User:DerbyCountyinNZ, did you try discussing this with Joefromrandb on his talk page? Have you tried any other means of WP:DR? It's seems you have not. Instead, you just came straight here. What admin intervention are you seeking? - ^theWOLFchild 15:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Presumably, false accusations of sockpuppetry violate WP:NPA and WP:BITE and would potentially have a chilling effect. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it ok to call other editors a "rat", as long as it is done in Hebrew?

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

---

Gilabrand (talk · contribs) and I edit in the same area (Israel/Palestine), and we have not always agreed on matters, to put it diplomatically. Latest about a month ago, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive142#Gilabrand.

However, Gilabrand has always called me by my correct nick, Huldra, earlier. (See e.g. this )

This last month they have suddenly started calling me "Hulda" (like here, and here)

Which, apparently means "Rat" in Hebrew. Comments? Huldra (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, Hulda can refer to a number of things, including an opera, but I would caution Gilabrand to avoid Mickey Mouse games with an editor's name. It's not very collegial. Jonathunder (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This is childish, and Gilabrand should be warned that such behavior is unbecoming of Wikipedia editors. Hopefully that will put an end to it. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he doesn't need to be calling any editors by any names other than their User Names, so this is not okay, no matter the meaning or language. Sergecross73 msg me 17:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the first time that Gilabrand has engaged in playing juvenilishly with user names to wind other editors up: in the past she has used her own signature to try to get at Nableezy much as NoCal100 used his username to wind up another editor. Examples of Gilabrand's signature altered to read 'Nopleazy': 1, 2, 3, 4. Instances of me asking Gilabrand to desist: 1, 2, 3. Examples where Gilabrand altered her signature to read 'Yespleazy' instead: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
As mentioned in the recent AE case concerning Gilabrand, she was the subject of an indefinite ban in the Arab-Israeli topic area, which was eventually lifted with the warning that Gilabrand is further reminded that any future problematic editing following the removal of editing restrictions will viewed dimly. The recent AE case was closed with no action taken except another warning: "Gilabrand has been notified, warned of the heightened scrutiny and limits to how far things can go before they would become actionable, and encouraged to edit in a somewhat more neutral manner if possible" (see also Gilabrand's talkpage: "Gilabrand will be notified that their edits are under heightened scrutiny due to their personal opinions and editing trends on these topics, and that moderation and neutrality will be helpful to avoid further investigations as to whether their edits are becoming single purpose, soapboxing, or battleground type edits and subject to the Arbcom sanctions.")
Given that Gilabrand has had several strong warnings about her behaviour, one given very recently, perhaps this incident deserves to be taken a bit more seriously.
    ←   ZScarpia   18:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This is unbelievably ridiculous. I have nothing against Huldra - we have worked on many articles together to fill in the history of villages about which little is know. "Hulda" is simply a typo. But now that she mentions it, it is actually complimentary. Hulda is the name of a Biblical prophetess. --Geewhiz (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Not true. Here is a couple of Gilabrands posts about me from just this year: "By the way, I am keeping a log of your aggressive comments to me, which is growing quite long. Another one was added today on Hittin", and "clean up but leave Huldra's threat for posterity". Please also read my entry in the last AE: it was after that that Gilabrand suddenly started "misstyping". Coincident? Huldra (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

So you suddenly start repeatedly making the same typo in the name of a user you have been acquainted with for some time. Are there any other cases where you have done the same?     ←   ZScarpia   19:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more careful in the future to avoid creating even the appearance of an insult (though none may be intended)? If so, we are done here. Jehochman ^Talk 19:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I will try to type more slowly... Funny how stuff can be misinterpreted.--Geewhiz (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Funny, isn't it? For example, your response when she asked you about it on your talk page: "My wife and kids had a good laugh over your detective skills. Maybe they will accept you to the FBI." That might be misinterpreted as sarcasm. Typing slowly might not be a bad idea if it helps you think about how things will be read. Jonathunder (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we get an agreement from both of you to only refer to the other by correct username and only with respect (even if you don't like each other)? If so, I hope we can close this. Jonathunder (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

In view of this being a repeated pattern (compare the Nableezy-refs above), please do not close this yet. As noted: Gilabrand has posted untrue statements, IMO. And was 'Nopleazy' also a typo? And how many "warnings" does an editor receive before it has any consequences? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Gilabrand makes here above as if she would be sorry for what she did but her initial answer on her talk page proves she is not sorry at all, at the contrary: [16]

This behaviour is in total disagreement with WP:NPA and the 4st pillar of wikipedia. In more of that, there is no content dispute between Huldra and Gilanbrand. This would show that Gilabrand acted because of other reasons (my mind: because Huldra is an Arab and Gilabrand an Israeli). That is not acceptable per WP:BATTLEGROUND. Gilabrand's should be blocked at least 1 week for this and she should receive a warning that she would be blocked indefinetely if she does this again.

Pluto2012 (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you realise that you make typos too? For example you misspelled "Gilabrand" as "Gilanbrand".--Toddy1 (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Pluto2012 should be blocked at least 1 week for calling Gilabrand "Gilanbrand", which means "Pig" in the Klingon language. Marokwitz (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• In answer to your question, no it isn't, because that is a personal attack pbp 20:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Question - how many times in the November-December timeframe did Gilabrand type your account name in a comment or response? I see the two misspelled examples above, how many were there total and how many of those were misspelled? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • To Georgewilliamherbert: AFAIK: she has only addressed me those two times this last month, misspelling my name each time. While she earlier always have spelled it correctly, (like here, back in 2008). Notice that her "misspelling" comes just after I have written very critically about her in the above mentioned AE. Compare it also to her spelling of Nableezy; another editor who she has disagreed with, Huldra (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

"The Prophetess Hulda: Her Message of Hope": [17] Perhaps it was meant as a compliment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.25.54 (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not know if she is sorry or not. We cannot mandate that. An agreement to call each other by proper names is all we can ask.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes I copy and paste names instead of typing them. This reduces the chance of the kind of error that Gilabrand/Geewhiz made about Huldra - but, if the typographic error occurs once, it means that it has the potential to be repeated many times. Maybe that is what happened here.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Without telepathy we are not going to get an actual final answer here. The history of name games (3 years ago, but extensive) and repeat of the "typo" make intentional attack credible, but I have typoed enough things to know accident is possible.

My current opinion - Gilabrand, when I closed the AE I made heightened scrutiny clear to you. That does not mean an end to AGF or understanding sbout innocent mistakes, but it puts a hard and firm limit on the number of question marks we can accept going forwards.

This incident, given the repeat and meaning as misspelled and blowing off rather than apologizing when called on it, is a serious question mark. One strike for that.

You don't have 'three strikes and you're out". I don't want to set up a legalistic limit or let you game this. This counts. I won't act based on this one, but AGF goes away. This kind of thing happens again and you don't apologize and strike or retract, will be bad.

Heightened scrutiny does not mean zero tolerance for error, but it does approach zero tolerance for screwing around. Your response here was about all the slack you are going to get from me. If you goof again, make it right, and be a lot more careful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hulda is a kibbutz in central Israel, and the name of a Jewish prophet, certainly not a pejorative. I'm shocked. This bogus ANI complaint is so childish and far fetched, it is almost sad. The Administrators' noticeboard should not be used for such clear and obvious harassment. Marokwitz (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

user:Lgcsmasamiya

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

---

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#Lgcsmasamiya's patrolling, user:Lgcsmasamiya was banned from patrolling the new pages feed. Well a look at [[18]] shows that he is still doing so. I cannot see how he is doing it properly at that speed. Is he still banned? Can anything be done? Op47 (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Lgcsmasamiya was banned from page patrolling, and it looks like he is still doing it haphazardly. As someone who has had to clean up some of his messes, I think it's time to prevent him from further violating the ban.- MrX 18:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

ETA: It looks like he is not adding any cleanup tags to any of these articles. I'm going through them now to make sure there are not any copyvios or WP:BLP vios.- MrX 18:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Lgcsmasamiya blocked until they can demonstrate an understanding of, and a willingness to comply with, the guidelines and conventions involved with new page patrol. Tiderolls 19:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• This ban is not listed at WP:EDR yet. Should the topic ban on Lgcsmasamiya be put up there? Epicgenius (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. I have added it. - MrX 7:12 pm, Today (UTC−5)

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

ChrisGualtieri again...(how many times has it been?)

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

---

Since my last block, I've been extra careful not trying to make any more issues with another editor. Yet he still bombards me with personal attacks and incivility shown here (and keep in mind to be looking at my answer to see how obscure his responces are):

• asking irrelevant provoking
• complete dismissal of others opinions
• attempting to discredit, and again, trying to bring topics irrelevant to the matter
• personal attacks
• personal attacks
• personal attacks
• personal attacks

In fact, i had to forgive this editor, just so i can edit in peace, and this editor not hold any more of the "this editor hates me" crud or any other irrelevant matter that he likes to promote. And even after the showing of peace, this editor continues to make things personal between me and him and i'm simply tired of it.

• harrassment
• false accusations
• false accusations
• making things personal rather quick
  • another editor noting his faulty accusations.

And again, it doesn't end. This editor makes it so that he can't read my comments, and yet, chooses to target articles I've been involved in such as the reverting of Phantasy Star Adventure, Phantasy Star Gaiden, and Phantasy Star II Text Adventures. Intentionally ignoring every relevant comment needed to get the conversation going for these related articles. Its like an interaction ban, but instead, its affecting the progress of editing articles.

I've attempted to make peace and this editor continues to take everything personally and make the first attack. I know i brought him up in the past, but so have others and he manages not getting any action due to "repenting" right at the last second. i'm doing my best not to even provoke this editor, and yet he continues to make incivil remarks.Lucia Black (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

These difs are extremely weak examples. I don't see anything actionable here, all you're proving is that you two are still completely incapable of interacting with one another. I can't help but think your respective WikiProjects and AN/ANI are both very tired of your bickering, but that's a two way street. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless you can find where i'm provoking him, or being directly uncivil, most of this is still his attempts at attacking on his part. And they add up quickly. thats the thing. most of those are from the same conversation, and you can see in my comments that i'm not trying to fight, and yet he continues to do so.

This constant back and forth should end. And I've already paid mine, and i'm making it so i don't come back here again with WP:BOOMERANG. yes the wikiproject and ANI are tired of this. But why not just do what needed to be done in the first place? Issues of him and his incivility still continued even when i wasn't involved. He manages to get saved by repenting, and apologizing, but in the end he continues to do so.

i don't find these weak because he makes it easy to make any situation escalate. and its still related to previous ANI of behavior (and even back then, it was closer to making action). the issue is more out of "response" to neutral comments. I'm doing my best to give him a neutral, and non-personal comment, and he continues to poison things. He calls it spitting in his eye, over something that simply isn't related to him personally. And continues to make accusations and poisoning discussions.

He's been saved before, i gave him peace offering, and he still treats things as its a personal agenda against him. And this should be proof enough that his previous apologies that he made in the past don't mean anything. And whenever he does this, he is the one disrupting the discussion, not me. But worst of all, is when he attempts to hide my comments so he doesn't read them, and yet chooses to get involved in a more debatable issue that i'm involved in. So its more incivility.

Me? i can work well with him, i'm monitoring my own comments so a topic/bully-one-way-interaction ban happens again. But, if he chooses to not lit up over every discussion. If i could bring up an entire case of history with him, i would, but this is what i have, and it should be enough. a lot of attacks being thrown. Incivility is clearly there, and there is alot of it even if you think its "weak"Lucia Black (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think either of your are really being incivil, it's just the endless arguing between you two that is a problem. Most of those "personal attacks" are just him not agreeing with you, or saying you're wrong, which, true or false, I don't know, but they hardly constitute as an "attack". The only action I'd see as remotely plausible would be an interaction ban between you two, but I don't want to be pulled into this bickering any further, so I won't driving that effort.

I'll let others voice their opinion, but I can't see this going anywhere if those are the difs you're working with... Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

the personal attacks are constantly making it seem like i know nothing of the subject. and this goes on constantly. If such an interaction ban were to occur, this time i would prefer a two-way interaction.Lucia Black (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• This problem is all Lucia's doing I don't think I should be penalized for her abusive behavior that extends to nearly every editor she's ever interacted with. I doubt anyone will read this whole response because it contains so much evidence, but Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucia Black/Link Bank is indicative of the editor's attitude. She's backing it up on Wikipedia and "another site", because she has no "word pad or memo" on her phone and "... if you don't give me trouble for a long period of time, i do end up deleting the info. but not truly deleted."[19] She made the ANI to justify her userpage that was previously cited as a violation of WP:POLEMIC at her talk. Which her response was to try and make friends, and saidforgive and forget. Than started it again with a perceived slight from Sergecross[20] Though all these issues that are "so bad" are actually based on Lucia's WP:RANDY behavior that infuriated and irritate me to no end, with a deliberate intention to harass and undermine and constantly abuse me. These actions got her the topic ban and interaction ban prior. She broke her interaction and topic ban no less than five times and got blocked for it. I find it inexcusable that an editor will present false issues and announced the intention to fail a GA and altered a previous comment I had already responded to.[21] Lucia misrepresented official sources as "fanbooks" and other issues in the GAN. @Huon: got involved in it and has tried to help, but I walked away from Lucia in that GAN and she keeps finding new ways to start a fight. After Sven's RFC she started another discussion including yet another attempt to override a merge RFC that was closed only a month ago by Armbrust that had a clear consensus to not merge the article. Which @Catalan: also mentioned was WP:GAMING since no one wants to split up a GA. Lucia made the discussion out of the blue because "I boldly split things" and wanted to get consensus to split or not to split One Piece and Naruto, something which no one wants to split. It is a hypothetical "what-if" that goes against the community RFC that Sven made stating it would be on a "case by case" basis and Lucia needs to "test that consensus". She argues with the other Ghibli editor with drama like "you're just picking fights now. one more word of it, and i will delete the ENTIRE thread." Her constant WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, bad faith accusations, edit warring and general lack of knowledge of the topic area makes it all the more irritating. I mentioned that this is a WP:RANDY situation, I am a scholar in the anime and manga field, but I simply have no patience for an editor who inserts blatantly false material, misrepresents sources and will purposely try to "destabilize" a GAN to feed their need for attention. Lucia Black does more arguing and fighting than actual work and I've said it repeatedly, that I don't have the time to waste on this. I don't think anyone else should either; it's just noise. If anyone needs me, I'll be tending to my GANs until the next time Lucia decides to overturn consensus - a pattern which has been repeated since her first topic ban and interaction ban. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Chris meant me when he referred to a user "Catalan" in the above comment. Calathan (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Chris, theres a whole mess you are hiding. like the fact that you also played in a part in stalling discussions due to this RfC, now that it didn't go in your favor, you're trying to make it seem like its not relevant. other editors there had no complaints and again, was clarified that its not gaming the system. afterall the RfC was both yours and ryulong's idea and it was indeed the outcome of articles such as bleach and Dragon ball. Huon even recaps to say that the discussion was indeed halted for the sake of the RfC.

ALso, if you noticed, none of my coments toward you are in any way "incivil" but you choose to continue and claiming "battleground" behavior. Even knowledgekid also acknowledges that there was not, and that you are the one throwing the first "jabs"Lucia Black (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You guys both should realize that they massive blocks of text are probably part of the reason why your issues never get resolved. Why should "volunteer" editors spend their time wading through all of that mass of text? There's no way there is going to be a consensus forming when there's so much info being jumbled together. Which is fine this time, I guess, since I don't believe any action is required, but still, going forward, you both should keep this in mind... Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, Chris. stop derailing discussions. the oens you jsut sourced shows how much you derail things, and choose to become incivil.Lucia Black (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Er, I was referring to both of you, really... Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

like i said, i can work with this editor, if he chooses to be civil, and compliant. And he makes a fuss, takes things personally, and chooses to escalate a situation and derail it. if you have any evidence of me doing that after my ban. by all means provide it, but i've been doing from what i believe is my my all to avoid causing any more trouble, and yet, it follows me.Lucia Black (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Nuclear Option: There are 2 options and 2 options only. The first is to let this perpetual Ryulong-ChrisGualtieri-Lucia Black drama-pot keep simmering and boiling over (thereby granting an ice pick lobotomy to the entire community) or to finally deal with this drama magnet once and for all. If it's not obvious, I advocate for some very heavy handed sanctions to be placed on all 3 users as they can't interact positively with each other or within the same topic space. Recalling, of course, the last time that Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri disputed to ANI they were withing milimeters of topic and interaction bans.Hasteur (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't drag me into this bullshit Hasteur. Chris and Lucia's dispute with each other predates my (resolved) dispute with Chris.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Mind not changing other editor's talk page statements M'kay? And you were already dragged in from the statement by Lucia Black at 16:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC), you were just never notified about it. Hasteur (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't want any part of it and I've done nothing except remove the link. I've no dog in this fight.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Problem is that the ANI's are more consistent with Chris alone more than with Ryulong and I individually. he managed to save himself several times, and its simmers because action should've taken place along time ago. THere is alot more that this editor gets away with, and part of it has to do with thinking he knows best even when a bold edit is reverted, and then only uses BRD rule when its convenient. but if you take action now, i would be serving a second ban when I've already cleaned up most of my act. Ryulong, although made "peace" with ChrisGualtieri, both mutually avoid each other for a time. But i don't have that luxury. every edit i make is considered an attack to this editor, and i'm not the only editor in the wikiproject to think so. And the links provided shows that the majority he's the one picking the fights. and even then you can see in those edits i'm trying to keep it civil.Lucia Black (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Questionable motivation

Was the only reason this was brought up because of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucia Black/Link Bank this? Yesterday, an editor nominated her subpage (which hosts all her difs about Chris) for deletion due to it being WP:POLEMIC, and not using the links in a timely manner. The next day, she brings this weak case to ANI? I feel like this discussion was only brought up to justify that page's existence and avoid it being deleted. Its an awfully big coincidence at least... Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

you could make arguments about that. but since i already found a site to help me keep track and be able to save them, its of little concern to me whether it gets deleted. The key was to save the recorded incivility in a place where i can keep track. and i did confirm that i was going to use the information quite recently, and that's regardless of the outcome. I've restored the information pretty recently, and that should be taken a sign of me taking action, and Huon just happens to pick up on it the moment i restored it and decides to MfD (and seems to only act when it invovles ChrisGualtieri). So as you can see, it's not that the ANI notice came at a convenient time to protect the Miscellaneous page, its more that when i'm making advances to put it to use, Huon decides to put it up for MfD. and even so, i find it a tad ridiculous to bring these "recent" issues up for the sake of protecting one page.

My issues for ChrisGualtieri are real, and many other editors hae noted it in the past.Lucia Black (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

And this is why your restrictions should've been indefinite. Although Chris may be causing a problem, Lucia, you are the one creating a page that violates WP:POLEMIC and WP:POINT and is now going back to the same problem behavior of ranting at ANI's door about Chris. Seriously, Lucia cut the crap unless you want to have an indefinite block. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 17:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I request Lucia request speedy delete (post {{db-u1}} on the page). NE Ent 17:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

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

---

I am formally proposing based on the diffs above, her constant frivolous AN & AN/I reports, and other WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviors that Lucia Black is indefinitely blocked until she demonstrates that this behavior will not continue.

• Support -- as nom. Enough is enough. ChrisGualtieri doesn't deserve this and neither does anyone else. The fact that she got away with a single 48 hour block when she breached her restrictions daily astonishes me and she is exhausting patience with these games. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 18:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

@Sportsguy17: If you're starting your conversation with "this is why your restrictions should've been indefinite" and admitting Chris is at fault too, then by no means are you having a fair opinion here. You're still admitting that Chris is causing trouble and you're trying to make something not as clear, look like it broke the biggest rule of them all. and quite frankly, thats what bothers me about ANI. that they admit theres an issue, and choose to not act on it for another, and intentionally over-exaggerate. and i will inform you on why its exaggeration at least for this instance:

WP:POLEMIC allows such a page to exist in the chance of it being used in a timely manner, and again i had a system set up so that it would be "timely" or set up to be timely to ones eye (again no number is put and so you can't make this out as a clear violation). if the issues died down, then i would remove them from the list, but if the editor then chooses to continue some time soon, it comes back along with the new incidents that made it come back (obviously, i'm not going to bring up an issue that happened 5 years ago if the same issue comes again. it wouldn't be "timely). The system is simple, can be considered to be used in a timely manner, and one can say "not violating any policies". And i say that because there's no distinction on what can be defined "timely". If the information dies down, i don't use it. simple as that.

if you don't agree, and consensus believe its not timely. then it can be closed. no big deal. banning me "indefinitely" for a policy that makes no clear distinctions and can easily be misinterpret? You have your thoughts set out for restrictions to be "indefinite" from the start and from before, so its not like you're looking for a good reason. you're just looking for a reason in general. Be realistic here, and take the situation for what it is. The Policy makes no clear distinction. but even so, i did my best to keep it timely, and you can't block me indefinitely for even trying. that would just be pretty messed up thing to do.

And no, this isn't WP:POINT. like i said, the use was going to be quite recently, but Huon MfD the page on the same day that i restored information that i intended to use regardless of the MfD within this time frame, so now it looks like i'm making a pointy-edit to keep the link bank (despite making it clear i found a site that allows me to save the information without the hassle of interpreting "timely") rather than this being already taken a course of action and Huon decides to intervene.

Also, i'm not going to dicuss this any further. you want me to nominate it for speedily deleting it, i will. but don't you dare try to make this to cover up what the purpose of all this, and this is to prove someone is being problematic. @Sergecross73: another editor, besides having an agenda of indefinite block over trivial things, just admitted another editor is being troublesome. So you really have to grasp the truths that are being said. if one editor believes he's being troublesome, then why not consider what i provided in a more serious matter.Lucia Black (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment if you also don't believe Chris "doesn't deserve this". lets keep in mind, Chris has also barely and i mean "BARELY" manage to salvage himself from action, several times by choosing to apologize when consensus is against him. here i'm providing information that even after a formal peace offering, the editor does not learn from it. He continues to hassle, makes things personal, and disrupts other discussions.

Again you've had this agenda, for a pretty good while, and your comment shows that you initially wanted this indefinitely from the start.Lucia Black (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment I would suppose if you're going to block one for such behaviors, then you can block the other for the same. KonveyorBelt 19:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment Not exactly, i wasn't "barely" saved. unlike Chris here, who manages to get away by merely apologizing, and again this is right when consensus has already agreed to take action. and since my block, i haven't made any uncivil remarks to him, and i try to stay on point and neutral. but again, he continues to be aggressive, and doing the exact same things that cause issues in the first place. We also have to consider that he barely got saved last time merely for the reasons that he repented. But here, it shows that A) i brought a peace offering and B) he's the one throwing it all away. Not only that but this is unavoidable. its not like i'm going to his talk page and harassing him or even provoking him. no, look in the links, and you can see discussions i brought up are being poisoned by his own aggressive and false accusations. Basically since then, he hasn't changed at all, and now he's made it clear he has no patience for me, and will not be changing anytime soon. And again, this is all from receiving pretty general neutral, civil comments.Lucia Black (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Because you're far more disruptive Lucia. Your behavior has convinced me that you're WP:NOTHERE. Chris wants peace and the ability to edit without you breathing down his neck all the time. At least Chris tries to come up with a solution, you just constantly abuse him and several other editors. Lucia, you've been nothing but a nuisance for a while. We've tried to come up with other solutions. A topic/interaction ban didn't work, since you violated it almost every day and you were lucky to have only been blocked once. So, Konveyor Belt this proposal is for Lucia only. Sportzilla | _ROARR!! 19:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You're inconsistent Sportzilla, you admit to him being problematic, but then try to paint him off as a saint by simply making up such things. you can see clearly that i am not "breathing down his neck" when you read the links yourself, he is the one making every incivil remark and not only that but he is the one responding to me, or the discussion i began, and rather keeping it on the content, he chooses to talk about the editors. don't believe me? it's right there Sportzilla. Either CHris has helped you in the past and you want to make it look like he's done nothing wrong (even though you've admitted to it) or you're just trying to make simple things look worst. and i challenge you to prove what you're saying is true (that i'm breathing down his neck) by using links. i'm not the one looking for this, afterall i gave a peace offering. But quite recently, he's been looking for me. Heck he even harrassed me on my own talkpage. and if you don't believe me, look at the links.Lucia Black (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Lucia, have you thought how Chris feels? He is trying to understand how you feel. I was on IRC with him and he said he was miserable. Lucia, why do you care about Chris at all? His conversation with me on IRC suggests he wants to be away from you. Please leave him alone. He wants to build content, not fight with a nuisance like you who is wearing down patience rapidly. Sportzilla | _ROARR!! 19:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

WOw...so if someone just suddenly confides in you, then that means that they must be you're talking with the good guy. and anyone who is making this person feel miserable has to do with

And calling me a nuisance already, shows how one-sided this. There's two sides Sportzilla. if you want to stick with one side, so be it. but just because Chris confide with you in IRC, doesn't mean for a second that he's right in all this. The links says it all Sportzilla. did you actually look at them? He has done the opposite of avoid.

you're just bias Sportzilla, you're sympathizing over him for how he's feeling, not for whether he's right. and yes, maybe he has the right ideals, but everything so far has been against procedure. If you actually knew the stuff he isn't telling you.Lucia Black (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Proposal 2

The most valuable asset Wikipedia has are mature editors who are able to contribute to the encyclopedia in a cooperative fashion. CG and LB (listed alphabetically) have demonstrated a chronic inability to do this. It is not the best use of other volunteer's time to mediate their interactions. I'm opposing any interaction bans because it is my believe that, rather than solve the problem, it would just be a matter of time before one is ratting out the other for some alleged violation. (They are much better at seeing the motes in the other eye than the beams in theirs.) If I thought I could get the votes, I'd propose site banning both of them right now. Seriously. Not kidding.
Instead I propose both be placed on community get along and figure it out probation. The next time either complains about, discusses, or mentions the other anywhere on on-wiki, regardless of provocation, any admin may indefinitely block them.NE Ent 19:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Support NE Ent 19:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

But look at where its heading. you simply want to control the situation by making you not hear a thing. That wont solve anything. and i know you're fustrated, but its not right to do it indefinitely. I've been blocked enough, and i taken extra care of my comments, but i'm not the one looking for chrisgualtieri. everything so far has just been thrown at me.Lucia Black (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Lucia, stop it. You are the one who has WP:BOOMERANGed this right back at yourself, by raising a frivolous ANI based on incredibly weak evidence, just to make a WP:POINT. I think everyone is sick to death of Lucia vs Chris. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment just make your vote, and don't start making snippy comments. WP:BOOMERANG over weak situation, is like catching the thief who stole a 100 dollar bill but wont act until its a 1000. HOw about you take a look at each one. the only way you canb ring a relevant WP:BOOMERANG is if i do the same thing Chris is doing. AKA being a hipocrit.Lucia Black (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Its a "boomerang" because you were the one who reported him, but sanctions are now being thrown at you. That's appropriate usage of the term. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You're admitting there is a bias perspective on who brings it up, not what the editor is doing. so theres a strong loophole here.Lucia Black (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

No, all I did was explain to you the concept of boomerang. I said nothing of "bias". Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Lucia, if you keep up this bullshit, then a WP:CIR (not NOTHERE, because I don't think that quite applies) indef block will be dropped on you. You will stop at nothing to attack Chris, or anyone who objects to your attacks. You need to change tack; instead of spending all of your energy on attacking one user, use it to improve your spelling, grammar and syntax, which are sorely lacking. At the very least, please proof-read your comments - doing this may also make you realize just how far out of line you are. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - As with what NE Ent said above, I don't think a ban would gather support yet, but I do think something very strict is necessary in order to stop this. All they do is clutter up every discussion avenue we have with endless arguing and bickering, and they do it in such as way (large rambling walls of texts) that its virtually impossible to follow along, let alone get any sort of third party input. They clearly can't handle themselves when it comes to calm discussion, so I feel like something like this proposal is necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Although NE Ent's proposal sounds reasonable, we have to consider the fact that Lucia is always the one that drags Chris by the ears to these drama boards and is the one breathing down Chris's neck. Also, see her rants above. The thing is, Lucia's disruption is all across English Wikipedia. As I said, she is WP:NOTHERE. Sportzilla | _ROARR!! 19:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• See this as an example of her causing disruption with someone besides Chris. Sportzilla | _ROARR!! 19:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't disagree, but this proposal may be more likely to garner support. Also, if Chris is as tired of dealing with Lucia as you say, then this shouldn't be much of an issue for him, he can happily not interact with her anymore in this proposal. Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If Chris was as tired as he was to interact with me, he would've simply avoided discussions that he felt were meaningless. On another note, the edits says it all, and you can see it by the links provided. What Chris claims (or what Sportzilla claims he claims) and what he says during a discussion doesn't compute.

That is only one link. agianst me, why not bring an entire ANI case regarding chris? you see, this can work both ways Sportzilla. I can show you what he's done, you can bring merely one link. which i guarantee you, thats all you're gonna find. But when it comes to me and Chris, i've been the civil one. and no one here can deny that. and if you dare try, i challenge you to bring links.Lucia Black (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"No one can deny that"? Are you reading the same discussion as everyone else? Not a single person has come to your defense. Everyone's denying that. Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Do i really need number of votes to prove the truth when i already have it in number of evidence (links). The only link you've provided isn't even Chris-related. But I've provided the truth. I've provided that Chris has been an issue. And Sportzilla despite efforts to be one sided openly admits in the beginning that Chris is indeed being problematic. Just imagine if he was nuetral on the subject. how much his opinion would weigh in?

And you know this Serge, look how far its been to not only deny the links, but the very thing they prove (Chris always making the first attack) you say the exact opposite and without proof. I've done my part after my ban. And i'm honestly sick of the harassment by Chris. and yes, if Chris claims he's miserable, than i'm miserable as he is. maybe even more, since he's the one throwing the punches this time. Who's the one coming into my talkpage and making outrageous claims? Who has to humor him for the sake of civility?

Can you deny that? can you deny that Chris hasn't been aggressive and combatant? or do i need to bring editors who i know will vouche for this? that would be considered inappropriate right?Lucia Black (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes,you provided some "links", but as I've said, they have garnered zero support. Quite the opposite, they've only lead to a few comments about how "weak" they are, and some BOOMERANG accusations towards you. And yes, WP:CANVASSING would be inappropriate. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support though I must add this is not due to bad faith on the part of Chris. I simply don't think sanctions on one side will gain any traction. But, as was mentioned, the diffs provided here don't incriminate Chris and in at least one case they seem to incriminate Lucia. Sucks getting hit by the boomerang but that's how it is, if she is serious about improving the project then this will be a motivation to commit to more productive interactions and I don't imagine Chris will have difficulty with such sanctions anyway but in the event that he does, it will be noticed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

They provide "non-insightful comments" on the subject, and continuous choice of making this about me (the editor) over the article (content). That is shown clear as day in these links. and it shows how Also Chris "enjoys" saying such sly remarks everywhere (i say enjoy because these sly remarks are purely "optional" and in no way needed to convey his thoughts). Another thing, is that rather than contributing to the vote, he makes radical accusations right away. Something that had garnered no comments yet, and already Chris classifies things as drama, continues to dismiss things saying he has no part of it, and continues to come back. And again this editor bombards the discussion with his own personal view. And at least one editor editor noticed the disruption during the discussion. i linked that aswell.

Either way, it shows a lot. weak doesn't mean "nothing" it shows that there is something there. even if all of it is considered weak, as a whole it shows something significant. the responce to my talkpage for such harrassment was based of a completely neutral discussion on a certain article. And he chose to flare up on my talkpage and talk about me having the last word, which was not the case.

And its not a complete stretch when you see these links. it would've been more relevant if i was able to link how close these discussions have been and how they relate to his behavior overall, but finding a way to link those and organize them, would be difficult to convey. but keep in mind these are all closely connected.. still, some accusations against me are merely small. and based not entirely on the issues of me and Chris. what you find with me would be small (i'm not even going to say that theres more than 2 out there) isolated events, and even then we are still talking about chris, none of which prove i have been provoking, combatant, or rude to him in the recent past.

But i'm simply tired of discussing this. his behavior will continue to be noted. If only i could bold the problematic areas during a preview so that you cansee what parts to focus on. (edit conflict)21:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Actually, Lucia, Chris does not want to interact with you. How about you not follow ChrisGualtieri? On IRC, he was upset, he does not want to be near you or interact with you. And the diff provided by me shows that you attack more editors than only ChrisGualtieri. Also, I proposed an indefinite block, not a ban. The fact that we need to continue to comment shows how Lucia is a time sink and a net negative to the project and keeping her blocked until she understands how to collaborate with others civilly, calmly, and respectfully. Sportzilla | _ROARR!! 21:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• That's a good point, Sportzilla. She's been arguing with every single person on this thread, posting entire books underneath each comment. The other person doesn't seem to be doing that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo:this ANI itself proves nothing, and should not be taken into example. the flaw into WP:BOOMERANG is that even if there is evidence, rather than acting against both, or the one that indeed did the issue, the problem is still that one or both people get scott free. WP:BOOMERANG is an example. but to me it also allows people to ssee everything at face value. like i said, i provided links. and SPortzilla has felt so strongly merely because he had more interaciton with Chris. that's all. And my links do prove a point, and that is that what Sportzilla claims about ChrisGualtieri isn't true.Lucia Black (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Sportzilla, stop it. if you choose to believe chris on whatever he claims, that s on you, but don't force it onto me as if its the truth. the links don't lie. who made clear choices to interact with a certain editor he claims to interact with? the links says it all. even if one claims that it cannot incriminate, what you saying right now, isn't what chris is actually doing.Lucia Black (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• weak support, pending clarification though I think a topic ban of Lucia Black from the areas CG typically edits would be wiser. If those diffs are the worst of CG, there really isn't a basis for doing anything. He sounds frustrated but I'm not seeing actionable issues. That said, Chris IME has communication and ownership issues (which I think he's been improving on) so the two-way thing isn't utterly unreasonable. I'd like a clearer proposal though. Can they comment on each other's comments? AFAIK, this type of restriction hasn't been placed before and given the personalities, I foresee much boundary pushing. So getting things clear early would be helpful. Hobit (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ah hell, I'll bite and throw my two cents at each diff.

1. What is remotely provoking about Chris's question? (What the hell is "irrelevant provoking"?)
2. Given that you argued in a circular fashion with regards to Chris's original point, I doubt anyone could blame him for dismissing you.
3. Your declaration to make "a bold edit, and once you revert it, per BRD rule, you will have to continue to discuss it until gaining consensus, and that ultimately will cause problems with GA status per stability issues" is basically gaming WP:BRD. Something even Huon brought up.
4. (Lumping all the "personal attack" diffs into 1 comment) Have to say that there is nothing remotely anything in NPA territory there.
5. This is quite a "comment on the content not the editor" sort of post. Given your history, it seems about par for the course really and really doesn't fall into harassment territory. Somewhat pointed and uncivil, certainly, but harassing? No.
6. False accusations of what? Filibustering? Hate to put it this way, but reading through the discussions that you and Chris took part in, all I saw was a lot of roundabout argument from you that didn't advance the discussion in any way. Can't say that's a false accusation.
7. This is about the only one I could remotely agree with.
8. A misrepresentation of what Knowledgekid87 actually said. They made a point that Chris threw the first punch, metaphorically speaking, and nothing about whether it was a false accusation.

All in all, this case is as weak as a termite infested house. Blackmane (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to make an alternate proposal to see if maybe removing Lucia from Chris's main areas of editing and a mutual IBAN may solve things. And these sanctions need to be indefinite, mostly because Lucia cannot be trusted to follow a restriction. You may recall that she managed to violate the restricitons almost every day. I'm making an alternate proposal below. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 19:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, the case is extremely weak, and if anything, the difs only go to prove that she doesn't fundamentally understand WP:NPA or WP:CIV. I honestly think she should be banned from ANI. If she truly has something that needs reporting, she could notify an Admin or something. Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Here is a new proposal.

1. Lucia Black and ChrisGualtieri are indefinitely banned from commenting on, at, or mentioning about the other. The normal exceptions apply. Persisting violations will result in escalating blocks up to and including an indefinite block.
2. Lucia Black may be banned from any page in all namespaces if any individual administrator thinks that she is causing disruption.
3. Lucia Black is also banned from filing a report at any administrative noticeboard. If something needs to be reported, she can ask an individual administrator.

All restrictions will be for an indefinite duration.

Here is the proposal. This is a new proposal as an alternative to 1 and 2. Part 1 is what should've happened a while ago. Part 2 is mostly because Lucia has also been seen to disrupt pages that don't concern ChrisGualtieri. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 19:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Support Until the quantity of clue improves, there is little to no reason for volunteers at large to have to put up with the disruption and no-holds-barred argument style presented by Lucia. The other disputants have kept their noses clean so it seems we finally have the single irritant to cut from the flesh. Hasteur (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - everything I've said above. I prefer proposal 2, but approve of 3 as well. Sergecross73 msg me 00:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - This is the only way to ensure that I can continue to work in peace without further issues. It is terrible that I won't be able to get the articles to GA or FA, but this has been too much to handle. (Answered below.) I'm overwhelmed, miserable and exhausted. I ask, will there be a way in which I can request changes or submit improvements to a third party before making edits go live? I think this would head off additional problems. Either way, this needs to be done. Another ANI without this resolution will only result in another ANI and a future waste of time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'd imagine you'd be able to carry on with anything you've nominated/brought up to GA/FA standard, otherwise that doesn't really help anyone out. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• @ChrisGualtieri: -- Of course you would be able to continue with your articles. What this does is prevent Lucia from provoking. Since an admin can ban her from any page she is disrupting. If you both are editing a GA nominee or FA candidate, then this basically says that if Lucia is causing a ruckus, then an admin can remove her from the page/article in question. I also added per Sergecross73 that she is also banned from filing a report at noticeboards, since nothing good comes out of it and quite frankly, there is no good reason why she should still have access to these noticeboards, since most of what she does is filing frivolous reports about Chris. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• What Hasteur says. (Though, I must say, I really enjoyed NE Ent's proposal.) Or just block right now, based on the rather clueless and certainly interminable rebuttals in this ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• I completely understand. I want to try to find a solution already. NE Ent's proposal sounds good, but personally, indeffing Lucia now may be it, or maybe this proposal. Either way, Lucia's responses say enough for themselves. Sportzilla | _ROARR!! 03:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• For anyone who cares: this page explains the conflict to a T. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• NOt reallly. and i'm content with iths, because the only editor who causes trouble is Chris. And indefinitely locking me wouldn't even work SPortzilla, i've given you the chance to prove when i have been disruptive and abusive to Chris, and you continue to just burst out claims, rather than defending your point. If chris indeed isn't happy, he can avoid the conflict and claims.

• I dont have time to be on top of every discussion here. And just trying to respond will result in several edit conflicts.Lucia Black (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Given that both Lucia and Chris agree with this. Although, I'd also suggest that any attempts to game these restrictions should be grounds for an immediate indef, such as getting in on an article just to prevent each other from nominating for GA or what have you. Blackmane (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment@Blackmane: fair enough. but if real issues are found in a GA< that doesn't stop either of us from bringing them up.Lucia Black (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• No. The GA process always involves 2+ people. If there are issues, they will be brought up by others. Judging by how much the terms "indef block" and "indef interaction ban" keep coming up over and over again in regards to your interactions with Chris, I'd say there's just about no possibility that your contribution would be considered constructive in such a scenario. Sergecross73 msg me 21:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If a GA passes, and the issue is still there, it wouldn't stop me from bringing it up on the talkpage without interacting with Chris. keep in mind, this is brought up because Ghost in the Shell (film) in which i actually had a point and they did eventually fix the issue i brought up (the links are provided, and hshows how aggressive and slow it took Chris to finally realize). and even then, the GA nominator didn't even understand how the need for third party source worked. either way....if issues are brought up and there's a debate on it, that could be considered a fault in "stability" as it was used against kingdom hearts 358/2 days. So its not like i was making it up to stop GA.

BUt, so long as "i" don't interact with him, that doesn't stop me from bringing up issues in the article, and considering there's a huge lapse in the topics, i think this proposal is intentionally trying to find a way to indef block. obviously, leeway has to be done such as allow commenting in the same discussion.

otherwise, you're just trying to make it look like you gave us a chance to fix it.Lucia Black (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No. No commenting in the same discussion. If you think that that's even a remotely possible outcome of this whole thread you really lack clue. If this proposal passes, your comment on a GA of theirs is grounds for a block in the eyes of most admins, I suppose--including this one. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Drmies summed it up nicely. That's precisely the sort of gaming the restrictions that should be grounds for a block. The fact that you see this proposal as a way of "intentionally trying to find a way to indef block" is a symptom of the behaviour that the bans are supposed to stop. These restrictions must be as strict and as watertight as possible to stop any sort of wiggle room. Blackmane (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Drmies and Blackmane. Lucia still seems unware as to how she's in the wrong here, so there's no way she'd be able to act appropriately in the scenario outlined. Its for that reason that Lucia shouldn't even really want to be able to do that. It would almost certainly erupt into a discussion that would lead to her block. Sergecross73 msg me 00:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Gaming the restriction is more like displeasing the purpose who made it. You have to understand, that there is another form of gaming that can flourish by not allowing to even interfere in the discussion. that means, that if our vote is necessary (yes, necessary) to provide question on the topic. THat would mean.

Of course i would want this, if the conditions were met that we can both edit and not be stumped by "oh she reverted me...what the heck do i do now? i dont want to get blocked. so i'll have to deal with it. but the next time i see an edit of hers, i'll do the same and she wouldn't be able to a thing about it" it can easily happen.

i can interact with the same areas with Chris. So long as Chris doesn't flare up and makes ridiculous accusations, and just actually contribute to the discussion WITHOUT making comments on me. (which is why I've challenged everyone in the ANI to show where I've deserved this behavior after the ANI and even after i offered "peace"). But that's simply the problem. If you want to "dumb it down, so there's no leeway for you to hear a thing". the problem here is clearly shown....

It still needs to be fleshed out. If you dont want me and Chris interacting at all, one or the other can still edit the articles we've had. And therefore we would have to ignore BRD rules, or just allow the Bold edit until someone does so. Unless another editor makes it in, and we just praying from then on. Or! lets say we're voting for split or merge, and its pretty tied down, and need probably one more vote to help either side. From then on, its whoever gets there first, gets to keep staying.

THere is easily more animosity from this point on. and you're only making this proposal to never hear about it again. Which means, even if one manages to get break this rule, i'm not doubting that you will block both of us either way.Lucia Black (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, you seem to have failed completely to see the point. An interaction ban is very explicit.

1. You cannot involve yourself in a discussion that Chris is in.
2. You can edit in the same areas as Chris, and vice versa, but at no time can you both be in the same discussion at the same time. The fact that you cannot see the issues you are causing is the lack of clue that pretty much everyone has commented on so far.
3. I'm fairly sure that Chris will see the sense behind leaving articles that you've performed major contributions to. You leave him to articles he has made major contributions on and in return he is expected to do the same. If something needs to be changed, then it will take however long it takes to be changed. There is no WP:DEADLINE.
4. The fact that you think that a vote for a merge or split is based entirely on obtaining 51%/49% is a fundamental lack of clue about consensus. Also, that you think there are "sides" that have to win a vote is basic battleground mentality.

And the last, thankfully(!), you've touched upon the crux of the proposal and at last showing a glimmer of clue. The whole point is that no one wants to see you raise these petty squabbles on ANI anymore, we're all sick and tired of it. Blackmane (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

then rules 2 and 3 would be enough, this isn't really proposed as an interaction ban, or claiming it to be one. the second point you brought up makes no sense. its like you bring one point, and reason with it by something irrelevant.

and i'm prepared to do the same, but keep in mind for the third point, thats a complete "etiquette". And even though Chris had chosen to make some form of way to shun me, he does this in a very immature way, by immediately choosing to revert edits i've made in articles involving another wikiproject. so by this to occur, Chris has to be forced to avoid me, even when discussions are being brought up.Lucia Black (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Seems like the best option at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Observing the many threads on this topic at ANI shows that the proposed remedy is desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Like some other editors, I did enjoy NE Ent's proposal but this one does take it a bit farther regarding these inappropriate noticeboard threads one of the two individual's has filed. This is a fine solution and the community at large ought to assist in notifying admins should a violation warranting a block occur. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Long-term issues at Simon Baron-Cohen

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

---

I have been trying off and on to get BLP Simon Baron-Cohen correctly cited for almost six years; there have been ongoing problems of either competence, tendentious editing, IDHT, or possible COI.

SPAs inserting POV, original research, and reverting or removing maintenance tags date to at least 2007, with the following chronology of SPAs:

• SPA Sb205 (talk · contribs · logs) edited until May 21, 2009 (and also expanded Sam Baron), when
• SPA NigelPettersmithHugh questioned on May 21 whether SBC was editing his own article. At that point, Sb205 stopped editing, and one day later,
• SPA Minsk606 (talk · contribs · logs) started editing on May 22, 2009 (and also created the unsourced Dan Baron Cohen, [22]). Minsk606 edited until June 2009, with
• SPA Minsk101 (talk · contribs · logs) beginning to edit in August 2009 and editing to date. Minsk101 adds original research, text not supported by citations, has edit warred, initially would not respond on talk (but now does), and had removed book reviews critical of Baron-Cohen's work. Minsk101 denies having a COI (Baron-Cohen's grandmother emigrated from Minsk).

See User talk:Minsk101 for notices from myself, Jfdwolff, and Sjö about Minsk101's editing.

• Removing cn tags and blanking text critical of SBC, 26 December
• followed by edit warring[23][24] [25] to reinstate a list of 370 journal publications! [26]

When Minsk finally engaged in talk page discussion, it appeared there might be some improvement, but Minsk101 continues to insert text that is not verified by sources, and original research (diffs detailed on article talk). Both Martinevans123 and I suggested on talk that Minsk might propose sources on talk and let others incorporate them while s/he learns proper sourcing.

Yesterday I rewrote the entire article almost from scratch, incorporating all sources brought forward on talk to date, thinking that Minsk now understood sourcing;[27] same continued today even after multiple warnings and discussions and attempts at getting Minsk to understand Wikipedia's sourcing and content guidelines and policies.[28]

It doesn't appear that Minsk101 is able to edit this bio neutrally and competently; s/he seems determined to write an original research Curriculum vitae for Baron-Cohen on Wikipedia, with or without sources that support the text that s/he wants included. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not involved with the content but I've had my eye on this BLP for a little while. I think there's very likely a connection between the three named SPA accounts provided, but an SPI case probably won't go anywhere because the older accounts are far too stale to do anything about, and it's very possible/plausible that the passwords were simply lost or forgotten.

  Regarding the BLP content, Minsk's edits started off pretty bad and included edit-warring. They have slowly gotten better but are still not producing content that meets with BLP standards. As Sandy has pointed out, Minsk's edits have still been putting in content not totally supported by the sources cited, are using primary sources in questionable ways, and are causing extra work for others because they're not formatted properly. Minsk has been a bit slow to find their own User Talk page and the article Talk page but has indeed found them. Minsk seems to understand that their edits haven't been acceptable (see for example this) and appeared to agree to propose edits first (see this), but has since been going ahead and adding WP:OR and primary sources as Sandy points out. I'm trying to AGF but I have been getting the impression that Minsk is just saying what they expect the other editors want to hear, without actually following through on it, or at least not all the way.

  I was considering a 24 hour block for BLP problems until this ANI thread started, but now I think I'm going to ask Minsk to avoid editing articles and just respond here at this ANI thread until it's resolved. Zad68 04:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Damiens.rf, incivility and Wikihounding

Hello, I find myself here after stumbling with this little jewel and examining the root of the problem with more depth. The conflict, as usual began as a simple matter of perspective between him and the creator of Tony Santiago, Mercy11. Apparently, Mercy closed their discussion despite being involved, something that was very sorely received by damiens.rf. The violation of WP:CIVIL is very straight forward, Mercy tried to discuss with him (as seen in the diff) and he lashed back. However, there seems to be more than meets the eye here. For those unfamiliar with Tony's work, he is known as long-standing sysop Marine 69-71 in this project. He is the "Marine" referenced in the diatribe (notice how he directly links Tony's user page, despite the fact that he was uninvolved in this particular argument). I am not sure from where all of this sudden aggressiveness is coming, but it appears to be unilaterally coming from damien.rf's side, since Tony was quite cordial during their last talk page interaction. When damiens.rf talks about "Marine-fan boys", he seems to be referring to the majority of WP:PUR, WP:MILHIST and several other users throughout Wikipedia. This is a rather thinly veiled attack, nothing compared to the one below it, but one that exposes the fact that his edits to this article may have a more personal motivation to them. To understand that, we need to go to the very genesis of their relationship.

I believe that the first encounter between damiens.rf and Tony was one of his infamous "deletion streaks", where he would frequently overwhelm users/WikiProjects by nominating several dozen images at once. That was actually the first time that I remember seeing his name, since he quickly became the topic among members of WP:PUR due to the fact that nominations were being done too quickly to really be attended or discussed. This notably exhausted Tony, who had uploaded images since the early 2000s, when the protocol to upload fair use images was more lax (not requiring detailed rationales, for example) and tried to talk one-on-one to solve the issue. I actually encountered him as well, since damiens'rf's super-strict definition of "copyright enforcement" could apparently overcome the consensus to keep a single image. Shortly afterwards, he was edit warring with the entirety of WP:PUR, which I noted. It was eventually moved to AN/I where I noted the issue, the speed and volume of nomination. WP:PUR was not alone, notice the other topic discussing exactly the same pattern above that one. Eventually, this lead to the creation of a subpage, where damiens.rf continued to nominate more of Tony's images. From the look of it, both of them were cooperating and reaching agreements without trouble. However, from his subsequent edits it is somewhat obvious that damiens.rf had taken an interest to anything related to the Marine. I was inactive during most of the following years, but a quick browsing tells me that at least one user felt that damiens.rf has some sort of ongoing "beef" with the Marine, desfite the fact that he was actively trying to cooperate. As a matter of fact, after an article was created for Tony, damiens.rf made emphasizing how "non-notable" he considers him a very recurring point. Which is also the reason that damiens.rf felt the need to weight in during the AfD despite his history of conflict with its subject (COI).

He very frequently edited the articles authored by Tony, to the point of even being suspected of anon sockpuppetry at least once. His frequent "concurrence" with Tony can be easily seen here, but there are several examples. (here are a few diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Apparently, damiens.rf just followed Tony around tagging or frequently modifying his edits. And from the looks of it, damiens.rf also felt a need to question what Tony did within his own userspace in a rather confrontational tone, once even claiming that keeping the "hard copy" of a deleted Wikipedia article constitutes copyright violation (???). Damiens.rf went as far as claiming that Tony forged an OTRS ticket, despite the fact the he personally knew the incumbent Secretary of State of Puerto Rico (i.e. The "man" when it come to copyright enforcement in PR). Even when the excuse were not copyrights, he removed a public domain image because Tony was in it, possibly because he considers that it had something to do with vanity (note that at the moment that this list was moved, Tony was featured in it). The fact that he has continued to "oversee" the Marine for several years, even when Tony has avoided direct contact with damien.rf is concerning. This is WP:HOUNDING and it is completely unwarranted. Furthermore, I am concerned that damiens.rf tried to pressure Tony into giving up his admin tools and even "warned" him despite the fact that he was nowhere near a "neutral" party. This seems like thinly veiled extortion to me. Also of note is that his animosity extended to other members of WP:PUR, there are quite a few examples of him discussing with Cerejota and this one where he completely fails to assume good faith and accuses another member of possessing double standards. An examination of his edits indicates that he also had a subsequent encounter, not with Tony, but rather with his son Antonio.

With matters becoming increasingly personal, I think that we should make sure that both stop encountering each other. The diffs above clearly show that despite the best efforts of Tony, Cerejota and Mercy, damiens.fr is not interested in dialogue when it comes to the Marine. Since Tony almost exclusively edits Puerto Rico-related articles, a topic ban for those seems appropiate to make sure that damiens.rf stops hounding him. That would do it for this particular case. However, I believe that a more profound analysis of damien.rf's edit history taking his block log under consideration should take place as well. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Support topic ban for Puerto Rico-related articles and images. This has been going on and off for years. Wikihounding and uncivility should not be allowed to fester as the offender will simply keep pushing the limits as it is ahappening here. Before this was posted (on 13:47, 3 January 2014), I had responded to Damiens HERE (on 22:40, 2 January 2014‎) and clearly he does not want to follow policy. Mercy11 (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• WP:TLDR. GiantSnowman 13:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but since the case dates back five years, this is as short as I could post it while keeping it concise. Telling people to browse his edit history would take them a while, since he nominates at least 25+ items for deletion at once with regularity. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

In a very abbreviated summary, the text above describes how a user that has been blocked for Wikihounding in the past is back on the prowl. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. My "something isn't quite right here" detector is going off. Apart from the first diff presented above (which is between damiens.rf and Mercy11), every other one is more than a year old. What issue is happening now between Tony and damiens.rf that requires a topic ban? Black Kite (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding your "detector", I'm afraid you're behind the times. According to this thread the intuitions of veteran editors that "Something is rotten in Denmark" are of no value. Apparently, only evidence suitable for a court of law is now considered worthy of consideration by the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• The first diff shows him taking a potshot personal attack at Tony, besides the fact that the conflict is taking place in the talk page of Tony Santiago. The other diffs are there to prove that this has been happening for a while. That when combined with their history, makes it hard to dismiss it. Not only that, but he was tailing Tony just last week, coincidentally, a few hours before posting that. To what purpouse? Why has he been doing it for years? - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with Black Kite. Old diffs. The complaint at the beginning of this section, about hatting of a conversation, seems well-warranted. Coretheapple (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• The other diffs are there to display damiens'rf's personal "interest" in the subject, not as complaints. I can't say that someone is Wikihouning a user without going back and showing that he has been tailing him for a while. What about the fact that he was tailing Tony just last week? - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

What was tendentious about those edits? Coretheapple (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions for Damiens.rf, cleaning up fair-use violations is frequently a thankless task with fightback from the uploader & his friends/wikiproject buddies. It appears that they have not forgiven Damiens.rf for his part in the deletion of the first incarnation of Tony Santiago's hagiography, and are resisting further cleanup/verification work on the recreated version 194.150.177.10 (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I know Tony, but I never edited his biography or was involved in either AfD (the first took place before my arrival and the third during a period of inactivity) I only knew damiens.rf from the one time that he flooded the project with IfDs and just learned that he opposed the third AfD after he was already tailing Tony. This has little to do with the biography. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    • With that said, I don't think that anyone in WP:PUR (including Tony himself), would oppose the cleanup of the article by a neutral party. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

(←)"The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."

If we ask Tony, do you think that he will say how "joyful" being tailed makes him feel? - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should ask him. I have notified him of this discussion, since you didn't. Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I notified damiens.rf out of etiquette since he is the one being discussed. The notification system should have notified Tony when his username was linked. - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, or at least until we hear from Damiens.rf. I think highly of Tony so I'm likely if anything to be biased in his favor. But I'm concerned we're not hearing the full story here. You present a lot of evidence here, so I picked one of the more serious sounding charges, that Daminens was "claiming that Tony forged an OTRS ticket". But when I went to look at the linked discussion, I saw no accusation of forgery, but instead a reasonable-sounding question regarding the status of the ticket and the appropriateness of the PD label for these images. So I wonder what else in this complaint is not represented accurately. Gamaliel (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Point granted. Perhaps it is difficult to asume that the 'question' was done in good faith knowing his stance regarding the contributions of Tony. - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Is this about the fair-use violations or Damiens.rf's wikihounding of Tony? Epicgenius (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Its about the fact that he continues to tail him even after the fair use issues were taken care of. - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Plus, as the title states, it is also about Damiens's lack of civility via the profanity he spitted out and found in the "little jewel" link the submitter provided above. I don't know what low-life corner of the world some of the editors participating in this thread come from that they have grown so used to uncivil behavior, but where I come from to tell someone else to "go fuck yourself with a chainsaw" is not considered civil - particularly if Mercy11 had not been abusive to Damiens first. Mercy11 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I went to the "little jewel" cited at the very top of this section, and what I found was a sliver of this conversation in which Damiens.rf was upset about a user closing a discussion he was a part of. Carribean H.Q. says "Mercy tried to discuss with him (as seen in the diff) and he lashed back." But that is not an especially full or complete recounting of the conversation. If you look at the conversation in full, you can see that Damiens was initially quite civil and received a less than satisfactory response. While there was subsequent incivility, the concern itself seems well warranted and I have an uneasy feeling about this. Coretheapple (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

So your Opposition is based on the fact that "Damiens was initially quite civil". However, being initially civil is no grounds to be uncivil later when, and if, someone continues to disagree with an outcome. Wikipedia has a well-defined appeal escalation process to deal with dissatisfaction - and it does not involve incivility by any of the parties as you are suggesting. Mercy11 (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Backtracking we find this from Mercy11. That an insult is couched in snark, attacking another contributor's intelligence and/or education ("dark ages") and motivation, instead of sexually referenced profanity doesn't make it less of an insult, and Mercy11 should not have closed a discussion she was a participant in. (I'd revert the close right now if it wasn't 5 days stale.) I urge both Mercy11 & Damiens.rf to refrain from commenting about the other. NE Ent 01:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Receiving a snarky, "less than satisfactory" response is now enough to randomly tell someone to "go fuck [himself] with a chainsaw"? - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    • No, and I admit that I haven't gone through all your diffs. However, if anyone had hatted a discussion in, say Talk:BP or any actively edited article there would be an unholy row. Are you sure there aren't WP:OWN issues here as well as COI concerns? Coretheapple (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFF. Mercy11 is not under scrutiny here - Damiens is. If you think Mercy11 has violated a behavioral rule you can go ahead and start a new thread. Equally important, using Mercy11's comments as a reason for a Support/Oppose determination is, IMO, poor use of judgement. Mercy11 (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note that I have taken WP:BLP enforcement action on the article Tony Santiago, removing the poorly-sourced BLP statement against whose sourcing Damiens.rf was rightly objecting. The discussion that led to Damiens' outburst clearly shows that some people, including Mercy11, were evidently not understanding what "reliable sources" and "self-published sources" mean. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Good. This thread is about the user's conduct, not his enforcement of policy or perpetuating a particular revision of the article. - Caribbean~H.Q.

• Good for you, Future Perfect, to have taken enforcement action on something involving an ongoing discussion and then justifying it on WP:BLP. When the dust settled your rationale makes sense based on the lesser of two conflicting policies. However, your judgment there is overshadowed by your use in this same thread about Damiens' behavior by your use of phrases like "Damiens.rf was rightly objecting". In particular, your use of phrases such "The discussion that led to Damiens' outburst" can be interpreted as justifying his behavior. May I suggest, next time stay neutral and don't mix the two as it could be read as support for Damiens uncivility. Mercy11 (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support. It doesn't matter if he is "right", his way of going about things is wrong. Contribution history shows Damiens.rf targets Puerto Rico articles in order to troll Tony. Furthermore, Damiens.rf is not here to build an encyclopedia. He is only here to rules-lawyer over the existence of articles and images and to upset content editors until they leave the site in frustration. Not only do I support the proposed topic ban, I also recommend that the community take a longer look at editors like Damiens.rf who seem to focus only on deleting the work of other editors, not in contributing work of their own to this project. Some might argue that contributing content and deleting are two equally valid aspects of the project, but I do not agree with that assessment. It takes far more energy and work to research, create, and contribute than to tear down and destroy. Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

comment The removal/deletion of copyright/fair-use violating and/or non-notable content is an essential component of improving the wiki. 194.150.177.9 (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah? At any cost - including uncivility? Look, I don't know if you are new in these circles or what, but we have been down this -entire- road before, and to be part of this community we have to abide by All the 5 Pillars - not just 4. We don't justify uncivil behavior on the basis of protecting anything - we have other volunteers who protect Fair Use, BLP, et. al., and do so while abiding by All the 5 Pillars. Mercy11 (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Archiving

I've just reverted ClueBot's archiving of this page, since it seemed to be wrong in removing some threads that weren't really stale, considering the intervention of the holidays. If I'm wrong, please revert me, or archive by hand based on actual staleness and not simply the advancement of the date. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You'll probably need to put a "Bump" and sign with datestamp in each, or else they'll just be archived again in a few hours ES&L 17:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The archive configuration had been set to 24, I've just set it back to 36 (hours). Note the visible "36" that appears on top of the page is actually in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader and not the functional number, which is in non-visible text at the very top of this page. NE Ent 16:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Since you reverted [29] but not [30], a lot of threads are now duplicated, existing both here and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive824. Since the archive has been edited since then, it can't be cleanly undone. Can you try to clean this up? Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you clearly know what the duplicated threads are, why not just delete them in the archive? Why make me duplicate your work? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know all the ones that are. I just saw a few were duplicated, tried to undo ClueBot's edit there, and it failed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Do we actually know that this is a problem? I frequently see sections that have been archived restored to the main page by hand, I assume without deleting the archived version, and things seem to get dealt with properly when the section is eventually archioved for good by the bot. Is that not the case? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If the archives get beyond a certain size, the search function fails, which can be problematic. I've removed the duplicate I found. NE Ent 02:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I believe I've removed all threads that were duplicated between this page and Archive824, or duplicated within the Archive by being archived twice. I should have, of course, undone the archive at 824 when I undid it here, which would have avoided this problem. My error, and my apologies. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Community sanctions: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, and Medeis

Yes, one more ANI thread on this, but this should end it.

Found this which provoked an arbitrator to warn. This saga has gone on long enough. As an uninvolved administrator, I hereby propopse the following three community sanctions:

1. The Rambling Man is banned from any interactions with Medeis and Baseball Bugs, indefinitely. Baseball Bugs and Medeis are banned from any interactions with The Rambling Man, indefinitely. These bans include article, talk, wikipedia, and user space, without exception. No mention of the others or their actions shall be permitted. These may be appealed to the community not less than one year after they become effective.

2. The Rambling Man, Medeis, and Baseball Bugs are topic-banned from the Reference Desk, indefinitely. This may be appealed to the community not less than six months after they become effective.

3. The Rambling Man, Medeis, and Baseball Bugs are subject to Standard Discretionary Sanctions, indefinitely. This may be appealed to the community not less than one year after they become effective.

These are independent proposals, but all three proposals cover all three editors.

• Support 1, 2, 3 as proposer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support mutual interaction ban between myself and TRM assuming he also supports it. There's no justification for any other action against any of us, and none has been given. μηδείς (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1 - I concur with Medeis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem with not imposing item 1 is that it will give TRM license to continue to stalk and harass Medeis and me. He's been told multiple times to disengage, but he won't - and he ridicules those who so advise him.[31] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Any sanctions on The Rambling Man. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Dude should've dropped the matter and let another mop handle it. He edit warred and hounded the two other editors. If a non-admin had that string of edits, he'd be indeffed pbp 06:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I am not going to withdraw my support for a mutual interaction ban if TRM supports it, but there is no way this admin is univolved. Not only has this administrator been recently involved with The Rambling Man (apparently at no fault of TRM's), he has also advised MilesMoney, on whose status I recently commented critically at ANI, that he would have unblocked him "I would have unblocked" for a recent block. This admin is obviously not an uninvolved party. μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

TRM did that removal for a bunch of admins that were "notified" if I recall right (someone should check his edit log), that was incidental and doesn't predispose me any way towards him. Note it was TRM's comment linked above (on Medeis' talk page) that NewYorkBrad went and warned him over that was the straw that broke the camel's back here, so I don't know whether you'd presume I'm biased for or against him. Regarding the MilesMoney side, having an extremely active community editor up for sanctions / banning and blocked at the same time is extremely unusual and I was trying to ensure we got the process as exactly correct as possible despite that. The unblock I was willing to do was for purposes of his discussing the ban proposal at ANI only, which is what the other admin unblocked him to do. Bishonen's block was appropriate.

Administrators can't be noticeboard active without interacting with people. If you think I'm advocating for someone improperly please be specific. I have a long history of being somewhat pals with Baseball Bugs going approximately back to 2007 when he started editing, though less so in the last year because I've been busy elsewhere. I am treating him equally here, I think he's as much at fault as anyone (perhaps moreso). None of which matters for ones ability to file a community sanction case. Anyone, involved or uninvolved, can do that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1 only Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1. Also 3 if others support it. Not convinced 2 is justified at the moment except perhaps for TRM as they only recently appeared on RD, and most of their contributions appear to be sniping at BB & μηδείς, but 1 should put an end to that. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Nil, I oppose any non-mutual and unnecessary sanctions. I have found TRM's contributions to be useful for the most part. Any inspection of my edits in regard to his edits over the last year will show this. μηδείς (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, as I said in my statement I was only refering to TRM's contributions to the RD and WT:RD, and I stand by my comment. And prior to 13 December, they hadn't edited the RD or WT:RD since June except for this edit [32]. I don't recall what their editing on the RD/WT:RD was like in May and earlier when they seemed to have a few edits. Perhaps it was great. But most of their edits on RD/WT:RD in recent times that I've seen have been sniping at either you or BB. I dislike one sided bans as well, but if TRM isn't going to do anything better on the RD, such a ban may be a necessary evil whatever else they may do elsewhere (which I don't really know and don't really care). On the other hand, I don't think it's necessary since 1 should put an end to the behaviour. If they want to then start contributing productively to the RD and WT:RD, great. If not, that's up to them but doesn't really matter. BTW, the only reason I mentioned this at all is I wanted to explain why I opposed 2. In the case of BB and you, I opposed it because I don't think it's deserved or needed yet (which is not to say either of your behaviour has been perfect). The case of TRM is a little different as it may be deserved, but I don't think it's needed if we pass 1. Nil Einne (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Inquiry? can we have it specified that any interaction ban should not prevent TRM, BB, or myself from posting or the same page, so long as we don't directly address each other (i.e., TRM to myself or Bugs), or indirectly criticize each other? The reason I ask is that all three editors have a long history of contributions. For example, see TRM's very helpful history at WP:ITN, with only occasional and usually civil disagreement between him and me there. I ask this because I am unfamiliar with interacion bans, and don't think too broad a one is necessary. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The interaction ban would follow the terms of Wikipedia:Interaction ban, so you can participate in the same discussion, let alone the same page provided you avoid replying to, referring to or otherwise involving the other editor. On the other hand, referring to the other editor in any way anywhere on wikipedia would be a problem (doesn't matter if it's criticism or not). This could include stuff like the now deleted content on TRM's user page [33] as well as the comment you made to Jayron32 [34]. Nil Einne (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1 and 3 2 I can't really fathom, but TRM interacting with Bugs is causing nothing but trouble. Likewise, Bugs whining about TRM is causing nothing but trouble pbp 06:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - IBANS are indicative of deeper problems with disruption issues. But maybe this group just needs to calm down and stop sniping at each other. Baseball Bugs is a character, and he's aware of that. Why does this have to come to an IBAN? Walk the hell away from each other. It's really easy. Doc talk 06:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This was advised by just about everyone. It does not seem to have worked. Advice is not enforcable; a community sanction is. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support the interaction bans. I previously suggested a partial topic ban for Bugs and Medeis regarding the ref desks - that they be banned from posting anything but direct answers to the initial question asked - with a cited source or Wikilink. I still think that this might work - and if it doesn't, a full ban on ref desks will still be an option. Regardless of any other issues, at the core of this dispute is the behaviour of these two individuals on the ref desks, where both regularly treat questions as an excuse for political soapboxing, sniping at each other and the like. If they can demonstrate their usefulness on the ref desks, fine. If they can't do so without treating them as a forum cum bearpit, I'm sure we will manage without them... AndyTheGrump (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• There are three individuals up for sanctions here, not two. Is the third editor not an issue when the others are? Doc talk 07:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've personally only noticed it as involving Bugs and Medeis - at least as a long-term problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, but all three sanctions mention TRM equally if I'm reading it right. So it's apparently not just Bugs and Medeis that need some sort of yoke on them. In other words: no one side is actually "right" over the other. Sometimes it takes three to tango? Doc talk 07:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's my take on it AndyTheGrump is correct that BB and μηδείς are the bigger long term problems on the RD albeit in different ways.

μηδείς's biggest problem has been their desire to close (hat) every single question or subdiscussion they feel is inappropriate. Many of their closures are contentious and even worse, despite their hatting and frequent strongly criticism of these discussions, they've been far from perfect themselves. However μηδείς does seem to have gotten better and I think is making fewer closures recently. μηδείς does make plenty of useful contributions.

BB is BB. Many of their contributions are useful although sometimes in typical BB fashion they don't come across few well. Many of their responses are jokes and other stuff people find somewhat disruptive.

There are other issues with both but I don't want this to be too long.

TRM isn't a long term problem on the RD. They can't be since as I mentioned above, between 26th June and 13th December, they only had one comment on the RD or WT:RD. I consider myself a regular at the RD for several years now (except for maths, language & entertainment), think of that what you will, but don't really associate TRM as someone I recall seeing much of at the RD.

That's in itself is fine, I'm not saying outsiders have no right to comment, criticise or recommend stuff. The problem is since TRM started to show up again in 13th December, most of their comments, primarily WT:RD but also at WP:RD have been sniping at BB and μηδείς.

As I said, I'm fine with people criticising the RD or its contributors and recommending how to improve it. But most of TRM's contributions don't really seem to be constructive criticism instead simple sniping and I would say it's gotten worse as time has gone on.

Okay to be fair some of their replies on the RD itself have contained useful information which is great. Except even in those cases these replies have been to BB or perhaps μηδείς and have contained some degree of apparent sniping. It's normal and accepted to fairly criticise answers you feel are unhelpful, particularly if you offer clarification. I've done it a fair amount, and of course it's more likely to happen with someone who makes more poor answers. But it just seems to me TRM is frequently going to far particularly when combined with the fact they don't seem to be doing much else on RD/WT:RD, hence my comment above about feeling TRM is the clearer problem at the moment. Even some of the older comments from May/June (to the RD/WT:RD) appeared to be similar although I did see quite a few better contributions then.

And to be clear, BB being BB has frequently given back as good as they have received to TRM. μηδείς much less so which is fairly normal. But BB has continued to make their, sometimes helpful sometimes less so, contributions to the RD.

I don't know much about what's going on outside the RD, it does seem μηδείς and TRM have some problems on ITN/C which I don't check out much any more. And I understand why TRM is pissed off at μηδείς's comment on Jayron32's talk page. Ultimately it does seem an interaction ban would help.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Borderline TL;dr, but I get the point. I have sniped at Baseball Bug and Medeis (mea culpa) but based on their current edit patterns, they do not serve their audience correctly. They happily joke around and piss-take. It's not what I believe a "reference desk" editor should be doing, and many, many others have stated similarly. A real pity that it's got this far, that these two "editors" have been able to get away with it for so long. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I take it that you really don't condone then this crappy piss-take joke [35] on the desks? Yet you edit-warred over it over Medeis objections [36][37][38]. Perhaps a wp:trout is in order for that. -Modocc (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support IBAN, Neutral on the others for now. If an IBAN prompts these three to get back to positive content work rather than wasting their time and energy sniping at each other, that's a good thing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC).
• Support 1. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 09:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all. I don't think the situation has risen to the level where this sort of action is necessary. See Doc9871's comment above. This generally strikes me as being like trying to accomplish toenailing with a sledgehammer: it could accomplish the task, but it's not the right tool, and the outcome would probably be sloppy and serves to make the community look like poor craftspeople generally. Specifically, I think that if the parties agree to not interact, or at least not interact disruptively, we can all get back to work. Even if an interaction ban is imposed, I think it should be much shorter and self-expiring. Bans, like blocks, are a preventive tool, and leaving something in place until someone appeals it isn't usually preventive unless it's clear—crystal clear—that the parties are incapable of working within community standards. Before us, we have three prolific contributors who have been around for a good long while. I think that in and of itself counsels against making any kind of restrictions indefinite, at least not without a substantial record of evidence that this has changed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all Too soon, too harsh, and would shift, not solve the problem; ambiguous references will be made and argued about. No evidence has been presenting that these editors are disrupting the encyclopedia (mainspace). NE Ent 10:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support the interaction ban - which TRM seems happy with anyway, and will therefore stick to. The others on the other hand are wind-up merchants, and I would also support them two to be banned from the ref desk. GiantSnowman 10:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all although 2 has merit. I have no inclination to interact with these two editors ever again, but don't see any requirement for any formal sanctions. More troubling seems to be the fact that any formal sanction like this would prevent me filing an RFC on the undesirable behaviour of those two editors at the reference desk, which has been noted variously at WT:RD and above, thus giving them carte blanche to carry on regardless. (Incidentally, the posting admin seems a little trigger-happy and keen to punish me, having blocked me, albeit erroneously, at a moment's notice this morning.) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all as disproportionate and too soon etc. -- KTC (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all Draconian solutions rarely work, and this one consists of a whole slew of separate "solutions" none of which is likely to help as much as hinder the project. I greatly respect the proposer, but suggest that a much simpler proposal would suffice -- such as maybe a one month "do not respond to each other in any derogatory fashion whatsoever" sanction. Collect (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all overkill Agathoclea (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I believe it is unwise to invoke any sanctions (such as Proposal 2.) that would shift BB's energies to editing the Article space. What few edits he has made there lately seem to be externally linked rubbish that has to be cleaned up/reverted by others. 54.224.53.210 (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  The above is the latest in a series of harassment-only IP's based in the DC area (obviously the same guy, IP-hopping):

54.224.35.46 (talk · contribs)

54.224.206.154 (talk · contribs)

54.242.221.254 (talk · contribs)

54.224.53.210 (talk · contribs)

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Point of order sanction 3 states "Standard Discretionary Sanctions" without linking to what is meant by the phrase; common wiki usage for the phrase is WP:AC/DS which this forum cannot impose. NE Ent 15:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be novel, but the community has inherent authority, and cribbing arbcom's language for a sanction package doesn't change the underlying authority. It would just establish DS as a common remedy for both community and Arbcom. That said, lack of support here evident for 2, 3. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

2 is a great idea, and I'm all up for that, as it's the basis of this issue. The sooner the other "editors" stop using the RD as they personal sandbox, the better. A break from that, and maybe a focus for them on improving the mainspace, would be perfect. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The general term for community based sanctions has been "general sanctions"; I don't believe there's a standard wording like AC/DS but the wording of a previous sanction could be copy pasted. NE Ent 21:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1. Support 2 for Baseball Bugs only, and only if length of time lessened. -- Let's not lose sight of the fact that this bad blood is at least in part a symptom of chronically problematic refdesk edits/answers -- which really should be the greater concern. I've not seen TRM provide the kind of frequently unhelpful and/or insulting kinds of answers I've seen out of the other two -- and then it only seems to be Bugs who shows absolutely no indication of knowing/caring he's done anything wrong or showing any inclination he'll stop (how many times are people going to say "Baseball Bugs is Baseball Bugs" as an excuse to look the other way a la "boys will be boys?"). That being said, an indef refdesk ban is overkill. All three of these users, Bugs included, do seem genuine in their dedication to Wikipedia and to the refdesk, but at the same time there needs to be proof of consequences for using it inappropriately despite countless requests/warnings not to. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Wait for the RFC I would like to see a proper discussion of B and M's conduct at the reference desks and would be sorry if that doesn't not take place because T, who has said he is working on it, can't mention their names. 184.147.128.82 (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • That's a good point, as it would likewise prevent us from creating an RFC about TRM and his stalking and harassment of other editors (which is by no means limited to just Medeis and me). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    • So do you or do you not support the interaction ban? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
      • I do support it (Option 1), as I already said. It just has to be both directions. It would be unfair to allow you to continue stalking and harassing us while depriving us of the capability to defend ourselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
        • I don't recall suggesting it should be a one-way interaction ban. In fact, the only suggestion of that nature has been the polar opposite. The fundamental issue here is that I've been the only person bold enough to engage with you both to ask you to stop using the Reference Desks as your own personal play areas. And it appears, from the notes above and elsewhere, that I'm far from alone in that. So, is it option 1 (interaction ban all round) or not option 1 (no interaction ban all round)? It's a simple question. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Support 1, and 2 vis-a-vis Medeis and Baseball Bugs only Oppose Topic ban for TRM. Per Andy mostly. Too much treating WP like a forum to air their opinions. Bugs especially seems to attract drama; he used to do it on ANI and now he's just moved the same behavior to another venue where it's just as disruptive. N^oformation ^Talk 16:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

In contrast to TRM, who frequently uses the edit summaries as a forum to air his opinions, ranging from the snippy and condescending to the vulgar and childish. What do you intend to do about that? Or does he get a free pass because he's an admin? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know he was an admin until you pointed that out, and why would I care if he is an admin? I have no love for bureaucratic immunity. N^oformation ^Talk 17:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

So, what can be done about it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that what I support passes, if the problem were to continue I would support the same sanction for him. N^oformation ^Talk 17:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't stop him from doing it to other editors, as he does now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be profitable to this process if you notified these "other editors" about this particular discussion. After all, why would you wish for them not to know about the opportunity to discuss my behaviour? Please let us and them know as soon as practicable about the current situation, before the possible impending sanctions limit your ability to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: The infantile feuding involving these three editors has got to stop. Not only has it disrupted the reference desks and their talkpages, but in December the rampant bickering between The Rambling Man and Medeis became a huge distraction on WP:ITN, an important process for maintaining the main page, as well. (To their credit, that page has been quieter recently.) I would like to think that this thread would serve as a wakeup call for all three of these editors but unfortunately I doubt it. I dare them to prove me wrong. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • How helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - While I'm not happy with how TRM has handled this, I think that BB and Medeis are the primary instigators. I'm not convinced that characterising this as a problem with their interactions, as such, is productive. It is the way they interact with users generally, and treat RD (and to a lesser extent ITNC) as their personal playground. Wikipedia needs to stop being so enabling of smug rule-gaming trolls. BB's behaviour was censured in the Chelsea Manning ArbCom findings, but that was just a particularly gross outcropping of a general pattern of poor conduct which has gone on for years. Let's have a proposal which addresses the underlying actions, not the dysfunctional way TRM has tried to confront them. Action against TRM for that could follow if appropriate. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed, Alex is another editor to point out the playground behaviour of the other two "editors" here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I think it would be an excellent idea for editors and admins who aren't TRM to keep scrutiny on this and work constructively to end any underlying behavior concerns. Alex, are you willing to help? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
      • That would be nice. Also it would be nice if you, GWH, could formulate ANI reports that are viable (see NE Ent above) and not go trigger-happy blocking. You may be keen to get me off the project, even Medeis has noted that you seem to have a conflict here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere, I'm not too well at present, and have limited resources for WP activity. I also have prior history with both BB and Medeis, and so I'm not sure there's any hope of either of them responding to my attempts to 'work constructively'. What I want to see is the general pattern of their behaviours to be addressed through administrative action, not a labour-intensive support programme for smart people who clearly ought to know better. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I just hope that the very existence of this discussion is enough for all concerned to sit up and take notice that their behaviour is too often too disruptive. Nobody is perfect, and probably most of us veer from the strict pathway from time to time, and it's a judgement call as to how far is too far, and how often is too often. Well, the judgement of the three named editors is once again, and far from the first time, being called into serious question. Only an editor who is addicted to being the centre of attention at all costs, even at the cost of their reputation, would be happy with this state of affairs. If that were true in any case, the professional help they need is beyond our powers here. Do I believe this discussion will improve matters in any significant way? Sadly, no. Which is why I am formally abstaining from supporting or opposing any of the proposals. But there is always hope. Oh no, they can't take that away from me. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Yep, some editors spend their lives in the talk pages, making comedy remarks etc. Others spend them on articles, improving the Wikipedia. Problem is, the "existence of this discussion" will never be enough for some of those "former" "editors". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've got an alternate proposal. TRM alleges that I have never made a worthwhile edit.[39] Since he's stalking us anyway, let's put that to good use. I challenge TRM to watch every edit I make henceforth, and report (on my talk page) what is factually incorrect about each given edit when it appears. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Bugs, you've been here long enough to know that factual accuracy is not the only measure of usefulness. You proposal is obviously obstructive, and I find it hard to take it seriously. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you take seriously his claim that I have never made a useful edit??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's get something straight here: I HATE THIS PAGE. I've pretty much stopped editing articles because I got tired of fighting vandals. And I pretty much stopped coming here because nothing ever changes. The one area that I thought I could usefully contribute is the question-and-answer section. Now the stalker TRM wants to boot me off there too. But until someone starts looking at TRM's behavior also, this kind of problem is going to come up again and again until someone finally gets wise and sends him packing. The good thing about this scenario is that I'll be gone while y'all will be stuck with him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your diversionary tactic of talking about TRM's claim. You're proposing something pointless and unworkable, and asking useless questions of me. Your behaviour elsewhere on the site has been justly censured. Stop boring on about TRM and take a decent look at your own conduct. You've wilfully ignored my point about 'factual accuracy' being a red herring. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I had already resolved to reign in my sense of humor and try to stick to low-key, factual answers. I had already put myself on an interaction ban with TRM. I had gotten past his vile behavior and hoped that I would never have to see or hear from him again. Then my old pal GWH resurrects this already-tired debate. If you look at TRM's recent edits, you will see that he has been told repeatedly to disengage, but he won't do it. I'm trying to adhere to what he wants me to do, in terms of edits, but he keeps harping on the same theme. What am I supposed to do? How can I please him to the point where he won't stalk me anymore? And supposing he succeeds in his campaign to kill me off here, how do you intend to address that kind of problem with TRM in the future? Because I can guaran-damn-tee you his behavior is not going to improve. He'll just find other targets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The mature way to deal with these things is for each participant to acknowledge and take responsibility for their own behaviour, and then STOP talking. Absolutely NO finger pointing, no matter how justified you may feel it is. (Children use that sort of approach, but they eventually grow out of it.) I'm not saying it's easy. But it is essential. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Aha, the voice of reason. Ya know what? You're right. I have fallen into the "Look what you made me do" trap. I refuse to submit to that game any further. See ya. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure I speak for many others when I say "We'll hold you to that promise, Baseball Bugs". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1,2, and 3. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1 and 2 I stopped providing responses at the Ref Desk where I had been a regular for 3 or 4 years specifically because of the behaviour and attitudes expressed there by Medeis. I check in from time to time, hoping for a positive change. Things appear to be getting worse. Bielle (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 2 only. The Reference Desk is the obvious locus of the dispute as had been identified by nearly all parties, including the proposer. It would be logical to address that issue first and see if the issue abates before adding interaction bans and discretionary sanctions. Why not try the flyswatter before pulling out the DDT? --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

TRM's conflict with Medeis spilled over to the reference desks. He was calling her a snake and called us "chatty snakes" [40]. -Modocc (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

So banning their posting on the reference desk would put an end to such posts, no? Or am I missing something? Why attempt to monitor and police their behavior across the entire project when the problem exists in only one part of the project?--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the "problem" has been exaggerated. Bugs and Medies have helped out with good faith edits and Bugs has stated he is attempting to improve his answers [41] and both I think have a better handle as to how to deal with trolling and banned users, for instance, Medies has been addressing marginal trollish posts and debates on the talkpage to get additional input. In addition, TRM has attempted to back up his case by posting quite a few quotes without diffs or context which is hardly fair to them. -Modocc (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Stipulating all of the above as true, I still don't see how project-wide remedies for localized disputes help. Given that you changed you !vote, I take it that you agree, possibly?--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes editors require interaction bans and given the level of disruption caused, this could very well be one of those times. At some point, what happens depends on them not continuing to bludgeon each other and instead rely on assistance from others that are much less involved when they need to deal with their issues. -Modocc (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

And after reading some of the posts I missed above, I've changed my !vote back again... ugh. -Modocc (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think concentration on the Ref Desks is missing the essence of the problem, which is hostile interaction across the project starting mid-December.

While there has recently been a lot of noise on the Reference Desk talk page, there is no ongoing dispute on the Ref Desk itself. Rather, TRM has rekindled a long-term grudge against me for that began about a year ago for my saying on the ITN desk that he was "rambling". This lead to a long series of attacks by him on talk pages and in edit summaries, and his intentional distortion of my user name, which you can see revived recently in his edit summaries calling me "meds" and "medeisss".

All this is unbelievably silly, but TRM recently decided to make the Ref Desk talk page part of the venue of his hounding. As part of that hounding he has attacked and criticized other editors as well, and refused the advice of various admins telling him there and in other places to cease and withdraw. In contrast, while you won't find a single case of me following TRM around that I am ware of, you will find him showing up out of the blue, for expample, when I posted on Mark Arsten and Deborahjay's talk pages on matters totally unrelated to him. Here (copied from the ANI against TRM in the most recent archive) is a list of some 23 reversions, hostile edits, and hostile edit summaries by TRM over the last few weeks, almost entirely without response by me:

expand to see 23 reversions and hostile summaries and talk page comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
16:37, 21 December 2013‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (154,635 bytes) (+26)‎ . . (→‎[posted] RD: David Coleman: help slippery one) (undo | thank) 16:37, 21 December 2013‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (154,609 bytes) (+234)‎ . . (→‎[posted] RD: David Coleman: feed the snake) (undo | thank) 16:31, 21 December 2013‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (154,375 bytes) (+406)‎ . . (→‎[posted] RD: David Coleman: not so sneaky) (undo | thank) The Rambling Man left a message on your talk page in "Note3". By the way, never post to my talk page ever again, the pair of you. If you have an issue with me, actually take it ANI and don't keep pretending a... 4 hours ago | View changes Your edits on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk have been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 4 hours ago Your edit on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk has been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 5 hours ago Your edit on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk has been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 5 hours ago The Rambling Man left a message on your talk page in "Note3". I agree, but please read the posts of the numerous people concerned with both of your edits to the reference desks. To see old contributors coming... 6 hours ago | View changes The Rambling Man thanked you for your edit on UFC 168. 1 day ago | View edit Your edit on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates has been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 1 day ago The Rambling Man mentioned you on the The Rambling Man talk page in "AN/I". 1 day ago | View changes 27 DECEMBER Your edit on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates has been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 8 days ago The Rambling Man mentioned you on the In the news/Candidates talk page in "[Posted] Mikhail Khodorkovs...". 8 days ago | View changes The Rambling Man mentioned you on the In the news/Candidates talk page in "[Posted] Mikhail Khodorkovs...". 8 days ago | View changes Your edit on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing has been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 8 days ago The Rambling Man mentioned you on the The Rambling Man talk page in "AN/I". 8 days ago | View changes 22 DECEMBER The Rambling Man mentioned you on the Reference desk talk page in "unhelpful edit". 9 days ago | View changes Your edit on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing has been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 9 days ago Your edit on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing has been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 9 days ago Your edit on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates has been reverted by The Rambling Man. (Show changes) 9 days ago 21 DECEMBER Your edit on Radio Maryja has been reverted by Estlandia. (Show changes) 10 days ago 20 DECEMBER Matty.007 mentioned you on the The Rambling Man talk page in "Sneaky personal attacks by...". 11 days ago | View changes The Rambling Man mentioned you on the The Rambling Man talk page in "Sneaky personal attacks by...". 11 days ago | View changes 18 DECEMBER The Rambling Man and 1 other left a message on your talk page. 13 days ago | View changes Your edit on List of ethnic slurs has been reverted by Chisme. (Show changes) 15 days ago The Rambling Man mentioned you on the The Rambling Man talk page in "Sneaky personal attacks by...". 18 days ago | View changes The Rambling Man mentioned you on the The Rambling Man talk page in "Sneaky personal attacks by...". 19 days ago | View changes The Rambling Man mentioned you on the In the news/Candidates talk page in "[Ready] [Attention needed]...". 19 days ago | View changes The Rambling Man mentioned you on the The Rambling Man talk page in "Gunny". 19 days ago | View changes

These edits don't include his numerous disputes during that time with other editors, or his most recent edits and reversions on my talk page after agreeing to an interaction ban and after banning me from his talk page in the above collapsed comments.

Again, none of this has to do with the Ref Desk per se. Rather, it is a cross-wiki campaign of harassment that would have been solved long ago by an interaction ban, one which I am glad to have be mutual. I have no desire for TRM to be otherwise sanctioned, or for him to stop editting ITN or any of the other pages listed above except my talk page.

An interaction ban is very simple, objectively verifiable, and easily enforced. It does no harm to the project or the editors involved. Had it been in place a week ago, this problem would have been entirely solved a week ago. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately it appears that you've missed (or read and ignored) the many comments, some of which name you directly, for your disruption of the RD since 2012. It also appears that you've even driven regular editors away from the RDs. Those comments are both here and in the RD archives, as noted below. An interaction ban would not stop you and BB from continued ongoing disruption there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The "evidence" that there is a vendetta outside the reference desk areas is extremely unpersuasive. Not only is every entry stripped of context, but they are also unlinked. Meaning there is no way for another editor to evaluate these in context. Some of the comments, etc. weren't even posted by the editors named as parties. Some of the comments are actually thanking you or agreeing with Medeis. If anything, this is nothing more or less than evidence that the dispute is indeed "unbelievably silly" and strengthens my conviction that a mutual interaction ban is unwarranted. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be only "silly" if there wasn't substantive evidence supporting the fact that both RD regulars have driven other editors away from the RD with their editing "behaviour". That evidence exists, that fact is beyond dispute, and is part of what needs to be resolved, hence proposal 2. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't dispute that, and in fact !voted to support proposal #2. It is, IMO, "unbelievably silly" that the list of evidence produced supports any idea of a vendetta or serious violation of WP:WIKISTALKING. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Eggishorn, those last 20 edits are copied from my "notifications" and are meant to show TRM's obsession with me over the last several weeks, justifying an interaction ban. There's apparently no easy way to allow someone access to the diffs, but unless you are accusing me of making them up, I am not sure why it would be necessary, they speak for themselves. You won't find any evidence of me at all following TRM to various different project and talk pages. If you want further evidence, you can see these seven edits made by TRM to his own talk page attributing various evil acts to me and others. These are his own edits with signatures. You can also read his edit summary when he finally removed them blaming me and others for the contents he himself added to his talk page. I think it's quite clear that no content ban on me could have prevented this, while a mutual interaction ban could have. μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No, but a content ban on you could have prevented several editors leaving the RD as a result of your behaviour. As acknowledged variously here and at WT:RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No, Medies, I am not accusing you of making anything up. By the same token, this kitchen-sink listing of bare notifications is not evidence of anything except perhaps a hyper-developed sense of victimisation. An impression that is only heightened when you link to statements such as, "...please stop making hollow threats." and "...please let me know when you instigate proceedings" and call these "evil acts." If you mischaracterize the things that I can verify so badly, I have little reason to believe your characterization of any other facet of your interactions with TRM. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose 2 and 3, and presently support 1, because TRM's disruptive sniping which he admits to above must stop. Also, TRM has been critical of the RD regulars since Dec. Friday the thirteenth with disparaging remarks such as this [42]. In addition, I disapprove of any further disruption due to TRM's and Bugs' endless one-upmanship. TRM says he'll start an RfC and although I am completely opposed to banning Bugs and Medeis from the desks, perhaps we could permit temporary limited RfC waivers to the interaction ban, otherwise we may have to do this all over again. On second thought, should TRM agree to eschew interacting with and sniping Bugs and Medies outside of this venue and any RfCs I will strike my support of the interaction ban. -Modocc (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC) I'll add that TRM is presently referring to Bugs and Medies as Statler and Waldorf on his user page [43] because of this comparison during this dispute. Its my understanding that such sniping is inappropriate (or at least not respected as TRM's user page points out) and is a misuse of user pages and it's to be removed with an interaction ban in place. -Modocc (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Just repeating what another concerned editor had said. Are you now suggesting that I can't write down the names of comedy duets as part of some proposed interaction ban? By the way, I've already said I don't want to interact with either editor after this very wasteful thread is finally terminated, so you can "strike [your] support of the interaction ban". What I don't want to see happening is these two editors going back to driving others off the RD. I'm sure you're fully aware of their past deeds in that regard, well documented at the RD archives and here, by many other editors. But so as to avoid offending you, that reference first used by another concerned editor has been removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the removal, that is a start. :-) From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Interaction_ban#Interaction_ban "...editor X is not permitted to: ...make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly; ..." [emphasis mine]. Therefore, we did't need to add those names to the interaction ban to enforce a violation. "Not wanting to" is not precisely the same as saying you will do your utmost to avoid it entirely, especially when it comes to colored commentary on their edits to the RD or the ITN and, furthermore, I am not so sure you won't be continuing your sniping while participating in a proper RfC. [and I just took a look at your removal to see what you actually did [44] and since it was in jest, and has the same context as before pertaining to this dispute, it wasn't, unfortunately, a step forwards, but a step backwards, so I've struck my thanks and my offer to strike my support of the interaction ban cause I need to disengage here for I've other things to attend to.] -Modocc (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 4: Standard Discretionary Sanctions shall apply to all reference desks and their talk pages for three months And, those named above must not post jokes or offer extraneous opinions (example) at those pages. There has been a lot of commentary about how TRM has overdone something, but the actual problem is the "unbearable crassness" mentioned in the last link, and that is the problem that ANI should address. At any rate, there is no reason to sanction TRM. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  Tying a metaphorical Sword of Damocles above the head of every editor to the reference desk pages seems an odd remedy for a dispute between three specific editors. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  I'm assuming sensible admins! An occasional joke is fine, but any particular editor should not use those pages to showcase their wit or political stance. As I understand it, a discretionary sanction against an editor requires that first a warning be given, so there should not be a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1 only. "Everyone return to their corners." StuRat (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment regarding "too soon" Some comments above state or allude to it being "too soon" to take such drastic steps as 2&3. To editors with this opinion, I simply ask that you peruse the archives of the RefDesk talk page to see how long this has been going on. Here's one from early 2012, though perhaps the closed thread on Medical Anthropology further down is more instructive. And so on. Matt Deres (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1. The editors involved have, I believe, all indicated their agreement a desire to stop interacting; indeed they are practically begging for it -- but they can't seem to stop snipping at each other until somebody else says so. So let's say so. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC), edited 20:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, not at all. I have voiced opposition as it would prevent me filing an RFC against the other two editors' years of misdemeanours (documented above and at WT:RD) at the Reference Desks. Baseball Bugs also indicated that he would prefer to have the ability to write his own RFC about me. We have, all three, indicated that we will not interact with other, but this ban would prevent vital RFCs from being created. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1,2,3 Medeis and Baseball Bugs were once useful editors, but they've become basically attention seeking trolls. They edit mostly to call attention to themselves. Whenever the topic of conversation is something besides themselves, they do something ridiculous and then proclaim that everyone who doesn't agree is a a "troll sympathizer". I'm less familiar with Rambling Man, but lately he seems to mostly exist to pick fights with Medeis and Baseball Bugs at every opportunity. That is exactly the opposite of how trolls should be handled. (Edit: Looking more closely, I notice that Medeis makes a significant number of apparently useful contributions to the Language desk. So I've struck my support for #2.) APL (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  So many diffs to request I don't even know where to begin. Phrases like "whenever" and "mostly" require evidence in the form of diffs. Labeling them as straight-up trolls without evidence could be considered a personal attack; one that should not be repeated without some diffs of concrete evidence of trolling. There seems to be enough enemies out there: get to work! And any interaction ban imposed here should not preclude RfC filings against each other. Doc talk 01:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1 - Root of the problem seems to be interaction between these three. Start with that first before going for anything punitive.--WaltCip (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The 33 Strategies of War

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

---

Please could a protection template be put on the article on The 33 Strategies of War, to limit editing to auto-confirmed users. An IP editor using a variety of IPs keeps adding much the same material over and over again. There have been discussions on the article talk page in April 2008 and late December 2013 about this, but it keeps being re-added.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur with everything Toddy1 has said. There are similar problems, though to a lesser extent on The 48 Laws of Power and other books by the same author. None of them have a NPOV and some editors seem to want to use Wikipedia to promote the works. Edward321 (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sure thing. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Mount Damavand

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

---

Horamantarh (talk · contribs) is deleting the relevant elevation information in the article Mount Damavand, see article history. The article offers useful clarification on the discrepancies surrounding the various elevation figures of the mountain. The text is accompanied with the relevant references to back the claims. User Horamantarh is deleting the whole clarification paragraph, and overwrites the elevation figure without the relevant supporting documentation. Additional administrator involvement needed here. - Darwinek (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Article protected, editor warned for edit warring. I also blocked IP 95.38.199.161, in passing. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) This is weird; did he just warn himself? That's a first. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Robert Lewandowski article issue

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

---

Article about Robert Lewandowski is being constantly vandalised regarding transfer rumors. Definitely needs admin attenton. --BiH (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected now by User:Mark Arsten. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC).

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

Toddst1 and 70.53.97.28

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

---

Toddst1 (diff) for some reason or another, has taken it upon themselves to offer unwanted/unwarrented parenting advice to someone who has a child with Autism when administering a block that is disproportionate to the disruption that has been caused by the anon ip, including no further edits to their talk page.

Furthermore when challenged by the editor who brought up the disruptive behaviour - with regards to the language that was used when administering a further harsher sanction (without any provocation that I can see), the Admin displayed no attempt to justify their language or consider that their advice could have been considered offensive to the parent. As someone with Autistic tendencies I find the language used by the admin at best unsuitable when discussing fellow wikipedians and at worst ablesim. Badanagram (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing remotely inappropriate about anything User:Toddst1 wrote on that page, and especially nothing that rises to the level of "anti autistic bias" that you claim on the IP's talk page. Perhaps you can quote the portion here that you think is problematic because I just don't see it. N^oformation ^Talk 17:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badanagram (talk • contribs) 17:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.53.97.28&oldid=589121655 "Nobody seems to be responsible for the edits from this ip address and the differently-abled child which you apparently cannot manage is terrified by the experience of editing here".

I appreciate the admin community will find no fault with this Badanagram (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That appears to be in response to this and when read in context I don't see anything problematic. And considering that Toddst1 specifically used the term "differently abled," it indicates to me that he was attempting not to act like an abelist by characterizing the person as "disabled." Additionally—and perhaps it's the cynic in me—I just don't buy it; it seems more like case of WP:BROTHER than a legitimately disgruntled parent. None the less, it's irrelevant—having a disability does not give one license to edit WP outside of behavioral norms. N^oformation ^Talk 18:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I've removed your comments from the IP's page. They should go to Toddst1's page rather than be on the IP's page. I agree with Noformation...this is a case of WP:BROTHER and Toddst1's comment was a pretty tongue-in-cheek response to a pretty implausible excuse by the IP who is vandalizing. only (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If I posted them on Toddst1's page he would block me using whatever WP suits him at the time. What good can come on posting such a comment on a blocking-happy admin? Especially when there are thinly veiled people on WP:ANI who rally round such admin behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badanagram (talk • contribs) 22:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I have read Toddst1's comments. They are to the point, and very tactful. He/she has acted entirely appropriately, given the circumstances. There is no need for editors commenting on this complaint to cast aspersions on the veracity of the parent's claim about his/her son.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Toddy1 about Toddst1's actions—the block was appropriate, due to the disruption that the editor was causing. Epicgenius (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I am glad that users with names not dissimilar to the blocking admin agree. *Awaits polemic why this isn't important* Badanagram (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see why you have to make such comments in bad faith. Epicgenius (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The simple answer would be that Wikipedia is not here to provide the support for people with special needs. There are in fact quite a number of autistic contributors on Wikipedia and they understand that they will be treated no differently to editors who do not have autism. It's one thing to be considerate of those who have special requirements but one must keep in mind that singling them out for special treatment is a form of condescending discrimination in itself. Blackmane (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well said.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Concur. NE Ent 19:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

In WP:NOTTHERAPY there is a sentence "It is never appropriate to use the phrase "Wikipedia is not therapy" to imply that editors with mental disorders should be banned from Wikipedia because of their disabilities.". This, along with discussing patiently have not happened.

The excuses about 'tongue-in-cheek?' I find astounding that admins think that it is appropriate to make tongue in cheek comments to a user if there is a hint of autistic behaviour who would respond negatively to it.

I know that it is up to the admins whether to follow the letter of policy WP:WHATEVER (when defending themselves and it backs up their positions) rather than the spirit of WP:WHATEVER (when it doesn't suit them). I guess the admins and their puppets have chosen the former rather than the latter today. Give yourselves a pat on the back and bray over your 'win' Badanagram (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No patting is being done at all. The actions of Toddst1 are completely appropriate considering how children's show articles are one of the most regular test/vandalism targets and how we have several users community banned for using their disorder (or falsifying one) as a carte blanche to vandalize further. We have to be careful not to offend anyone, but not at the cost of damage to articles. Nate • (chatter) 23:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

For some reason I don't see it. The admin named above decided to impose a long-term block and silence the talk page discussion. The user doesn't appear to be vandalising pages (although I accept that copy-pasting pages to the talk isn't appropriate either). If you read the comments in conjunction with the edits, do you actually believe the user is deliberately vandalising Wikipedia and using a developmental disorder as an excuse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badanagram (talk • contribs) 23:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do; the IP was disrupting the talk page and a block was placed to avert further damage. That's standard operating procedure, and the user received plenty of warnings about it before the block was applied. Also, this edit asking for a block of Dianna suggests that the user under the 'mother' guise has been around enough to use that as a chilling threat; a new user (or one who doesn't know our procedures) wouldn't rashly ask for a block that quick. Nate • (chatter) 00:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The 'mother' guise is quick to ask for a block of someone who is easily identifiable as an admin 'has been around enough to use that as a chilling threat' Are you sure of this? Badanagram (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@Badanagram: If the parents don't want to keep the kid off of Wikipedia, there's not really anything Wikipedia can do. By the way, Special:EmailUser doesn't work for anons, unlike what you said on the talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I found the comment extremely offensive, especially considering that we should be focusing on the content and not the personal problems of the individual. I don't blame the mother of this child for reporting Toddst1. And all this from an admin who should know better. I think that Toddst1 could have chosen his words better.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to make it clear. I am not the mother of this IP user. I am a male and would have to have fathered such a child at 15 if the users talk page is to be believed. I am just concerned how admins treat people on the autistic spectrum - especially the admins above. If there is any doubt as to whether a contributor is on the spectrum then perhaps care should be exercised instead of trying to vindicate the admin. I guess the same group of people toss motor scooter users with Hypermobility/ehlers-danlos out of their chairs when "It's obvious they can walk, why should they be treated any different" Badanagram (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that the e-mail function doesn't work for anon IP's. I was hoping to open up a channel outside of wikipedia for the user to discuss concerns but I understand that it is the wishes of the community that this should not happen. I am forever grateful to the admins for their continued patience and 'acceptance' of those within the autistic spectrum. Badanagram (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this function is, according to WP:EMAIL, a safety feature. "Emailing users through Wikipedia is a privacy feature that protects your email address from spam." Epicgenius (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Even if we were to accept that the copy paste was not vandalism and just a mistake, it is certainly disruptive. That alone would be ground for a block, autism or no. Noone "wins" or "loses", by allowing disruption only WP loses. Should you be interested to see the levels of vandalism arising from a single user, I recommend some reading in WP:LOBU and look for Bambifan101.

The other thing could be, and very likely is, that the editor behind the IP is not actually autistic but a mere troll out to get a rise. Badanagram, accusing everyone here of rallying behind the admins is not going to further your argument. As for your quote from WP:NOTTHERAPY, the IP was not blocked based on this. The IP was blocked for vandalism, which on the surface that is the case. At the very least, the block should be for disruption. Blackmane (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

What kind of deliberate troll goes around copy/pasting articles? Why is the talk page being suppressed? Ostriches is my guess Badanagram (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

MascotGuy would be a better example, no? Epicgenius (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually none of the above are better examples because you are simply quoting extreme cases to justify extreme actions on a single user. Badanagram (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

After double checking, the block was for disruption, not vandalism so I've struck that bit. And actually, yes MascotGuy would be an ideal example, I'd forgotten about him since he wasn't as high profile as Bambifan101. @Badanagram:, this link would be of interest to you. In summary, MascotGuy (a nickname coined by the community) is an autistic person who was community banned not for his autism, but for the incredible amount of disruption he caused, details are in that link. Blackmane (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Largely irrelevant. IP user not engaged in long term vandalism. Block inappropriate. Education appropriate, Star trek style sentences. Badanagram (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

At this point, rather than continue this discussion which is breaking the world land speed record attempt at going nowhere, it's as good a time as any to wrap it up. As far as I can see, we'll have to agree to disagree that Toddst1 spoke inappropriately when blocking the IP. Blackmane (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. Toddst1 (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You know, I think the block was appropriate given the disruption that the IP address was causing. Obviously it's a difficult situation because we want to be welcoming to people with all sorts of disabilities and are generally willing to make reasonable adjustments, but when the disability can't be reasonably accommodated, as seems to be the case here, there is a real problem. That said, I think Toddst1 was reasonably tactful until this comment which I think was a bit "off" and certainly unnecessary; I hope he'll choose his words a bit more carefully next time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC).

Yeah close the discussion. An IP with relatively low-level disruption in the great scheme of things with activity that can be explained by a condition definitely deserves a 6 month block on their talk page. I keep forgetting what century we are in, hide them awaaaaaaay!!!!! Badanagram (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Now THAT was offensive. Ascribing such a motive where it's quite clear and obvious that no such motive existed is disgusting. It doesn't matter if an editor is drunk, autistic, or has Parkinsons ... every editor is responsible when they click "save", and if their edits do not conform, then unfortunately we take steps to prevent disruption. Toddst1's comment was a CONFIRMATION of "message received" from what appeared to be a parent. There's nothing nefarious, and certainly nothing suggesting we look austistics in a box and throw away the key. Give your head a shake. ES&L 09:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I retract my comment on the basis that it was tongue in cheek. Seriously, can we archive this now? Badanagram (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

So what exactly here requires administrator intervention? What would Badanagram have the community do with respect to Toddst1? I don't see Toddst1's block as either an abuse of discretion or an unreasonable interpretation of blocking standards, and so it is entitled to deference. In short, I move to close and archive this thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

At best a removal of the talk page block, which in my opinion is just an attempt to 'silence the afflicted' but I cannot see that happening any time soon, so yeah close/archive/immortalise etc. Badanagram (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

While I could agree with that and probably wouldn't have issued the talk page block, I'm comfortable with leaving discretion to the blocking admin for now. As to the length of the block/talk page restriction, I would note that the whois info indicates that it's a static IP. Therefore, it's fairly unlikely that the individual using that address will change anytime soon, so the risk of collateral damage is low. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Addition of second RfC to Talk:Pamela Geller

On Talk:Pamela Geller, an RfC was recently begun, and an editor then added a second RfC on the same topic. Whether intentional or not, the outcome is likely to be that there is no conclusive result, and some editors might see only the second RfC. I'd like to suggest that an admin speedy-close the second RfC so that the first can proceed in the normal way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• The first RfC was poorly constructed and should be the one that is speedy-closed. Several editors have voiced opinions along that line: [45][46][47]
• Even if the first RfC is allowed to proceed, the results of the second one will not be inconclusive, because the first RfC's originator insists that it pertains only to his own edits,[48] [49] while the second deals with content across the entire scope of the article.[50] Roccodrift (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

How about I close both RFCs and all of you come to an agreement on a neutral wording for the RFC before you open a third one? I'm only half joking (I know that closing both will likely achieve nothing useful except lots of people yelling at me). More seriously, in such an obvious contentious case as this, is it too much to ask that you agree on the wording of an RFC before it's opened?

Edit: As for the mess you're already in, if you can't agree to condense them in to one RFC and it doesn't sound like you will, I can only suggest both be kept open, with it being made clear in each RFC that there is a seperate related RFC on going and the closing admin can sort out the mess of how to reconcile the 2 (sorry closing admin).

Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic sidebar
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see no reason to object to "has been described as 'right wing'" with sources, provided that her "non-right-wing views" be also included per WP:NPOV. It is not easy to reconcile calling a pro-LGBT, pro-choice person as "right wing" and especially not using that label in Wikipedia's voice. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC) A quite bizarre RfC about a description of a person who calls her political enemies "leftists", is too extreme for CPAC and admits to sharing the ideals of the far-right EDL? I'm just off to 6 (number) to start an RfC about whether it can be described as equivalent to two multiplied by three. Black Kite (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC) That's claimed by some mathematicians, but I can give you a number of sources that say it is actually half of twelve. AFAICT, all other numbers that are half of something are not equivalent to two multiplied by three, so your assertion seems questionable at the least. Formerip (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Then how does your "proof" comport with her being pro-LGT and pro-choice? She appears to hold a bunch of non-right-wing views. And I suspect that "sharing the ideals" is an overstatement -- it is like saying a person who liked the Autobahn project in the 30s was a closet Nazi <g>. Agreement on some issues is not the same as agreement on all issues. Collect (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Is the American right monolithic on LGBT issues? The UK right isn't - it was Conservative PM David Cameron who pushed through the same-sex marriage legislation in 2013. NebY (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC) It seems pretty simple: if the sources predominantly call her right-wing, then she gets called that. Coretheapple (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC) It's not simple. Besides, where those words are placed is pretty important as well: I oppose using them in the opening sentence of the lead, since that amounts to essentializing a political position ascribed to her by others, reliably or not. Why would you think that such matters would be simple? Why would such a categorical qualification be necessary in the first place? Can't our readers do without such labels, or do you think they are too dumb to succeed in the world without them? Drmies (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC) What gives you the idea I think "right wing" should be in the lead? Coretheapple (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I didn't say you thought that. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC) So you're saying that if the sources predominently call her right-wing, we don't use the term "right wing" anywhere in the article? Coretheapple (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC) They could probably do without knowing her name. But the convention is that out articles should focus on the most important information about their subject. It seems like if you did a Wordle for her "right wing" would show up in a fairly large font. Formerip (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Isn't it part of the problem here that "right-wing" and "left-wing" are considered to be pejorative terms by many people? Are there expressions that can be used instead, which aren't WP:WEASELy but get the point across, like "ultra-conservative" or "very liberal"? And what about those who have different views in different spheres of life, such as those who are socially liberal but economically conservative, or Log Cabin Republicans? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is not the appropriate forum to discuss article content. This report was started due to the initiation of a second RfC on the article Talk page, and discussion should be limited to that issue. Roccodrift (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries of User:200.30.223.19

A list of the edit summaries can be found at Special:Contributions/200.30.223.19. The IP user above, 200.30.223.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), has been warned repeatedly of edit summaries that are a clear violation of policy, due to the aggressive and snide tone and belittling fellow editors. A formal warning was issued on the user's talk page on 31 December 2013, but as shown on the user's contributions page, the tone and content of the summaries has not changed even after this warning. Attempts have been made with the user to downplay the attitude and tone to no avail, as the user defends his/her behaviour. Bailmoney27 ^talk 18:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I wouldn't mind a block for a few days or even a week because this IP is just not getting it. Bad editing is an issue, sure, but the way s/he is trying to handle things is ridiculous...and the comment "this is not a place to chat to each other and be nice" kind of rubbed me the wrong way; I mean, you're not supposed to be nice on Wikipedia? It also doesn't help that his/her attitude suggests that s/he thinks s/he is better than everyone else. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

User:CEngelbrecht making false accusations of 'vandalism' and sockpuppetry.

See [51] where he accuses User:Fama Clamosa of 'vandalism - and then reports it at WP:AIV [52]. Given that the accusation was clearly false (as Mark Arsten states at WP:AIV), I restored Fama Clamosa's edits - at which point CEngelbrecht accused me of "edit-warring using alternate user accounts". [53] Given that CEngelbrecht is a SPA with previous blocks for "edit warring and disruption", and "persistant block evasion", and that CEngelbrecht has a history of accusing those he disagrees with of sockpuppetry, entirely without evidence (see e.g. [54]), I think that an indefinite block is probably the appropriate course of action here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If I may, what I see your actions doing for an extended period, is blatant censorship against the topic in question. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia of human knowledge, and you can't simply censor all illustrations away just because of personal sociology-driven distaste. Carving away any and all illustrations from the entire article wouldn't be done on a page about the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot or the Bermuda Triangle, if this divisive hypothesis was in some way comparable. If you win on this one, you'd only be pushed to further decapitate the article, because you just don't want readers to understand what it's actually about.

Unfortunately, I find that hecklers against this idea are often more versed in the well-intended standards of something like Wikipedia, and more willing to abuse them, aparently. If I'm being penalized again simply for pursuing proper informing of a complex and divisive topic, then Wikipedia is completely pointless. Then the bullies rule here, and you'd just as soon be overrun by creationists.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion on today's reverts on the article talk page from any of you. Perhaps start there before coming to the admin boards? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

False (and patently ridiculous) accusations of sockpuppetry have little to do with article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't help that User:Fama Clamosa tossed a uw-fringe4 last warning at CEngelbrecht for what seems to be a content dispute. But I agree, CEngelbrecht should retract that accusation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

All I see is that two user accounts alternate through edit warring. Quite convenient to avoid getting penalized. What I also see is those two users censoring this article continously through the months. 'Cause it seems insulting to them, that it can't be both factual and neutral, while confirming their personal custom thinking, that the idea in question "of course" is completely ridiculous. Therefore he/they are waiting for any chance to pick the article to pieces under any and all false pretenses. There was no reason to remove all imagery from that article, other than censorship of the type, that creationists conduct on articles of evolution. 'Cause he/they don't want to be wrong in their ill-informed assumptions.

Am I wrong? Are you not the same? "Fama", "Andy", who are you? Who are you guys?--CEngelbrecht (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Posting outright lies here isn't going to do your case much good - the article history is there for everyone to see. Prior to today's revert of your improper 'vandalism' accusation, [55] I made one revert on January 2nd - of an edit which removed a word from a sentence [56], and prior to that I've not edited the article since May of last year - which would make it rather difficult for me to be 'censoring' anything. And no, I'm not Fama Clamosa - as a sockpuppet investigation would of course confirm, though I note that the last time you posted such accusations, you failed to actually do as suggested, and ask for an investigation. But of course you won't do that, as you know darn well that your ridiculous accusations of sockpuppetry are based on nothing but your own fertile imagination. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know how to report such an incident then, it's a jungle of accidentally clicking into the right page (for me, anyway). If you are indeed two different people, I'm prepared to apologize. But I have to say, I've noticed that this particular topic brings out the worst in the opposition, not the support. It's the naysayers (here and in general), that are willing to abuse any and all well-intended systems to halt proper information about this hypothesis (so why not multiple accounts to over represent personal distaste?), and prepared to distort any and all presentation, e.g. claiming that the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis somehow argues for the existence of mermaids (which it doesn't, and Animal Planet doesn't exactly help on that one). What I see here and elsewhere is that this hypothesis gets good olfashioned persecuted, like Galileo got persecuted. Not for being blatantly wrong, but for being not blatantly wrong. It seems that a range of people have a psychological need to look up the article and get confirmed their custom thinking, that it has no grounds what so ever, and a balanced non-POV presentation just can't support that. So in some odd form of panic, these types simply resort to distortion and censorship, as if it were the Catholic church towards Copernicus and Galileo. For years now, I've observed the article in question being hacked to pieces again and again, because it seems an insult to a range of personalities, that it should dare to actually list what the hubbub is about. Which I have to say reminds me of how creationists are prepared to sabotage efforts to inform people about the concepts in evolution (here and otherwise). So yes, I get a tad paranoid, and I think I have proper cause to be so. Something is terribly wrong about this idea, and it ain't the idea. --CEngelbrecht (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There's allowed to be more than one other person than you interested in the article and I'm pretty certain they are different people. I wish they had discussed the removal of all the images since I'd been discussing the removal of one of them on the talk page but neither you nor they turned up. Dmcq (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Right. I didn't have anything to add in that argument, so I didn't post anything. And I wasn't the one smash cutting all pictures from the article due to negative bias, even the ones illustrating con-arguments in the debate. (But pictures say too many thousand words on this one, don't they?)--CEngelbrecht (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Engelbrecht has been pushing a POV on AAH for as long as I can remember. Googling on Aquatic ape hypothesis Engelbrecht clearly indicates that Wikipedia is neither the beginning nor the end of it. A single look at the talk page archives is more than enough to see who the tendentious "censor" is. AAH is fringe and should be described as such, nothing more nothing less. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and you've been pushing your negative POV just as much for just as long, so what's the difference? And if you note my edits, I have made every effort to present the counter-argumentation on equal grounds (which is very scarse and mostly humbug). Including the two images of red deer and a horse, which you also deleted without prior debate. Which of you and me are best capable of disregarding any personal opinions for the good of a balanced encyclopedic entry?

You're pointing out my activity on this topic, as if that should somehow weaken my case. My activity means, that I'm well-informed about the many facets of this complex AAH-debate (or lack of it many times). I'm in a perfect position to add valid information to the article, having studied the topic for upwards of two decades now. After all that time, I have to say, that this idea of humans being ancient beach apes doesn't strike me the least bit unreasonable (when you read the damn sources, and not just watch Animal Planet!). But by pointing this out, you'd might as well say, "Can you all hear? He acknowledges, that he is a heretic. He refuses to reject this, which we all know is wrong, wrong, wrong. I rest my case." Have we really not evolved any since Copernicus? --CEngelbrecht (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your comparisons with Galileo and Copernicus, I've seen exactly the same comparisons made by everyone from proponents of magic teapots operating by 'cold fusion' to snake-oil salesmen promoting the drinking of industrial-strength bleach as a cure for AIDS and malaria. And yes, they complain about 'censorship' too. It really proves nothing, beyond the lack of originality of the argument. And as for whether "ancient beach apes" are 'reasonable' or not, your argument is with scientific consensus, not Wikipedia. We reflect that consensus. Per policy. We aren't going to change the policy - and accordingly you might make better use of your time tackling the consensus. In scientific journals, where science is conducted, rather than on the pages of an online encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

And therefore imagery doesn't belong in that particular article?--CEngelbrecht (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

comment It appears as if the additional images on the article discussed are a positive contribution to said article. I agree with NeilN that there is a missing talk to resolve this issue.Prokaryotes (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Disagree, most of the images are completely facile and pointless. Do we really need

• a picture of a horse to illustrate a very minor point that horses sweat?
• a picture of someone standing up to illustrate "bipedalism"?
• a picture of someone swimming to illustrate that "humans don't have fur"?
• a picture of a woman in the shower to illustate that humans bathe?

(Add:) Duh, yeah. As much as we need pictures of white and black peppered moths in the article on evolution.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Of course we don't. Unless we've got a lot of readers that aren't clear on what a horse is, or what bathing is. Images should only be used where they are needed to get a point over that can't be made in text (or to make one clearer to the reader). They shouldn't just be used for decoration. Black Kite (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, of course. Arbitrary argumentation, dude. On the article's talk page, one user argues the quite opposite, that a generalized image of the various hypothesis arguments is unnecessary, because the listed points are only partially covered in the body text. Are pictures supposed to illustrate something key from the body text, or something not represented in it? I hear both, all of a sudden. Are you sure, we're talking about use of illustrations here?

The horse and the red deer were included to represent the counterargumentation to AAH, and that horses sweat and red deer have a descended larynx are the only really good counterarguments presented so far (the rest of the naysaying against AAH is really just angry gorilla-pounding, because a complete amateur in this one rare instance actually made a valid contribution to a complex field). Those two pictures was to appease the opposition and to balance out the con side the best one can in a non-POV presentation. Which aparently didn't work, 'cause my experience is, that all the panic surrounding this particular article is really about people not wishing to see this idea properly illustrated or even described. Because a balanced text can't support most's custom thinking, that AAH is unfounded and nuts, and then they prefer to put their head in the bush and keep on laughing at their own giants. Which is creationist-type psychology.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing pointless images isn't an argument for or against the subject of the article, simply trying to make the article look as encyclopedia-like as possible. Unless you're under the impression that our readers don't know what a horse is. Or a deer. Or bathing. Such triviality actually makes the article look worse, not better. Black Kite (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Pull another one. The image of a showering Homo sapiens specimen is a perfect illustration of what the hypothesis is arguing, just as much as one of a baby swimming, another simian species wading bipedally, our layer of insulating protoblubber underneath our skin's dermis, the shellfish that may have fueled the ancient expansion of our brain, the world map of human population density showing us clustering around river beds and coast lines. And just as much as black and white moths are a perfect illustration of the theory of evolution. Right now you're arguing their removal, too, because they're pointless and make the article ugly, don't they?

But the appearance of an article has never been what this is about. Those images were removed, because the user in question and aparently others were uncomfortable being presented with thousand-words images of an idea, they've been accustomed to laugh at for all the wrong sociological reasons. Reasons which yes, is comparable to the ones that plagued great thinkers like Copernicus and Galileo, and to an extent still plagues Darwin. Even if AAH is wrong, they don't even want it to be presented as the reasonable concept it is. 'Cause the human ape don't want to know what it is or something. And in that, they are no different in psychology than the creationists and ID'ers plaguing the articles on evolution. Give the panicky naysaying bullies another victory on this, and you'll only pave the way for a POV-driven, negatively biased and completely irrelevant article (which it has been hacked down to before) on a key scientific topic of today. --CEngelbrecht (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, well, you're entitled to that opinion, though I'll just say that I don't think you grasp the idea of what an encyclopedia article should actually be. (For what it's worth, I said on the article talkpage that the baby and gorilla images were perfectly fine, it was the facile ones that were the problem). Black Kite (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment Someone mentioned above about searching for Engelbrecht and the aquatic ape hypothesis. But are we sure CEngelbrecht is really related to this person? It seems to me that the nonsense with the images particularly when taken together with the claims of censorship arising from their removal as well as the comparisons with Galileo and Copernicus and creationists sound more like a joe job than coming from someone seriously trying to promote the AAH. Of course, this could be normal behaviour, I have no idea. In any case, I haven't looked in to it enough to comment on a block, but I agree claims of vandalism or sockpuppetry which are unsupported need to stop. I recommend CEngelbrecht whoever they are take a read of WP:Vandalism and avoid misusing the term; and file a WP:SPI if they genuine evidence of sockpuppetry. Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me remind everyone that this discussion is not about arguments for and against AAH, or how to use images on that page. The discussion should address and focus on CEngelbrecht's behaviour. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

What is my behavior? The accusation of sock poppetry is hopefully wrong, but I stand by the one of vandalism. 'Cause this stripping of all imagery is typical of the mistreatment of this article. Over these last few years I've seen the article's body text reduced to nothing, where the only focus winded up being "this idea is nuts, go back to sleep". Close to all description of the individual arguments deleted, where it was nothing of an encyclopedic entry. I've seen continous harassment against users adding neutral wordings against this negative bias, again on par with the methods of creationists and ID'ers against evolution describing users. I've seen nothing but a continous pressure for censorship. For some odd pshychological reason, a certain group just don't want this idea to be out in the open. This is the general type of conduct, this fringe idea brings out in not the support, but the opposition. You're absolutely right, this is not about arguments for and against some fringe hypothesis, or how to use images. This is about my response to a type of continous vandalising behavior, that only seeks to restart killing the presentation of a divisive idea.

I see all this as a big threat to scientific thought and the well-intended purpose of Wikipedia. Enough is enough. If AAH is so bloody wrong, a neutral presentation would support that anyway. But that is not good enough, is it? --CEngelbrecht (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

If you agree you have no evidence of sockpuppetry or you do have evidence but it's insufficient for a successful SPI, then refrain from making such accusations without sufficient evidence in the future and we have one thing sorted. But if you continue to call things vandalism which are not vandalism, you should still expect to be blocked whatever you may speak of censorship, psychological reasons, etc. And I have to say, it's no wonder AAH is so poorly thought of if proponents behave like you are behaving, your comments are re-enforcing my concern we may have a joe job here but ultimately it doesn't matter if you are blocked which it looks like you are headed towards. Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered checking the IP's of those two accounts?

And how is stripping all imagery from an article without prior talk page debate, which has been done before by the same users, not vandalism???

So I'm a non-diplomatic supporter of a misperceived and grossly distorted idea. What good is diplomacy? For forty years, an Elaine Morgan presented key arguments in this debate. She died last year at the age of 92 without anthropology granting her the recognition she was entitled to, as one of their own giants. She was always the spitting image of diplomacy, begging these highly educated people to just explain, what the hell was wrong with the idea. And all they did in return, and still do, was spat on her. Simply for being an armchair scientist, that as a rare instance got something right, where they had been wrong. All lost in their own inbread, because she wasn't their clergy. And Wikipedia just trails along. The benign weep, and the wicked laugh. So to hell with diplomacy. It accomplishes nothing. --CEngelbrecht (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, but the concept of community - and the rules and policies included in it - were something you agreed to when you signed up to this private website. So, try and find WP:CONSENSUS for your additions, but don't complain when/if you don't get exactly what you want. Choose one's battles wisely. ES&L 18:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

That's just a carte blanche invitation for the bullies. What the hell are all those principles and rules of ensuring balanced information behind this site for, if they can be freely ignored, just if a majority of users feels like it? Let's just give the articles on evolution over to the creationists, 'cause they are in majority in the community at large too, aren't they? --CEngelbrecht (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

IP user violating policies and now harassing me

This user is not just engaging in an edit war, but he is now harassing me by following any page I edit to start trouble. He is angry because I discovered numerous WP violations in his editing of the Inland taipan page. The thing is, the diff up there of what the article originally contained was done by User:Jmh649, who is a physician and an administrator here on Wikipedia. But this IP user is taking his anger out on me. My mission when I sign on WP was to expand and improve any venomous species article I can and eventually upgrade them to GA status, so I started with the Black mamba, which after a rigorous review attained GA status. I have given this IP user numerous warnings on all the different IP's he uses to no avail. An admin protectted the Inland taipan page, so now he is angry with me and is on a mission to harass me. I hold two degrees on the subject matter and he seems to be a silly amateur who has the attitude of "my snake is deadlier than yours" as you can see in his edit summaries. I finished with the black mamba article, so now I have nominated the Many-banded krait page for GA status, but it needs a lot of work. I have over 140 technical books and field guides on venomous snake species and access to full texts in online journals.I have worked with venomous snakes for years, so he is also ruining my reputation by following me around trying to discredit me at every turn. I am slowly beginning to lose interest in contributing to Wikipedia due to this user. I have articles that are nominated for GA status that I cannot work on because I am going in ciricles trying to get this person blocked, but nothing is being done. He is of no value here on Wiki, in my opinion. If he can't even contain his anger and and act civily or simple policies, than why should he be allowed to edit here? Something has to be done with this user who keeps using different IP's and is now harassing me only because I discovered his policy violations. Here is a short list of copyright vios I discovered on the Inland taipan page (there are many more):

• Duplicate detector
• Duplicate detector
• Duplicate detector
• Duplicator detector
• Duplicate detector

He, in my humble opinion, has zero value on Wikipedia. He clearly doesn't care about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, he's interested in his own POV and will not agree to consensus. This has been a long standing issue with him over the numerous IP's he uses. He is engaging in an edit war (I am not going to do anything about his latest revert) even though I have rollback option. I am going to leave it to you guys. His other IP's, which have all received warnings are: User talk:79.177.163.151, User talk:79.182.111.44, User talk:79.182.49.102, User talk:79.180.177.93, User talk:79.179.166.212. Resolution through discussion means nothing to him, Wikipedia policies and guidelines evidently mean nothing to him either.

Just today he made is edit warring at Snakebite:

1. diff
2. diff

And the problem is, he is blaming me for something I didn't do. User:Jmh649 (Doc James), who is a physician and an administrator, kept the list of 10 most venomous snakes. It wasn't me. But he is taking his anger out on me. I explained to him the reason the one list was kept was because it was more accurate based on scientific findings. But that doesn't matter to him, he reverted it anyways. I chose to do nothing because I need an administrator to take action. One of his edit summaries was "you cannot remove a major source just because you upset your favorite snake (black mamba) isn't on it" (diff). That is a veiled attack on my person, it suggests that I am some amateur who is trying to portray a particular snake that he believes is my favorite. He is projecting his own unsavory characteristic on me. Something must be done or this guy will just keep going. --DendroNaja (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I have rolled back Inland taipan to a revision from October 2013 to remove all copyright concerns. The IP will be difficult if not impossible to communicate with, as he is using a series of dynamic IPs. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Further checking shows the IP range is too large to block, so some page protections have been placed on his favourite targets by myself and others. I will watch -- Diannaa (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked Commons admin meatpuppeting to block account(s) here?

I'm just wondering if User:Russavia is still indefinitely blocked here?

In this edit on Commons Russavia says "it appears that you do not understand what being indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia means. I have just had your sock account on that project blocked." I've also noted that Russavia, on his talk page here, asked to have another user blocked. It seems to me that Russavia doesn't "understand what being indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia means."

I'd think the easiest way to let Russavia know that he is not wanted on this project, and that he should not avoid his block, is to remove access to his talkpage here. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that there's anything wrong with someone (in this case, Russavia) contacting admins on another project (in this case English Wikipedia) to say "Hey, just a heads up...something happened on this other wiki that might be of interest to your wiki." I've done that before. I don't think it's meatpuppetry in any way to let another project know that there is sockpuppetry going on on it. only (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You're not going to find many stronger advocates for "blocked means blocked" than me, but I agree with Only. As long as Russavia is not actually editing here, under any account name or IP, being indef blocked does not mean that he cannot talk to other editors via email or their account on other Wikis, any more than it means that he can't edit elsewhere. If anyone he contacts doesn't want to receive his advice or comments, I assume they're perfectly capable of saying "Please don't contact me again."

The only part of the complaint which is actionable is the use of the talk page. Nominally, a blocked editor should only use their talk page to discuss possible unblocks, so if Russavia is using his for other purposes, then I would agree that talk page access should be revoked. Otherwise, there's nothing else to do here, I don't think. BMK, Grumpy Realist (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually he has been very active at User talk:Russavia since he was blocked (about March), and none of it, as far as I can tell, is about possible unblocks or appeals. His only edit at User:Russavia [57] was also not about a possible unblock. I wouldn't mind a simple suggestion from Russavia to a Wikipedia admin, but what he appears to be doing is bragging that he can have people blocked on Wikipedia "I have just had your sock account on that project (Wikipedia) blocked." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's bragging in the context there; I think he's just infomring the user that he's seeing the user's pattern and he should knock it off (on both English and Commons). only (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Many aspects of the culture at Commons are problematic, but there is nothing wrong in this incident. There was reason to think that a certain user was doing bad things at Wikipedia, and an admin was asked to investigate—that is good (and standard procedure), and the comment was not boasting. It turned out (it is claimed—I haven't looked) that the problem user was a troll performing a joe job, but that was all the more reason to have them indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

As much as I think it'll be a cold day in hell before there is ever a consensus to unblock Russavia on this project again, I'm not sure what he's actually supposed to have done wrong here. He was something a bit sus, had an admin look at it here, and confirmed that there was some chicanery going on. Not sure what the problem is supposed to be. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC).

I'm the hell not going to switch off Russavia's talkpage access. Seems to me there is no reason to do so.

Situation 1: we switch off Russavia's talkpage access. Outcome 1: nothing of benefit at all

Situation 2: we don't switch off Russavia's talkpage access. Outcome 2: maybe some "long outstanding NFCC and copyright violations" images night get deleted. A benefit however small is better than no benefit at all

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's just leave the block as is (i.e. don't shut off his talkpage access). It is clear that Russavia is not causing any disruption through his talkpage. Epicgenius (talk)17:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is the word "admin" in the section heading? Grammatically, it's suggesting Russavia is an admin ES&L 11:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I've modified the title to be clearer. Blackmane (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - There was a recent ArbCom case regarding this very issue. Being indeffed means that the only reason for the editor to make edits on their Talk page is to request an unblock. Russavia has been directing other editors to make edits and perform tasks for him/her. That is obvious by looking at the Talk page history. I can't see any reason why an admin would not put an immediate stop to this. Right? Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Last year's arbcom were recently asked about this (not with respect to this user, but another one), and basically the answer was that it depends whether what the user is doing on their talkpage is disruptive or not. I don't think making people aware of copyright violations is disruptive. Some advice from participants in that previous discussion was that those who don't like to see what the banned editor is doing on their talkpage, should unwatchlist said talkpage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• The easiest way to let Russavia know that he is not wanted on this project is to enact a community ban. At the time of his block this prospect was raised and consensus was to let it wait a while. That was five months ago. It's now quite clear that he is still causing disruption on the English Wikipedia. This is absolutely and finally enough. Strongly propose community ban. — Scott • talk 12:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you at least provide one diff when requesting the community ban? We should take actions based on evidence, not just our feelings about one editor or another. (In the past the community ban process has been rightly criticized as votes for banning, where decisions were made upon social status rather than objective evidence.) Please show the most egregious misuse(s) of the talkpage that reflect an attempt to sabotage articles or disrupt the creation of articles. Jehochman ^Talk 12:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your narrow focus on the user talk page fails to consider the wider facts of the situation. I guess you haven't been following Commons politics, so allow me to bring you up to speed. Recently Russavia's cherished video of a man painting a picture of Jimbo Wales's face with his penis was deleted for being clear harassment as defined by the WMF's amended resolution on media about living people. That video was part of Russavia's long-running campaign of harassment and disruption on this site, for which he is rightfully indefinitely blocked. This campaign is now manifesting itself in new attempts to either disrupt this project or harass the WMF or individual editors (I do not know or care what Russavia's particular goal is). A week ago he used his talk page to attempt to request arbitration proceedings against an administrator; now he is posting about another English Wikipedia admin on a WMF mailing list. Meanwhile on Commons, as Smallbones notes, he's pontificating on "what being indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia means". This project needs to terminate any remaining association that this person has with it forthwith. — Scott • talk 14:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not Russavia's biggest fan, but... would a ban here stop Russavia doing things on Commons or on a WMF mailing list? I suspect that response would be punitive rather than preventive.

If Russavia's talkpage editing is a net negative (including any knock-on effects elsewhere) then I'd happily cut off the talkpage. But have Russavia's talkpage edits been a net negative? I'm not sure that they have. bobrayner (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• (outdent) what does blocked mean? If he's allowed to edit his talk page and get people to proxy edit for him then what's the point? Unblock him. Or enforce the policy the same way for everyone (because everyone here knows perfectly well that if this was someone else they would be told to go fish, have their talk page access restricted, and the people doing his proxy edits would be warned. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Inayity -- Disruptive Editing

Editor Inayity has been engaging in disruptive editing by refusing to build consensus or engage in discussion about my edits on the article for the Moors and it has been happening for quite some time now. I consistently ask him what is problem is with my edits but he refuses to tell me a specific problem or just a problem in general now. I find it ironic he has deemed me a "disruptive editor" yet he falls oh so perfectly into the #4 primer of disruptive editing. Obviously on the Moor page my consensus building has been going on for quite a period of time but recently it has gone nowhere and there is an ongoing stalemate due to the fact Inayity does not want to build consensus. The only editor on there who has attempted to build consensus recently was Pinkbeast but even then he reverted my edit for a reason not advised by Wikipedia and I also find it quite strange how Pinkbeast has responded for Inayity a few times too, seems a little suspicious tbh. I also wanted to point out most of Inayity's posts come off as barely-coherent and he even has used misquotes too.

Here is just one example that occurred recently and I could post more if you like. Here I say "new edits have been elaborated on the talk page -- please do not revert for a reason not advised by WP like last time, thank you" and then he responds with "rv to agreed stable version, rv disruptive editor" and does not even attempt to discuss these changes on the talk page like I did. I then respond with the following -- "You keep reverting without discussion on the talk page, stop. Go to the talk page for discussion, then we can go from there" which he responds with nothing but a reversion. You can then see my response to that blank reversion and his "disruptive editor" claim here and the last couple of the posts on the talk page and posts in general can give you more information on the situation. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This seems more suitable for WP:DRN because it is a content dispute. In fact, there are only two reversions in either direction (careful about violating WP:3RR, you two). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I felt that it might be more suitable for this page considering the fact how long it has been going on and like I basically just stated I could show more occurrences of him not acknowledging a problem with my editorial yet continuing to revert without even attempting to build consensus with me. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Erpert here that you should use some form of WP:Dispute resolution. Whatever you may think of Inayity's responses, it's not like they haven't responded. And so has another editor. Nil Einne (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

More than not respond take a look at how much discussion has gone on about the same ISSUE. Over and over again. Reinserting something two editors have said do not help the article. And still he edit wars. He is making these edits while doing some "useful" edit and then saying "what did i do wrong?" well what you did wrong was the same thing you have been doing wrong all week. So the soln is to disrupt the article by adding his pov (against the rest of us).--Inayity (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually my edits have changed and progressed over time. Two editors who have reverted my article for reasons not advised by Wikipedia and for poor reasons without failing to elaborate. If you sincerely believe my edits are so poor, why don't you be specific about the problem? I've told you my current issue with the article and even your recent additions, yet you can't seem to point out a fault with my editorial and ignore my questions when confronted with them which is the epitome of a disruptive editor by falling into that #4 aspect of the primer. Also who are you quoting with "what did i do wrong"? You're misquoting me again. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not a school teacher who is paid to correct your experiments with this article. review Paul disagrees, I disagree and so does Pinkbeast that is 3 which do not find your contributions helpful to this article.

Pinkbeast's reversion is for a reason not advised by Wikipedia and I already put that in the OP of this topic. Paul's reversion came awhile back before my editorial changed. You revert without failing to elaborate or point out a problem on multiple questionings and for a reason not advised by Wikipedia like Pink. So two reversions come from reasons not advised by Wikipedia and Inayity has failed to point out a problem with my editorial on multiple occasions when asked, not just in one questioning. I on the other hand have asserted my problem with the article and even on new changes recently like this one but Inayity can't point out a problem when asked multiple times. Nothing more than disruptive editing from Inayity who falls into that #4 part of the disruptive editing primer perfectly. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

70, what exactly are these "reasons not advised by Wikipedia" (paraphrased) that you keep referring to? Edits have to fit Wikipedia standards, true, but sometimes the reasoning behind said edits simply falls under common sense. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 03:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about the reversion of my edits by reverting simply because there is no consensus and it is advised by Wikipedia not to revert simply because no consensus. Yes, my new edits have been made to the article but I have been reverted for the 'because there is no consensus' reason that is advised not do. Inayity has used this excuse on the talk page and continues to fail to explain why he disagrees with my editorial personally, but will revert and say things like 'no consensus has been made so it's okay to revert' yet won't elaborate why he dissents with my edits. Unlike thyself who has made it explicit why he dissents with the article whether it be older versions of it or new additions to it.70.126.13.113 (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll put it simple for you. Whatever you may think the guidelines say, ultimately you need to achieve consensus for your edits. People shouldn't generally revert your edits simply because they have no consensus but sometimes it justified for various reasons. And more importantly, people don't need to provide detailed rationale for why they disagree with your edits, pointing out problems along with some minimal elaboration where necessary is often enough. And it's clear multiple people have discussed the edits with you, whatever you may think of those responses, so you cannot claim there has been no discussion. It's up to you to fix these problems if you can, via discussion. It's possible what you are proposing can simply never happen if the edits are that bad and can never lead to an improvement. It's important you take the feedback on board, if you continually propose the same thing without fixing the problems or can't see obvious problems with your edits which have been pointed out to you, people may start to think you lack the competence to edit wikipedia. If you feel people are being unreasonable, instead of continually trying to make the same or very similar edits when you know they are objected to or trying to get those opposed to your edits blocked or sanctioned, you should follow some form of dispute resolution. Such discussion will need to focus on the edits/content, not the behaviour of other parties. If you don't do this, the most likely thing which will happen is a boomerang block of you particularly since it appears multiple people object to your edits and you're the only one supporting them, suggesting consensus is more against them than in favour. Nil Einne (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I know that I need to achieve consensus for my edits, the thing is I can't achieve consensus when one is willing to revert my editorial yet not explain his problem with my ramifications. I am willing to discuss things in a civil fashion on an article whether it be in an edit summary or the talk page. This can't occur if I keep getting reverted yet the person mainly doing it doesn't explain why he dislikes my edits. I mean, how many times do I need to ask what his problem with my changes is? I'm not even asking for "detailed rationale", just a simple concise answer that he doesn't respond with.70.126.13.113 (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I see plenty of comments mentioning problems with your edits like

"The current version is far better and more encyclopedic than your version"

and

"Why dont you do your edit without deleting the existing sentences, integrate something"

and

"Do you realize your edit A. has no ref. B. is less nuanced that what you replaced it with. Critical info on the European usage of Moor is now missing: e term "Moors" has also been used in Europe in a broader sense to refer to Muslims".

I think you need to read more carefully the comments you are dismissing as 'barely coherent' etc.

And as I've hinted at, there should be no reverting any more. Not because the editors shouldn't be reverting you but because you need to propose your changes to the talk page, not continuing to make them when it's clear they are contentious. And do note it doesn't matter whether the person reverting has offered that much feedback (although it seems they have), if others have pointed out problems with your edits you need to resolve their concerns rather than ignoring them because they are not the one reverting you. You can assume that anyone reverting likely has similar concerns even if they have not said so specifically.

And as I've said two times, and someone else at least once (and I think even the person you're complaining about has suggested this), if you really can't resolve the issue among existing editors, you're welcome to seek external help via some form of dispute resolution. If your claims are really true (although they don't seem it to me) the others involved will either need to offer proper feedback or stop opposing.

P.S. Making personal attacks like calling someone illiterate doesn't help you in any way.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

His responses to my edits were a long time ago and as I aforementioned my edits have changed and progressed over time. He hasn't responded to my new changes properly. I will propose my new changes to the talk page and go from there though -- hopefully editors actually respond properly this time and tell me their problems with my new proposal. You can close/delete this thread now. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want people to take you seriously, you should refrain from encouraging meatpuppetry. And when I said you should request external help, I meant external to the existing discussion, not asking on 4chan and I definitely did not mean you should tell people what to say. Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Abitoby - Obvious sock is obvious

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

---

After getting a final warning [58] for advertising (he's been doing similar edits to other articles) and a customized message [59] for these edits: [60], [61], Abitoby has decided to log out and edit as an IP [62], [63] despite being warned [64], [65] and made his socking obvious [66]. Perhaps because of ownership issues [67] for which he's been warned about before [68]. Can both the IP and registered user be temporarily blocked for edit-warring/advertising/sockpuppetting with a warning that similar behavior will lead to longer blocks? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Please make a report at WP:SPI.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I've seen obvious socks (no investigation needed, checkuser not appropriate) dealt with promptly here. However if an admin feels a SPI is the way to go, I will open one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Requesting strings of text to be added to spam filter

Refer to the edits of Special:Contributions/108.46.116.163 and Special:Contributions/74.72.109.206. 108.* was blocked first for disruptive editing (the mass copypasting of patent nonsense on article talk pages), and later 74.* ended up doing the exact same thing. Both IPs come from the same geographical location, and are spewing some crazy fanatical conservative Christian message from a South Korean church with text varying between 200,000 and 600,000 bytes. Since this has happened before, I predict that this person will hop IPs and do the same thing again in the future; I think bible passages written in Korean should be added to the global spam filter. I really doubt that anyone will be acting in good faith when they're spamming bible passages in Korean on an English-language project. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this is probably fine given the scale of disruption.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

For clarification what are you asking for? I'm not aware that there is any global spam filter, except for the URL blacklist (both the wikimedia one and the local one) which don't sound like they will help here. Are you recommending an edit filter be constructed? That sounds okay in theory. I don't imagine we can block the entire Korean bible, it's too long part and there must be many translations plus even if we could block something that long, choosing an appropriate sensitivity would be difficult. You'd need a much more generic filter which tries to detect such unwelcome additions. I know very little about filter design but I imagine it may be possible since such additions would likely include some common features like frequent mention of god or jesus and other such stuff. The length, possible limited IP ranges and targets for these additions would probably also help (as while people asking questions or responding on Korean would be okay in some places like the embassy, it would generally not be encouraged in article talk pages although we do need to take care as e.g. it would often be necessary when discussing sources in Korean so would likely arise in Korea related articles). Unless the IP is incompetent or has a very specific purpose, I don't think just blocking the current passages would help as I imagine they would move on to some other bible passages (and as I suggested, there is a lot for them to choose from). Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeesh. My initial idea was to put in an edit filter to block contribs that contain greater than 30,000 bytes of nothing but Korean characters, whitespace characters, and punctuation... but looking at this edit, this won't be that simple to detect. How many IPs have been used? If it's more than a few, it's possible that a rangeblock could be constructed. It doesn't look like semi-protection will help given there's neither rhyme nor reason to the articles selected. I also suggest that these be revdeled for now: I can't tell, but from reading the obviously machine-generated translation in the last diff above, it's possible that they're publishing something defamatory. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

They're not all Korean. Some of them have Japanese, Chinese, Russian, and English text. Edits like this in multiple languages, would be easier to detect, but the filter for that would be harder to construct. Epicgenius (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The Japanese, Chinese, Russian, and English are all Google Translated from the original Korean. This is why the English reads like a machine translation. I haven't read the whole thing, but the text is about some guy who is severely ill and underwent treatment, and then drones on and on about the meaning of God's salvation, and then takes entries from the Gospel of Luke. He then gives some Korean dude's New York phone number (the dude's name is Mr. Yung Hoon or something). --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

How is the filter supposed to detect Bible passages written in Korean from other texts written in Korean? Blocking the second half of the book of Isaiah won't be particularly helpful, and anyway macaronic comments should be enabled because sometimes editors need to examine translations in their talk page discussions. We don't particularly need to worry about this guy's edits to mainspace, since they're so huge that they easily got reverted by Cluebot. I'm thinking it best to put in an edit filter to block text that includes a massive number of English and Korean characters to talk pages, or if that's not possible, just to RBI and impose a rangeblock if possible. It's not as if this kind of thing could be called "sneaky vandalism". Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that it's cost-effective to construct an editfilter which will catch future edits (they may change what they post), but which will have a low level of false-positives, but on that point I'd happily defer to people who know more about editfilters than I do.

However, the edits in article-space have been swiftly cleaned up by ClueBot and the rest are easily dealt with by human editors, and the total number of edits isn't particularly large, so this isn't a crisis. If another IP appeared, presumably somebody could block it...? (Of course, semiprotection is no use against an editor who picks a different article each time) bobrayner (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, having thought about it a bit more, I have to agree with Nyttend and Bobrayner; this isn't the sort of vandalism that bots or Hugglers have trouble detecting and reverting. As to the size of the text dumped, I seem to recall a tenet here of not worrying about system resources in that way (I couldn't find a link for this though). While we're stuck with the text on the servers probably forever, it doesn't really fall to us to make those kinds of calls. So what we do from here is treat it like any other set of IPs engaging in random vandalism: revert, block, and ignore (and think about rangeblocks or abuse reports if need be). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I want to report administrator GiantSnowman

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

---

Hi. I was editing an article of a recently deceased person and mainly its impact around the world. As the person in question died today, the reactions are very recent aswell. So I was adding them and everytime I added them some new reaction of a noteworthy person came along. And as so I failed to reference some. At the rate I was editing I was going to add the missing references until the so called admin GiantSnowman came along and started relentlessly reverting everything I was writing. The time I spent writing everything and the time I spent verifying all the sources gone, flushed down the toilet. Of course I told him I knew what I was doing. But he kept reverting. I was trying to add the missing references but nothing. He kept reverting. On and on. I even posted some missing references in his talkpage but to no avail. Then when he realized another user (311dot) thought I should be given a chance, he suddenly stopped harassing me. He then proceeded inviting me to add the references stating he would not be reverting anything else. Don't you think that a person who spends so much time harassing others could at least offer some kind of help? Well, GiantSnowman surely didn't. Furthermore he called me a diva when replying to my question. I asked him where the admin reports were located and refused to do so. Of course I persisted and he eventually gave in. He now plays the victim and pretends he just now realizes he was wrong all the time, even when I told him multiple times that what I was doing was right. I want you to decide if you should revoke his admin status since he has failed what Wikipedia administrators should be doing, help its users and engage them in a constructive way. All the time I've been worrying with this could be time spent in working and better construct the article that caused this. Thank you. Tibullus (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You added unsourced information to a biographical article for a recently deceased person - WP:BLP applies. If you had a reference, why didn't you add the reference before saving? Hack (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article in question is Eusébio‎. Long story short, Tibullus has been editing this WP:BDP, adding unreferenced quotes attributed to WP:BLPs. I removed the unreferenced information, and Tibullus re-added, so I re-removed in line with policy. This went on a few times. At no point did Tibullus ever even attempt to add references for the material they were adding - material that, I would like to remind you, related to one BDP and numerous BLPs. I invited them to add the references before saving the edit, but they never did. And yes I called them a WP:DIVA, but that was for threatening to leave Wikipedia over the matter. WP:BOOMERANG should apply here but I, as ever, welcome the wider view of the community. The full interaction can be found between our respective talk pages. GiantSnowman 17:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You know why I readded them? So I could add the references. Tibullus (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think the fact that you failed to reference your additions to the article (and hence they kept being reverted) reflects badly on GiantSnowman. Perhaps you could have taken his advice and actually referenced them the first time he asked you to. Or the second, or the third, or the fourth.... Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You're saying that because you're an administrator and you have to watch each other's backs eh? I dont know how you work but I had endless tabs linking me to the sourced material. Don't you for a second think that I was a little bit upset when someone deleted everthing I was working on? Didn't it occur to you that I might have wanted the admin in question see that what I was doing was right? Tibullus (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• GS did no wrong. Tibullus, you seriously need to chill out. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I would add them, but as I was editing and I clicked save a warning showed up saying there was an edit conflict. Then I checked who it was and everytime it was GiantSnowman reverting my edits. So I could not add the references, because simply the sentences I wanted to add the references were being erased by GiantSnowman. Oh I need to chill? Tell that to the admin in question. He spent so much time annoying and bullying a user who has been here since 2007. Tibullus (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

As I advised you multiple times you should have added the references before clicking save. But what you did - numerous times - was revert me to re-add the unreferenced material. Please listen to us, don't be so stubborn, we are trying to help. GiantSnowman 17:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You are trying to help each other that's what you're doing. I think you should have checked my background to see I was a trusted user. But you didn't, did you? I'm not editing that article anymore if that was your goal in the first place. Tibullus (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@Tibullus: Rather than complain about GiantSnowman, you should listen to him and you might become a better editor. JMHamo (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Tell him that. He never listened. He never gave me a chance. You are all biased, that's what you are. I've proven myself here but to you what it matters is a little punny 'admin' tittle to make yourselves reliable and give you the right to treat others like crap. Tibullus (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• WP:BLP explicitly covers recently-dead people. That means that policy says that unreferenced information about such a person is allowed to be, and often should, be removed immediately. Unverified information about living or recently-dead people is a very serious concern because it can affect the real-life reputation of the person of their loved ones. GiantSnowman doesn't appear to have done a fantastic job explaining that to you, so it's understandable that his reverts got your back up, but ultimately policy supports his actions. Going forward, I think the best resolution here is that you, Tibullus, be aware that living and recently-dead people are a special case on Wikipedia where you should pretty much never make a substantive edit without, within that edit or immediately after, providing a reliable source back up that edit. If you're asked to provide a source or if your edits are reverted as unsourced, you need to provide that source at the time of any edit involving that information. That means not two hours later, not twenty minutes later, not in the next edit five minutes later, but at the time of. Sometimes the information isn't hugely contentious, and it might seem silly to have to source it right then and there, but everything posted on Wikipedia articles is live immediately, and to do justice to our readers and our BLP article subjects, verification needs to be paired with the addition.

  At the same time, I'd say that GiantSnowman, if you're going to enforce BDP (or BLP) to someone who doesn't seem to get it, you'll get better results if you take the time to explain the situation to them, explicitly and with something other than three-letter acronyms. Yes, policy supports reverting, and yes, a block can be used against someone violating BLP, but surely it's better to just take the time to explain fully rather than curtly, and thus not have to block?

  In short, this seems to have been a case of two people talking past each other and getting snippy. This could have easily been avoided by user 1 adding sources at the time of the edits, and/or by user 2 spelling out how and why WP:BDP applied. Let's try that in the future, shall we? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, I fully acknowledge now that I should have spent a bit of time explaining why BDP applied here - though I did/do expect a user who has been here since 2007 (as he reminded me numerous times - including at this very thread!) should already have knowledge of that. GiantSnowman 17:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't pretend you're the victim here. Suits you bad. Do you really expect a regular user to be as knownledgeable as an admin in regard to Wikipedia's policy? You're just trying to clean the mess you did, the dirt you did. Yes, I know I should have added them since the very beginning but consider I had like 15 tabs, don't you think I wanted to get some done, and then immediately do the others? Tibullus (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For future encounters of this type I recommend editors be encouraged to use their sandboxes to assemble the content and references, and then copy/paste into the article in one swell foop. NE Ent 21:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Come on NE Ent--no copying and pasting: moving is preferred, to preserve the history. Fo shizzle! Drmies (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Ancient Egyptian race controversy, DNA history of Egypt, Black Egyptian Hypothesis, Population history of Egypt-5 to 6 years of editor proliferation of articles, WP:Ownership and POV pushing

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

---

Note: this was filed at WP:DRN:

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Black Egyptian Hypothesis,

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Population history of Egypt.

Both cases have been closed; as it says at the top of WP:DRN, we cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. The case can be re-filed (just one DRN case; no need for two) after this ANI report is closed or archived. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Over the past 5-6 years a small cadre of editors have become "brothers of faith" to proliferate multiple articles about nearly identical topics, assert WP:Ownership over these pages and POV push and drive away editors who do not affirm their point of view. This has gone largely unchecked, although the complaints by less experienced editors facing these roadblocks to editors are legion. Their creation of these many articles on the same topic has allowed them to exhaust the time and patience of any editor attempting to include any viewpoint in these articles that they do not agree with. In contrast, miscited or misrepresented content that does support their POV remains unchecked and unaddressed and remains stable in the articles for years, one example of this is: Talk:DNA history of Egypt#How could everyone miss this for so long? which was left intact by this small cadre of editors while constructive edits were thwarted. The talk page of one of these editors, wdford, in fact lays out the tactics used by this small cadre of editors quite explicitly and quite well by these "brothers of the faith."

Who: Editors involved, some in the small cadre of "brothers of faith,"and others who have attempted to oppose it-Dougweller, Aua, wdford,, yalens, dbachmann, eyetruth, ( some who've attempted to oppose:drlewisphd, Dailey78)

What: A small cadre of editors have pushed their POV over the past 5-6 years thwarting any attempts to include material that dimishes their point of view, helped by their proliferation of multiple articles on almost exactly the same topics to exhaust the time and patience of editors, especially inexperienced ones, forced to discuss on four separate talk pages any inclusions of information in these four articles that offends their POV

When:Over the past 5-6 years, from 2008

Where: Ancient Egyptian race controversy/Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy, Black Egyptian Hypothesis/Talk:Black Egyptian Hypothesis, DNA history of Egypt/Talk:DNA history of Egypt, Population history of Egypt/Talk:Population history of Egypt, and probably many more related articles regarding race of ancient Egyptians, but these are the ones I have been active on and am actually aware of

Why: Pushing their POV, confusing and confounding any editors attempting to make changes that offend their point of view, creating ownership of the topic, supporting their "brothers of the faith."

How:As this is done systematically over 5-6 years, many editors who lack the time and patience to deal with multiple talk pages over many years and many many editors are confounded in their attempts to include information that offends their POV. Intimidation tactics for any editors who attempt, like that experienced by me, are legion and do not violate the letter although they violate the spirit of Wikipedia as a collaborative forum.

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andajara120000 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

What administrative action do you believe is necessary here? Why have you brought this here and not to a dispute resolution venue? only (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Some investigation of the actions of these cadre of editors and what it has led to. Many, many dispute resolution attempts have been made by multiple editors on these issues of Sub-Saharan affiliations of the Ancient Egyptians as it relates to these different pages-many different studies and many different articles have been involved over the years, the proliferation of articles has occurred in order to mask the clear patterns of which editors specifically have been controlling the content on this topic and how it has been done. The issue is that the pattern and the creation of the "brothers of the faith" has not been clearly scrutinized or identified as of yet. This is a concerted attempt to muzzle other voices by creating a proliferation of articles and violating the spirit but not the rule of wikipedia and it has been extremely, extremely, overwhelmingly effective over the past 5-6 years. I think that is a concern for everyone who sees Wikipedia as a collaborative forum that leads to accuracy and balance in the articles on Wikipedia. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Not commenting on whether admin action would be required, this article by nature (now three years old) is a good start for reviewing the controversy. -Darouet (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You just opened two DRN threads (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Population_history_of_Egypt and Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Black_Egyptian_Hypothesis. You copied and pasted long threads on four talk pages. It seems like you're forum shopping here. (And I just noticed this one too: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Black Egyptian Hypothesis). only (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No those were in regards to the content issues I have identified. This in contrast is in regards to the conduct of these editors identified over the years. Even if my content disputes are completely overruled, I still assert this conduct and its success over the years in violating the spirit of collaboration on Wikipedia is problematic and disturbing on a number of levels and that without some scrutiny this will continue to go on for decades and other editors will face the same exact issues over and over again as previous editors have as well. I have been lucky enough to have the time to follow through on what I have seen and investigated the conduct over the past 5-6 years to draw your attention to it, but future editors may not realize it or have the time to bring it forward. And rest assured, if evidence from the past 5-6 years is considered, it will not stop.Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Andajara120000, how about waiting for DRN results (either one of them, really)? I'm not sure what you want sysops to do, even if the complaint had any basis in legitimacy. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 18:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I am speaking of this conduct-I am willing to follow whatever procedures is necessary but this chills me to the bone. This whole "brothers of the faith" issue chills me to the core and I would think sooner rather than later. I am more than willing to go through the various DRN processes as many editors have done before as well, but as I indicated I believe this is no ordinary conduct issue, at least in my opinion. I am willing to go through whatever steps are necessary before this is scrutinized, just to have this seen and considered. It is chilling. I believe if left unchecked will continue to be effective for the next 5-6 years, if not decades. This is no ordinary conduct, ordinary cadre of editors, ordinary issue at least the way I have read things from my own investigations and I would like others to make similar investigations as well as I think to keep Wikipedia as a collaborative, safe, welcoming forum for all users who wish to be constructive this kind of conduct must be looked at carefully. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this belongs on WP:RFM or DRN. Epicgenius (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• 6 years of editing by multiple editors is generally too much for this Incident board to handle in a single thread. DRN's have been opened. No editors named have been notified and the allegations are rather vague and without diffs. By all means pursueWP:Dispute resolution before ANI. It is possible you will come to some agreement that way -- it happens. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have notified all of them on their pages-maybe it did not go through? My concern as I have presented it is that I don't think there is any kind of agreement that can be made. At least from the past 5-6 years there seems to be a specific POV of a small cadre of editors, one who has been named a "brother of the faith" and has the tactics listed on his own talk page-wdford. This has been very cleverly thought out, administrator-level issues, common editors are just not equipped to handle this as their overwhelming success over the years shows. These common editors have been overwhelmed by these "brothers of the faith," exhausted, humiliated and intimidated in their efforts as systematically these "brothers of the faith" have overwhelmingly succeeded in their goals. I think some scrutiny of this conduct and I would be more than willing to provide more specific evidence will allow Wikipedia to be a safe, collaborative atmosphere for all editors, not just those who can allay with "brothers of the faith," proliferate multiple articles on the same topic, discuss similar issues on four different talk pages, continue on their concerted efforts for 5-6 years etc. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you realize that the "brothers of faith" thing is a joke from this humorous essay. There is no conspiracy there. only (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not think it is funny at all. Not when the consequences of these 5-6 years of concerted and allied efforts are considered. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Diffs? You will need quite a few of them to prove such a conspiracy. What POV are they pursuing? Again more diffs. What prior dispute resolution? -- more diffs. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay I will do so right now below. I am just happy this is getting some attention and consideration. I will attempt to provide the evidence in an organized and clear manner below. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@Andajara120000: I understand you feel passionately that you would like to correct what you perceive as 5 years of wrong doing on a series of articles but, even if true, it cannot be undone in a few days. You need to proceed one step at a time. In less than 48hrs you have submitted two cases at DRN, one at Mediation and one here at ANI. This is not going to get you anywhere, you need to decide which venue you want to approach. I suggest that you follow through with the Mediation (a content resolution venue) and then build on the result you get there. If the participants refuse to participate in mediation then they will likely not participate in DRN either in which case you might file a report at WP:AN ((a behavioral resolution venue) rather than here at ANI which is for incidents no so much long term problems. In either case (ANI or AN) you are going to need very convincing proof in the form of diffs. Because you have filed for mediation and you have opened a thread here at ANI, both of the cases you opened at DRN have been closed as DRN guidelines prohibit cases in multiple venues. So slow down and good luck,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay thank you. I am willing to take the time to see this through and provide convincing proof and am grateful for your respectful consideration. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what any of this "evidence" is proving. It's just a random list of comments on talk pages and article creations. I see nothing that proves POV pushing or 5-6 years of "thwarting any attempts to include material that dimishes their point of view." Again, you quote the "brothers of faith" thing, but that's just a copy any paste from a humorous essay about "how to win an edit war." only (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm adding to each section the most relevant evidence I can find, there are three categories of evidence-the Article Revision Histories and Article Talk Pages, the Administrative Noticeboards/Dispute Resolution Noticeboards and the User Talk Pages. Regards,Andajara120000 (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Collapsed for readability (of ANI)

Evidence from Article Revision Histories and Article Talk Pages Ancient Egyptian race controversy: Ancient Egyptian race controversy Created: 15 August 2008 by Moreschi ("Created page with 'Controversy surrounding the race of ancient Egyptians have been a persistent meme in [[Afrocentrism|A...'") Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy&diff=589270673&oldid=232143867 DNA history of Egypt:DNA history of Egypt Created: 4 February 2013 by Wdford ("created a new article from material in DNA history of Ancient Egypt" Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DNA_history_of_Egypt&diff=589290149&oldid=536543540 Population history of Egypt:Population history of Egypt Created: 15 June 2009 by Dbachmann ("import from Ancient Egyptian race controversy"): Diff:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_history_of_Egypt&diff=589290764&oldid=296502182 Black Egyptian Hypothesis:Black Egyptian Hypothesis Created: 17 October 2012 by Wdford ("created new artcle as a spin-off from Ancient Egyptian race controversy") Diff:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Egyptian_Hypothesis&diff=589287690&oldid=518274123 [DELETED AND REDIRECTED TO DNA HISTORY OF EGYPT on 4 February 2013:DNA History of Ancient Egypt:[[DNA history of Ancient Egypt-https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DNA_history_of_Ancient_Egypt&redirect=no] Created: 18 January 2013 by Wdford ("created a new article to collect and rationalize material on this topic in various other articles." Diff:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DNA_history_of_Ancient_Egypt&diff=539005592&oldid=533667717 Evidence from Dispute Notice Board/Administrator Notice Boards *Aua *Dbachmann *Dougweller FILED BY DOUGWELLER AGAINST SIRSHAWN, INVOLVING WDFORD JUNE 2012 Ancient Egyptian race controversy Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_33#Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy Editors involved: Wdford & Dougweller versus SirShawn & GreenUniverse Decision: Unclear, closed Selected Quotes:"." "We have a new editor, SirShawn, who doesn't appear willing to acknowledge this and is not only adding material that is not about the history of the debate, but is arguing the debate in a pov way. I and another editor have tried to discuss this on the talk page but have gotten nowhere. Three editors have reverted him, Wdford then replacing some material of his that is relevant to the article. SirShawn's latest comments have included insults and the statement "Your attempts to revert the edits from back to what they were is nothing more than biased censorship and blatant lies (in the case of the non existent 90% commonality between ancient and modern claim). If you wish to play a game in which you get as many biased people to unwarrantably undo my positive and up to date contributions to this article in an attempt to start an edit war than please believe that I will get twice as many people to support my actions!"" "How do you think we can help? Explain to SirShawn the importance of gaining consensus and presenting material in an NPOV manner. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC) " "Edit warring, and accusing other editors of partisan editing, particularly when they're relying on reliable sources, are disruptive and not conducive to the editing process. Calm down, read review articles and field reviews of the topic, and if you're convinced that the article's topic needs to change from reporting the scholarly controversy, to taking the position of one side in the controversy (as a result of that side's position being accepted in multiple current field reviews), then discuss this with other editors on the Talk: page of the article before editing.' Fifelfoo (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)" " One poster (WDford) attempted to say that somehow argue that including these sources were a POV because they were cited "Afrocentric" scholars. When I pretty much debunked that assertion (see the talk page), he nor anyone else responded. As evident by the talk page these users aren't trying to be logical in their decisions. They are emotionally attached to certain ideas, and are simply trying to bully their views into place with a so called "consensus" to be unreasonable. SirShawn (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)" " @ Doug, Well from my POV on attitude is irrelevant as I have another POV. I've attempted to logically discuss this issue of my contributions with you two on the talk page, but in every instance both of you state your opinions and ignore my response. From there with your lack of a response continued to revert my edits using bullying tactics with claims of a 2 to 1 consensus. That shows in unwillingness on you all's part to compromise.SirShawn (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)" *Eyetruth *Wdford' FILED AGAINST WDFORD BY ZARA1709 JULY 2009 Disruptive Editing by Wdford at Ancient Egyptian race controversy Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#Disruptive_editing_by_Wdford_at_Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy Resolution:Article on probation (?) Selected Comments: "Many of you might be aware, recently there were several editors banned from the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy. One of these editors, Wdford, had his ban lifted today. Almost immediately, he started editing the article; As I looked at his edits roughly one hour ago, I objected to them; I was about to explain my objection with more detail on the article talk page, by Wdford has already reverted me and I fear that this is about to escalate into another edit war. It might turn out in the discussion that my objection is unjustified, but in any case, Wdford would have to allow the time for a discussion before he reverts again. Otherwise he is not trying to find a consensus, and I think it is justified to call that disruptive editing. Zara1709 (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" "Zara along with other editors on the article talk page are currently trying to work out some sort direction for this article before proceeding with adding content(which is a wise idea),this is a very contentious and highly controversial subject ,i would suggest a full and indefinate article protect until consensus can be met and before full blown edit wars break out,the article is on probation--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC) "What I've seen is Wdford adding material that does not relate so much to the history of the controversy, which is what the article was meant to be about and even at least some of the still-banned editors seemed to agree on that, but to the controversy itself. This is not promising. Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" " Regardless of anything else, the edits by Wdford were very large. Doing such large edits to an article with such a fraught history, without any prior talk page discussion, ought to be grounds for reimposing the article ban. If editors won't make any effort to work cooperatively, they must be kept away from articles like this. Looie496 (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" "First, this is a content dispute and thus not within the remit of ANI. Second, I have a great idea: delete the freaking article and invite all the SPAs who are DEFENDING THE TRUTH! to enjoy the wide Internet beyond Wikipedia. This stupid article has been the subject of approximately one AN/I post per week for ages, and it's beyond tiresome at this point. Alternatively, perhaps an admin with some balls could simply topicban everyone who has edited the article more than once in the last 90 days, instantly ban any brand new accounts that show up to it, and generally remove the utterly stupid editwarring that has been going on here since Tutankhamun was a small child. Let some neutral people work on it without the intense POV-pushing of the regulars. Then again, that would probably be far too logical a response. I mean seriously; the kids can't play well together, so take away their damn toys already. → ROUX ₪ 19:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC) " "Agreed - it's a hideous mess of unsourced statements, maintenance tags, original resource and synthesis. The Liancourt Rocks method of stubbing it to clearly sourceable statements may work, but I'd have to say that Wikipedia wouldn't be any worse off if it didn't exist. At the moment, it's just a time sink for editors who've got better things to do. Black Kite 20:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC") "Ah, so people who continually abuse their editing privileges--note, for example, your topicban--and waste other peoples' time should... be allowed to continue abusing their editing privileges and wasting other peoples' time? I think not. So, two proposals. Draconian? Sure. Ends the disruptive bullshit once and for all? Absolutely, and necessary in a wide number of areas across Wikipedia. → ROUX ₪ 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" " (unindent) There seems to be some confusion amongst recently arrived editors to AErc about what the title of the article means. As Dougweller has already said, it is about the historically recorded debate about the "race" of the Ancient Egyptians and those who have taken part in it. It is not a forum for wikipedian editors to provide fresh material to debate. In addition, there are already plenty of articles on Ancient Egypt and egyptology: this is not one of them. Mathsci (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" " And I find just about everything you do disruptive. So your point is..? This sort of disruption does not end until either one side blinks (not going to happen), or the people pushing POVs are banned. They are unwilling to give any ground--see also the various nationalistic disputes, the recent ArbCom ruling regarding Scientology, etc. NPOV is a foundational issue and is non-negotiable. It's time to recognise that just because anyone can edit, it doesn't mean everyone should. → ROUX ₪ 21:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" "It is an attempt to do something about these sorts of recurring and insolvable issues. Well, I say insolvable; what I actually mean is that nobody has the gumption to do anything about it because they cling to AGF in the face of all evidence to the contrary that people involved in highly-POV nonsense like this will ever back off, even the smallest amount. The thing is, for people involved in such disputes, the dispute is intensely personal. They are upholding TRUTH, and no amount of argument is going to sway them otherwise. So, treat them like the squalling teenagers that they are, and ground them for the duration. These disputes are a major problem for Wikipedia, and the general unwillingness to deal with them is a result of the AGF-as-suicide-pact mentioned above, the inevitable pileons that result when someone does anything to upset the status quo (and seriously, the status quo is broken; innovate or die), or fear of being subjected to the bizarre attitude of ArbCom as recently exemplified by its desysopping of FutPerf who made some intemperate remarks after ages of being one of the very few administrators with the interest and expertise to deal with a specific locus of nationalistic dispute, from which this AERC dispute is semantically indistinguishable. Believe it or not, this proposal--extreme though it may be--comes after much thought about how to handle such disputes. Whatever else you may think, it is apparent that our current method of handling these issues is laughably insufficient, and pretty much anything would be an improvement. What it boils down to is a simple question: are we attempting to build a relatively reliable encyclopedia here, or not? If the answer is yes, then the only logical action that follows is to terminate (amongst other things that assail the reliability of the project) POV-pushing nonsense with extreme prejudice. If the answer is no, then we're all just wanking anyway and we may as well just transwiki everything to Encyclopedia Dramatica and call it a day. → ROUX ₪ 23:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" FILED AGAINST WDFORD BY ZARA1709 AUGUST 2009:Edit warring at Ancient Egyptian race controversy continued Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive557#Edit_warring_at_Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy_continued Outcome:" Resolved: For now, at least. Full protection imposed on page. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 07:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)" Selected quotes: "Anyone remember Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#Disruptive editing by Wdford' at Ancient Egyptian race controversy? That was a little more then a week ago. Yesterday I actually added my first new contribution to the article, the first sentence: "The Controversy surrounding the race of ancient Egyptians involved Eurocentric and Afrocentric considerations in the 19th and 20th Century." I have more than one reference for the term "Eurocentric"; this is provided at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy#Towards an acceptable lead parapgraph (typo sic). However, Wdford, whom you might know from the preceding discussion, vehemently opposed this one sentence, but I still can't figure out what his editorial argument for his opposition is, actually. He is saying that this is an "inappropriate POV statement" diff, but actually all I did was to refer to one of the best non-partisan sources I could find. The statement was (in a slightly different form) previously present in the article and simply flagged with 'citation needed', before Wdford removed all flagged statements from the article. diff. I think that "Eurocentric considerations" need to be mentioned in the lead. Just look at the statement of the historian to whom I referred...In any case, I can't work at the article under these conditions. If this wasn't actually a notable topic, I would have already proposed the article for deletion, but the topic is notable and I could write an article - just not under these conditions. So could an admin please take a good look a the issue? 'Zara1709 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC) ""This article is plagued by editors with fringe POV who start edit wars on purpose." I couldn't have put it better. That only leaves the question who the editor with the fringe POV is. And it is certainly not me because I don't even have an individual point-of-view. Really, I wouldn't know what that POV should be. All I did was look up what the reliable sources, which I had previously identified, have to say on "Eurocentric", and I came to the conclusion that is is an appropriate term to describe one side of the controversy in the lead paragraph. From what he has written on the talk page, I wouldn't even know that Wdford understands the difference between an editors POV and that, what reliable sources have to say, and I suspect that I could discuss this issue for about a month and Wdford still wouldn't understand. SO it is necessary to speed things up a little. Zara1709 (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)" "I suggest the top 10 contributors to the article and the talkpage be topicbanned for six months. Let non-SPAs do something about this article. Alternatively, delete and salt the nonsense. If nothing else, the name that keeps on coming up here as being non-constructive is Wdford, so a topicban there at the very least would reduce a lot of this ridiculous disruption. → ROUX ₪ 15:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "This is from the December 1996 issue of the Journal of American History: (stable link). If the Organization of American Historians, or at least the board of editors of their journal, doesn't have a problem with describing one side of the controversy as "Eurocentric", why would Wikipedia? The only reason can be that some editors at Wikipedia disregard reliable sources and rather write articles based on their own POVs. Of course, you could simply ban all involved editors, but that wouldn't solve the problem, because sooner or later some more come along. Even deletion wouldn't solve the problem, sooner or later someone is going to recreate an article on the issue, because the topic is, as one historian would put it, the battlefield of a "culture war" in the United States. Zara1709 (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)" " "Wdford has already been banned from this article before. His block was commuted here [11]. Now, less than two weeks later, he's at it again. Is there any reason why he shouldn't be rebanned immediately? I'm rather inclined to ban Zara1709, also, since he/she seems to be pretty consistently edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Though looking closer, it appears that at least Zara is trying to include sourced content, not unsourced like Wdford, so perhaps that should be a mitigating factor. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC) " " had retreated from the article roughly 6 months ago; I returned because I perceived an opportunity to fix the article; it appears that I was wrong with that. Previously I have broken 3rr in other controversies, but this was because in both cases statements from reliable sources that I had added were removed without justification from the respective articles. Wdford is trying to pull the same stunt here - removing the view of reliable sources from the article without going into a discussion based on these sources. I have mentioned 3 academic sources so far that describe one side involved in the controversy as "Eurocentric." However, even if I would throw another dozen sources at Wdford, he would still refuse to acknowledge the view of reliable sources. The topic of this article, Ancient Egyptian race controversy, extremely controversial. I actually have found two historians by know who describe it as culture war. I think I can honestly say that I am the only editor at Wikipedia I know who has an overview about this controversy, but there is no reason why I would have to work on the article. Unlike other editors I don't have a special point-of-view that I need to propagate through Wikipedia. I do think that having a good article on the topic would help the Americans find a truce in their cultural war, but that is not enough motivation for me to keep up with this. So unless I get an affirmation that articles on Wikipedia should be based in reliable sources (and not on individual editor's pov), I will simply retreat from the article. For already in the my first comment on my edit I made clear that this sentence was based on a reliable source, and Wdford can't possibly intent to write an article based on reliable sources when he argues against that sentence by calling it a "blatantly Afrocentric opening sentence". diff He should know that the historian I've quoted is not an Afrocentrist; he should at least have stopped to revert when I brought a quote from another historian, Stephen Howe, to whom he later himself referred. As far as reliable sources go, I don't need to put up with this, and I will not. Since it is rather unlikely that there will be another editor who could write a balanced article on the controversy (all you can expect from the other currently involved editors is material on skin color, skull shapes and Y-chromosomes), I would suggest that you propose that article for deletion. Zara1709 (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)" NOVEMBER 2009 FILED AGAINST WDFORD BY ZARA1709 BY Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive575 (section Harassment by User:Wdford) Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive575 -- section Harassment by User:Wdford Selected Quotes:: Background (I): It is now almost three years since I've made the first of my altogether 5000+ edits at Wikipedia, and I've learned at lot during these 3 years. So, at the upcoming Friday, at 10 a.m. local time, I will be giving a 30 minute presentation on Wikipedia at my University, for about 20-30 undergraduate students who are studying to become grammar school teachers and are having a session on web 2.0 teaching materials. One part of my presentation will be concerned with editing experience at Wikipedia, any I will give an honest account of my experience. Currently I am considering telling the students this story: Background (II): Some articles at Wikipedia are about highly controversial topics. One of them is the article "Ancient Egyptian race controversy". The controversy is about the question which skin colour the ancient Egyptians had. Why is this topic so controversial? In short: Because some white people think that every person of African heritage who is interested in the topic is promoting [a fringe pseudo-historic 'theory'] Because some black people think that everyone who denies that the ancient Egyptians had a darker skin then people from Europe is a white racist who tries to deny them their heritage. Probably not unsurprisingly, it is almost impossible to write an article on the topic at Wikipedia. After during one of these discussion quite a lot of material was removed from the article, I though: Why not recycle some material - and I added this to the article Great Sphinx of Giza. "First Incident: Yes, there actually is a small debate about the question whether the the Sphinx depicts a black person or not, and why shouldn't this be discussed in the appropriate Wikipedia article? At least until somehow there is an acceptable general article on the topic. Of course, there was some discussion, but considering how controversial the topic is, everything went nicely. Until an editor called Wdford from South Africa joined the debate on the article. I won't bother with recalling the details, however, this resulted in me giving up on the article." "Second Incident: Wdford then did some work at the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy, which I have mentioned previously.' As could be expected, they didn't actually managed to work it out in the discussion there, so at some point, Wdford and more then one other editor were banned from the article. I thought that this was my big chance. I previously had identified four good books on the topic, two by white authors and two by black authors, and I thought that I now had the opportunity to fix the issue. Initially, everything went well, and I was able to get the support of all other involved editors. And then, the ban, that kept Wdford away from the article, was lifted. Wdford almost immediately gave me an confrontation at the article, and after I had notified the adminstrator noticeboards two times and no one had intervened on my behalf, I gave up on that article, too" "Third Incident: I mean, there are many other articles at Wikipedia that could use a good editor. Last month, for example, I noticed an article "colloidal silver".... well except from one unacceptable edit by whom? Wdford, who had not participated at all in the discussion. I asked myself, what he possible might want to to do there. Harass me?... But this ended, when Wdford decided that he wanted to rewrite the lead and to restructure the article. His edits were, honestly, bad. Again, I will not go into the details (you can read the discussion online at Talk:Medical uses of silver yourself, if you want), but there was no way I could agree to his edits. I tried to explain this to him, but after one day of discussion I noticed that it was still impossible to have a discussion with him. The End? How does this story end? I don't know yet. But I think it wouldn't be fair if the first people I told this story to were some students who have never edited Wikipedia. So, I am giving the Wikipedia community, and especially its administrators, a chance to deal with the issue now. I am feeling harassed, as in "wp:harassment", by Wdford. Probably he is not actually trying to harass me, but he is trying to prove that he can write a better article than me, and honestly, he simply can't. He is lacking basic skills necessary for that, like the ability to evaluate sources. But he is also unable to accept criticism in any way, and every time I criticise him, he responds by accusing me of "acting like I own the article" or that like. Under these circumstances, there is no way I'll be able to recall the positive experiences I've had editing Wikipedia on Friday, so I decided to post this thread now, which at least gives this story a (small) chance of a good ending before then. Zara1709 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I can't describe this issue with full diffs, it was already depressing enough to write it this way. And probably he is not actually trying to harass me, but the effect is the same. He is making it impossible for me to edit the article, and he is effectively driving me off Wikipedia. Why would I spent about 6-8 hours fixing the structure of a controversial article when he can come along and simply wreck it up again? And since this is already the third article where there is a problem, this is certainly not a contend issue, but a problem with the editor. An administrator could have fixed the issue a few months ago, if he simply had restored the topic ban against Wdford. An administrator, or any other motivated editor, needs to get down to it, read Wdfords comments and the discussions on the article I've mentioned, and then, if he comes to the same conclusions as I, needs to explain to Wdford that I mustn't continue what effectively is harassment. But if no one is willing to support me here, I am going to take a break from Wikipedia for 6 months, advise a group of 20-30 students not contribute to Wikipedia (writing articles is fun, but the discussions about them often aren't) and this article, medical uses of silver, will likely be again the topic of a few threads at the noticeboards, since Wdfords edit restored similar ambiguities and misquotations like the ones that made the article an ANI case in the first place. Zara1709 (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC) I did expect some difficulties at the article, and I was prepared to deal with these difficulties. But I did not expect THIS! Honestly, if some editor with whom you had previously difficulties shows up at another issue, on which you have already spent some time, wouldn't you suspect that he his harassing you? An the reason I am writing such great blocks of text is simply. Wdford is avoiding a discussion of the actual content issue, so I have to repeat and explain my view on that again and again. (Just like you have to continue to repeat the mainstream view when you are dealing with a fringe editor.) I received some support from another editor, so probably we can solve the issue at the article - but probably not. If you want to know what problem I have with Wdfords edits, just check out my last post on the article talk page. If Wdford isn't able to identify a fringe source when he sees it, then isn't a good editor, but that alone wouldn't be a problem. But if he is unable to admit that he made a mistake and takes the revert of his edits as a a reason to start a confrontation, (and not as a reason to discuss those edits) then someone needs to get involved and explain him that this attitude is unacceptable. Zara1709 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC) *Yalens Evidence from Editor User Talk Pages *Aua-User talk:Aua "Black Egyptian Hypothesis[edit] I assume you know about WP:3RR. I've reported Daley for breaking it. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)" "It's only been seven years[edit] Hi Aua, I wonder who you think I was? At any rate, as I said in response, I took it as a compliment. Keep the faith, Drmies (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)" "Queen of Sheba[edit] Thank you, i will stop reverting his edits. 'I'm not sure if he is intentionally trying to distract others in talk pages by talking about agenda and conspiracies .. Yousef --يوسف حسين (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)" "*Ah, am not particularly new to WP, even on this account (3 months and 1.2K of contributions), but yes I had 2 previous accounts where I lost the password :(. I did not seek them back, what's the point of doing so?Thanks for the note though (by the way, I have your name on my userpage).Λua∫Wise (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)How about now? Λua∫Wise (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aua/Archive2)' *Dbachmann-User talk:Dbachmann *Dougweller-User talk:Dougweller *Eyetruth-User talk:Eyetruth *Wdford-User talk:Wdford "talk page notes -originally removed by vandals wanting to hide racist tactics heing used[edit] You insert your content, but they remove it. You remove [blank]-ist dogma, they put it back. You have no choice but to perform on them what is called a revert. When other editors continue to remove your content, and you stand tall against them, you are in a revert war. There will certainly be many users of the opposite ideology. Worse still are the "neutrals" (crypto-[blank]-ists in fact, even if they don't know it!). These users have an ideology even more extreme and yet more sinister than your ideological opposites: adherence to that nonsense, WP:NPOV. Those spoil-sports can be a real nuisance, as they can be harder to bait and harder to discredit. On the plus side, they are unlikely to care as much, so doggedness may be all you need here. But don't worry, if you follow a few simple rules, you can prevail in most revert wars and in most editorial conflict, and thus spread the faith to your heart's content." "4.Find brothers-of-the-faith. With proper use of email, instant messenger, talk pages and "project pages", you can overwhelm with numbers. After all, it's all a numbers game, and three brothers alone will can nullify one "expert" in a revert war without performing more than one revert. With the recent advent of blind anti-"edit-warring" ideology in the admin community, he has no chance. If he continues to try to enforce WP:NPOV (even if he is an admin!), you can bust his sorry ass into blockville. You can revert, he must edit-war. He can spend all his wiki-time pouring his little heart and brain into the talk pages, and, as long as you or one of your friends "responds" occassionally, you can watch and laugh knowing your article is safe! 5.If the above doesn't work, you can always create brothers-of-the-faith. This means creating sockpuppets, new usernames which you control. You can create, in theory, as many as you like. If you think this is wrong, then just remember it's merely a small wrong which you are using to overcome a greater wrong! Whenever you need a friend to add extra weight to a discussion, or just that one more revert, your new friend or friends will definitely be there for you. You can even close votes and create your own WP:Consensus from time to time, when the issue is important enough. The downside is that if you do this too often, you'll create suspicion which may lead to a checkuser discovering your holy misdemeanors. The upside on that is that if you are careful and use your new friends conservatively, it will take months, maybe even years, and a lot of work, to find you out. If you are careful enough, perhaps even never. And even if they do, you can start again from scratch!" DRN discussion[edit] Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC) "AE race controversy[edit] Started a discussion at WP:NPOVN, quoted you there but I'll remove that if you wish. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC) " Your edit summaries[edit] Passing along this useful info from DougWeller. Please keep your edit summaries neutral - as they stand you are using them as commentary on editors, authors, etc. This isn't occasional, it seems to be your standard way of using edit summaries. WP:Edit summaries says "Avoid inappropriate summaries. Editors should explain their edits, but not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause tension or bad feelings, which makes collaboration more difficult. Explain what you changed, and cite the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but try not to target or to single out others in a way that may come across as an attack or an insult" and "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved."Rod (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)" "See Talk:Kingdom of Aksum[edit] Same issues really. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC) " "Black Egyptian Hypothesis[edit] Without counting, you are close to or at 3RR. I've given the other editor the templated statement but I'm assuming you know the ins and outs of WP:3RR. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)" Thank you![edit]Your superior knowledge of the black Egyptian "controversy," as well as your articulation of several important points in the debate, is extraordinary! I have no bone to pick with either side of the debate, but I'm really irked by militant afrocentrism (or any other forms of ultra-nationalism for that matter). I'm humbled by your ability to call BS on many claims made on the talkpage that could've otherwise flown under the radar. Thanks buddy! Λuα (Operibus anteire) 02:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "DNA history of Egypt[edit] These new edits bother me and I've moved them to the talk page, see Talk:DNA history of Egypt#Section on "Recent DNA Studies of Amarna and Ramesses III Lineages" moved here from article. Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC) " *Yalens-User talk:Yalens

And for those who are trying to understand this

All of the above has been added here by Andajara120000 who has been to WP:RSN and when they got no satisfaction there took the same issue to WP:NPOV and then to DRN, Mediation and now here. If anyone is still interested, see User talk:Andajara120000#Deleted some material on DNA, please do not restore without showing how sources back the claims where I've asked this editor to show how some sources the editor added back the claims made, as I and another editor simply can't find them. The response was "My time and patience is not going to be exhausted jumping around four nearly identical articles all sput out by you or these cadre of editors - The talk page of one of these editors, wdford, in fact lays out the tactics used by this small cadre of editors quite explicitly and quite well by these "brothers of the faith." -I will attempt to engage you all in four separate talk page discussions on four nearly identical articles created all by you or members of this cadre of editors for exactly the purpose of exhausting editors." - In other words, simply an attack. In fact what I'd done is try to centralise the discussion of this editor's sources at one page, Talk:DNA history of Egypt although there is a 2nd relevant discussion elsewhere. This editor has made it clear that they understand that these pages are under ArbCom sanctions but I don't think that they believe that their editing could possibly be seen as disruptive. It's everyone else who is at fault. Dougweller (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

And none of us have been notified. Dougweller (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm completely wrong about that, I don't know how I missed it. Self-trouting.Now to bed. Dougweller (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

User:VVVladimir breach of decorum in wikipedia

VVVladimir insults another editor (Bobrayner), by calling his actions "paranoid stupidity". Later, he reiterates his arrogance and insult by adding some more, and calling nonsense other editors' arguments. Note that both edits relate to move requests for two cities in Kosovo, and the discussion has been ongoing for a month, so, this is a reflection of how difficult the decision of the closing administrator can be. VVVladimir breaches the decorum of wikipedia with his verbal abuse and should not be allowed to do that. --Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The best solution would be for an uninvolved administrator to close those two requested moves. I can understand why any admin would shy away from lengthy back-and-forth Balkan controversy, but the longer the RMs are open, the more drama accumulates. VVVladimir's comments are inappropriate, and VVVladimir appears to have been canvassed to those debates anyway, but I don't want vengeance; I want the drama to end. bobrayner (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I didn't see any kind of insult in the second diff the OP provided, but I did warn VVVladimir after the first diff. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am glad that Bobrayner has a thick skin and has not taken offense. A warning might be a good idea to get VVVladimir be more polite. Thanks for your quick intervention. --Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't the complaint commit the offense it complains about: "Later he reiterates his arrogance..." Howunusual (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you might be mistaking "arrogance" for "ignorance". Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 03:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism on Darian Calendar

An IP has been vandalizing the article Darian Calendar and must be stopped immediately. I already warned him, but he is not cooperating. Leoesb1032 (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No edits from the IP after your warning, which preceded this thread by a mere three minutes. Seems a little early to come to ANI. Huon (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I just reverted it a couple of times and I was getting tired of it going on and on.Leoesb1032 (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• The IP [177.11.84.2] has blanked 6 sections from article without explaining why. The sections, Year length and intercalation, Epoch, Nomenclature, Martiana Calendar, Notes and References were removed without any discussion & without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Reverted, his content removal edits since the edit did not appear constructive to me. - Ninney (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

IP user 2.125.242.6 vandalizing article

Not sure if the vandalism this IP user did is enough to warrant any sort of punishment, but I thought I would post here to see if it does. Here are the diffs: 1 2 3 4 5 In the IP user's last edit to the Steve Kardynal article, they included an edit summary of "‎(Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)" (which is ironic as the IP user was the one who vandalized the article).Andise1 (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, it wasn't the IP who tagged it as possible vandalism. You reverted; the best course of action would have been to warn the editor (I just did). If this happens again, report the IP (if it's the same one) at WP:AIV, and perhaps ask for semi-protection of the article at WP:RFPP. On another note, I guess it doesn't take much anymore to be notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oops, totally forgot that the edit summary was a result of me reverting the vandalism.Andise1 (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

GetCrucial11735 (talk · contribs) made legal thread on edit. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Second threat here: 1. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely egregious legal threat. Admins are asleep right now... Doc talk 06:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I saw a few awake, but not sure if they check this board frequently. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

First admin that does their duty on this one gets a cookie. Any admin that can say this user should not be immediately blocked for legal threats should hand in their badge. Doc talk 06:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

And a third one: 3. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Instead of spamming the users talk page with templates, you should investigate their edits and think "Why are they so mad? Hmm?". -- John Reaves 06:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I did. They're mad about the content of the page. I gave a COI template and a content removal template and promptly reported the legal threat here. I would do it again. I looked at the sources and they confirmed what the text said. I tried to see if the sources were mentioned on the RS discussion page too. What more would you like me to do? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't do legal threats here, no matter how mad we get. If one makes them, they get blocked either until they retract them or finish their litigation (per WP:NLT). User is properly indeffed right now. Doc talk 06:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The user was trying to remove legitimately bad material from an article. Material that violated policies of actual importance. My point is that the focus should be on the content, not the user. There seems to be no concern for that bit commonsense here. -- John Reaves 06:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I and some others just cleaned up some of the cites in the article. There were some WP:BLP problems there, and some edit warring. The info now seems to be cited to reliable sources. Some of the material objected to was from marginal gossip blogs. Please check that all negative info is properly cited. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with the two John's here. Yes GetCrucial handled their complain very poorly but they appear to have had a legitimate point about much of what they were objecting to. I would note in particularly that the problem mentioned in [69] does seem to be correct, as neither ref mentions about it being his hometown and the location given by the refs, and by our article now, is what GetCrucial said. Blocking the editor may be fine, but it's often more important to deal with the problem that causes the legal threats to arise. In one case we're removing WP:BLP violating material that may be harming a living individual. In the other case, we're simply stopping someone who in a case like this, realisticly isn't really causing much intimidation or ill feeling, except making people reluctant to help them, and will often disappear if we resolve their issues (some people who make legal threats actually have no legitimate complaint, but we can't know that without investigating). And the very least, unless you've investigated and confirmed there's nothing behind that editors complaint, open a [{WP:BLP/N]] concurrently with any request for a block. Nil Einne (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If you make a legal threat on Wikipedia, you have two choices. This is a "bright line" thing. There's no wondering about why the threat was made. Retract the threat, or take the WMF to court and stay blocked until it is resolved through legal channels. Is this really something that needs to be further explained? Doc talk 06:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, because several people here do not see policy as being sufficient justification for being an insufferable prick to a guy who's simply upset about being libeled on one of the most trafficked websites on the internet. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Tough crap if someone gets "libeled" here. It happens every day, all the time, to articles of people far more notable than this guy. It gets dealt with. If it isn't dealt with to the satisfaction of the article subject, they still have to abide by NLT. Doc talk 07:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This addition of completely unsourced material this edit to a BLP being one of them? There's always the block appeal. Doc talk 06:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Done by legoktm before I got there Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(Many many ECs) Let's break down the edits. First GetCrucial tried to remove a bunch on info [70]. The first sentence was nominally sourced. But the source [71], doesn't say anything like what our article said. It's very gossip like and alleges the subject was caught stealing but at a different location from what refer to. It also claims the subject has a penchant for theft, and links to another source, but the other source appears dead. From the URL, it sounds like this source is referring to the alleged theft at the location cited in our article.

But this still means our source doesn't mention the alleged theft location we refer to in our article (well unless you count the fact the location is in the URL) and it definitely does not claim he admitted to anything. The source cited by our source well not only is it dead, but I can't find it at TWBM [72], so who knows whether it really supported the claim he admitted to anything, and it doesn't sound like a particularly good source.

The next sentence actually refers to what our first source is talking about but considering the highly gossipy nature of the source, I'm not sure it's a good enough source for anything, and I definitely don't think we can use it to present the claim the subject was caught as factual.

The third sentence relates to what I refer to above. The sources don't seem that bad, but as I said above, neither of them refer to the place being his hometown. According to GetCrucial, the place is not him hometown and I've seen nothing to dispute that so although the important part may be right, the sentence is still wrong. Of course whether we should mention the arrest even if it's not disputed may not be so clear cut.

So we have here two sentences which probably should have been removed based on the sourcing presented which is what GetCrucial11735 did, and a third one which perhaps should have been kept but at a minimum needed to be reworded. So GetCrucial11735 was at least 2/3 with their first 2 edits.

After trying that twice and being reverted, GetCrucial tried it different. [73]. They added something about Gossip Girl, but since our article doesn't even say anything I'm not sure that belongs but it isn't particularly harmful to anyone. They then moved on to what we were discussing before. They added the claim it was a drug and alcohol fueled blackout, which is not good, although whether it's better or worse to say that than to say someone admitted to something is an open question. They also added allegedly which considering we don't even really have a source for the first incident, and the source for the second is so poor, is surely a fair addition. (Of course the best thing to do was just remove these statements, like they attempted to do the first two time.)

They then changed the location for the arrest to what is supported by our sources. They also added something to say it was 'after a party' which doesn't seem to be directly supported by our sources and although it doesn't seem surprising and isn't really negative, given the absence of support and the fact it's not important, was an unwelcome but not really harmful addition.

They also removed mention of attendance at a college. It sounds like the attendance isn't disputed (and some primary sources seem to confirm it) even though the statement is unsourced. Since he apparently didn't graduate, the info isn't that important so the removal is mostly a minor thing. They then added mention of current attendance at a different university. This new statement is also unsourced and I can't find any new source to confirm or deny it (although he does appear to be living where the university is) but it isn't something harmful so the addition isn't a major fault.

Finally GetCrucial added a bunch of claims. Some of the claims seem to repeating stuff that is mentioned earlier although since the source is from 2010 and it sounds like the subject has had a lot going on since then, it's probably not a good source for what he's currently doing (but since the article already says that, saying it again isn't good writing but isn't that harmful).

The bit about the current residence seems completely unsourced and considering we have sources saying he lived elsewhere in September 2013, we should be careful with such claims but isn't not really that surprising or harmful. The final point about writing a novel could be taken as harmful particularly considering what else is mentioned although mostly concurs with stuff that our article already says.

In other words, even if we look at the second edit, GetCrucial11735 were some good, some not so good. Considering there was nothing majorly bad and they did partial correcting some clear cut problems, I don't think you can say the they did anything that wrong other than the legal threats. So while the legal threats were highly unwelcome and blocking them for them may be fine, they had a point and we should not lose the forest from the trees.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The manner in which we collectively interact with unhappy BLP subjects continues to be an embarrassment to the site and needs a fundamental reevaluation. In any event, the user has now stated on his talkpage, if not in optimal terms, that there is no legal threat. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Blanket statement on unhappy BLP subjects aside: do you feel comfortable that they have actually retracted the legal threats? I sincerely hope not. Doc talk 06:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

At this point, the "legal threat" is that the editor will have counsel call the Office to discuss the article. Presumably the Office will explain how BLP subjects (or their friends and family) with concerns should address them, such as through OTRS, a type of conversation that occurs several times a week. WP:NLT states that politely raising a legal concern about BLP-violating content without referencing litigation is not a "legal threat," and in this instance, considering the monstrously ill-considered fashion in which this editor was greeted, I would give him the benefit of the doubt at this stage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The statement "My lawyer WILL be contacting Wikipedia tomorrow morning in order to verify these changes. It is illegal and violates several defamation laws, among a myriad of harassment laws" is about as unambiguous a legal threat as it gets. The "myriad" of laws that are allegedly being violated are up for debate. You see this as not a legal threat? Shocking, really. Doc talk 07:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

In isolation that is not acceptable but the subsequent edit, after NLT was explained, backs away from the threatening aspect, which is what we want people to do when NLT is explained. At no time has anyone explained to the editor what other avenues are available to him, beyond intoning that he has a COI and should not edit the article. If you want to cudgel a more direct retraction from the editor I can't stop you, especially as it is after midnight and I need to call it a day, but I don't think we could have collectively handled this situation worse if we had been trying to—and this is far from the only one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it was handled well, according to policy. The first edit summary indicated a legal threat, more were issued, no threats have truly been retracted at all; and the diff I provided above indicates that this user has no intention of doing anything but whitewashing this article, without providing references to back up their edits. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 07:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The article in question over the course of the last 24 hours is pretty much a textbook example of terrible sourcing of a BLP. Most of the sources are gossipy tabloid garbage, and why oh why are we reporting arrests without convictions of an admitted alcoholic? Every single crappy source and all the gossippy factoids therein should be stripped from the article, and if all that remains is a stub, so be it. Maybe we will then conclude that this person just isn't notable, and if the article gets deleted, I don't see that as much of a loss to the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Doc talk 07:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Just above, you accused the editor in question of trying to "whitewash" the article. There isn't a single solitary reliable source in the article that establishes notability of this person. One is an arrest report, presumably reliable. Every single other source is snarky gossip that in my opinion, should be stripped from the article. "Whitewashing" is trying to remove well-referenced negative material, presented with due weight, in a biography of a truly notable person. That's not what is going on here. This article, in my opinion, is a contemptible gossip dump. BLP policy is exceptionally important. Vastly more important than somebody shooting off their mouth about calling their lawyer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I said whitewash because I really don't know where they came up with their info (since it has no referencing), but also didn't seem overly negative. The article being reduced to a stub is quite appropriate if there is nothing to reliably reference it. Doc talk 07:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) More important than a legal threat? I don't know about that, but OAN, the article for the series the subject is apparently best known for isn't in the greatest shape either. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why they needed to provide references when a lot of what they were doing was either supported by the existing references, or lack of references. Nil Einne (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Well it seems the editor has been unblocked "per ANI discussion". What a joke. No block appeal needed, apparently. The editor who unblocked him is one, in my opinion, who should just simply resign for several embarrassing reasons. Doc talk 08:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Please cease your unseemly headhunting of a newbie and your ongoing personal attacks against me. Who exactly was threatened with what? If you can't make your case politely, you might not have one. Jehochman ^Talk 08:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to be polite and explain legal threats to an admin. There was no consensus to unblock here, there was no block appeal. You took it upon yourself to unblock this user against procedure and policy. Not impressed at all. Doc talk 08:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You need to be polite. You are modeling bad behavior where others are watching. That's not so good. If you look at this thread four or five sensible editors say this situation should have been handled differently. One cited WP:DOLT. Please go read that. I don't need to repeat the arguments detailed there. Jehochman ^Talk 08:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't model bad behavior. What you think is bad behavior might be radically different from what others think. Paid advocacy editing, legal threats, etc. I think those things can be bad behavior. Maybe you don't. Doc talk 08:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What a dreadful way to handle this. Yes, he made a legal threat, but only after he tried to remove defamatory content with some very very thin sourcing (per Nil Einne above) from his own biography in the proper way. For his trouble, he was templated and threatened. Perhaps if he'd been treated with a bit more respect and understanding to start with, it never would have come to threats of legal action. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC).

Agreed. I jumped in far too quickly on this article, and despite checking the references briefly I didn't go far enough before reverting. This is the second time in the last 10 months that I have made the error of jumping to the conclusion that the subject of the article was censoring when in fact they had a legitimate concern, and it will be the last time. I have revised my templated warnings on the editor's talk page accordingly and thanks to Jehochman for stepping in appropriately. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Misuse of talk page by banned editor

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

---

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

MilesMoney was banned by the community on 3 January, 2014.[74] Since his ban he has abused his talk page privileges.

He has started a discussion on his talk page, "Koch by omission", which presumably is a reference to the article Political activities of the Koch brothers.[75] The entry lists several organizations which he says received funding from the Koch brothers but are not in the article. He then writes,"I learned from Arthur Rubin that it's not canvassing to put out a list of changes I anticipate one day making. This is such a list." That is a reference to an unsuccessful ANI discussion thread he set up against Arthur Rubin, now archived here. Basically he is saying to us, you let him get away with it, so I am going to do it too.

I therefore ask that talk page privileges are withdrawn.

TFD (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This came after a string of personal attacks on his talk page, including this one. I had previously posted a note on the blocking admin's talk page: User talk:TParis#User:MilesMoney. StAnselm (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll admit to being a bit uncomfortable about what Arthur Rubin was able to do - it seemed a bit point-y - but what MilesMoney is definitely missing is that AR was under a block restriction, not a ban. - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The "Difference between bans and blocks" says banned editors are usually not allowed talk page access. There is no need for it in this instance. TFD (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I recommend allowing the editor to vent. Nobody needs to look at his talk page, except him. If he eventually calms down we may avoid creating yet another long term problem. We should treat banned editors with kindness and respect, even when they don't deserve it. Jehochman ^Talk 11:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This, coming from the admin who blanked a comment (despite being specifically instructed not to) from a banned editor on my talk page, who was objecting to his having labelled a random disruptive editor as her on the basis of absolutely no evidence! That is completely hypocritical of you, Jehochman. — Scott • talk 12:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Tone that down a little please - (add) socks of (end of add) banned users edits are to be reverted on-sight, whether you mind it there or not. There's no hypocrisy, and violating WP:NPA like you just did isn't wise ES&L 12:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Different editor, different situation. Can somebody show a diff or two where Miles Money is abusing talk page access, for instance, to slander or attack other editors, or to engage in outing or harassment? If there are muyltiple edits of that type, or even one particularly egregious edit, that would be grounds to revoke talk page access. There is some value to allowing an editor to say their piece, especially right after they've been banned. It also allows other editors to notice if they might think the ban was unfairly applied, and if nobody thinks so, the lack of response signifies that the ban was justified. Jehochman ^Talk 12:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Read the talk page. It consists primarily of attacking others for what has happened to him: "So, yeah, I got mugged on Wikipedia " is typical -- and he names those whom he feels acted against him. "We also have TFD, MONGO and Collect chatting on the latter's talk page" sure looks from here like an accusation of conspiracy, which I suggest might be considered an "attack." He is banned' and past practice has to actually enforce the ban. Collect (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Revoke TP access. MilesMoney got banned, period. If he has edits he wants to eventually make, he can store them offline. Allowing the storage of those edits online creates the issue that other editors may integrate them into articles (which would circumvent the banning policy), and in such a situation potentially creates an attribution problem. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Please let the user vent on his page. Yes, the section "Koch by omission" (now removed by BeyondMyKen) was pointy and hinty. That's MilesMoney's style, and isn't it nice that he can't be pointy and hinty and disruptive all over the political articles and their talkpages any more? (Full disclosure: I didn't comment in the community ban discussion, but I thought the close and the resulting ban were appropriate.) But I agree completely with Jehochman that "there is some value to allowing an editor to say their piece, especially right after they've been banned." Please take the high ground here, everybody. "Koch by ommission", especially the comment about Arthur Rubin, is bait, but the best thing to do with bait is not to rise to it. I wish you'd put the section back, Beyond My Ken, and I wish anybody who's inspired to respond to it would think twice.

I suppose a few people do need to watch his page, in the unlikely event that MM comes out and says he wants to post his much-heralded arbitration request with the "evidence of massive off-wiki canvassing against me" that we're all interested to see. Especially TP is presumably watching. But perhaps they can make a point of watching in a lofty way, ignoring the provocations and merely looking out for actual literal requests from MM to be allowed to post on WP:RFAR? All this whacking of already banned users is a sad mistake. Bishonen | talk 15:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC).

Yes, I've kept an eye on that page. As far as I can tell, MilesMoney has contacted WP:BASC and they've given him a series of questions to answer via email. It's in their hands right now as far as I am concerned.--v/r - TP 15:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Involved editors will get pings when Miles mentions them, and be drawn to look at the comments. And his comments will be monitored by interested editors until we see the Arbcom instituted and decided. For now, IMO, Miles' comments only serve to reinforce the validity of the community ban decision. So let Miles sing this song by Example (musician) as he does so. – S. Rich (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Note to self: if I get in trouble in the future for screaming, yelling, attacking, and acting like a dick, please remind me not to scream, yell, attack others and act like a general dick on my talkpage while I'm trying to get myself out of hot water (note: I'm not accusing anyone of performing these actions, it's just a general statement of intent) ES&L 16:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It's like being stuck in an elevator with a person that just ate 10 bowls of 3-alarm chili.--MONGO 15:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep talk page access – He'll tire, eventually. Epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Let him vent - We all have different ways of dealing with things, Venting on his own page is far better than venting on anyone elses pages. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by ColonelHenry

I wouldn't usually bother with this but seeing as the editor concerned has been blocked in the past for similar behaviour, I think administrative attention is required. ColonelHenry thinks personal attacks are the correct response to being advised that his edits have been cleared up according to policy. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Suriel1981 is trigger-happy and making a mountain out of a molehill. And for your information (since you're both wrong and impatient) I was blocked 9 or 10 months ago for 24 hours for reverting vandalism to a featured article on the main page, not for incivility. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

My information is accurate. Blocked for this. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Forgot about that one...but still, rehashing 9 month old resolved issues is not good form and distracts from the matter at hand.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Suriel ... could you please link to where you discussed this with the editor directly before coming here, as is required? ES&L 18:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

And what exactly am I supposed to discuss with an editor who swears at me the first time I leave them a talkpage message...?? Maybe you could link to where it says editors should engage with those who are directing personal attacks at them? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Because shooting first and asking questions later (if you bother to at all) is such a great way of conflict resolution-- Apparently for someone who wants to jam rules down my throat, you failed to pay attention to the procedure here. Go figure. Sorry btw, that I responded so negatively to you chomping at the bit to bite my head off for putting up a redlink that I was going to service anyway (and did). If you engaged in dialogue first (which is always the first step in conflict resolution) before shooting from the hip, and didn't get me stuck in four edit conflicts, I'd be a happier camper and you'd know that was my to-do list for today (that sadly, I'm distracted from and not really inclined to do now). --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Coincidentally, I reached out to Suriel to say "I was planning to add a few articles to satisfy the redlinks" over the next few days[76] (a petition for patience and to let Suriel know what I was up to)...apparently it was more important to demand the letter of the law (it kills according to St. Paul) and cut away immediately instead of waiting a few minutes where Suriel could have noticed by checking my contributions I started creating articles to satisfy those redlinnks moments after adding them. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• This seems to be related to the interaction between the two editors at Scott Hall (disambiguation). Suriel1981 removed redlinked entries while ColonelHenry was in the process of writing stubs for those redlinks. Suriel1981 went to ColonelHenry's User Talk about removing the links and ColonelHenry snapped back. Maybe ColonelHenry should have waited until the articles were created before adding them back, and ColonelHenry didn't use the best language on their User Talk, but editors are given wide discretion over their own User Talk. I can see by Suriel1981's own User page that they're not afraid of curse words, and I don't see any evidence that Suriel1981 tried to talk to about this withColonelHenry before coming here. Both editors exhibited some suboptimal behavior and overall I don't see anything here warranting administrator action. Zad68 18:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not afraid of curse words but I do not use them on other editors!! "Editors are given wide discretion over their own User Talk"...??? Since when does WP:NPA not apply to talkpages?? What "suboptimal behaviour" have I exhibited that warrants abuse?? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Suriel1981 you didn't do anything to deserve abuse but the reality is that the Wikipedia community has decided that an occasional outburst like ColonelHenry's is to be tolerated and isn't actionable by an administrator. And, as Drmies says below, it's even harder to generate support for action when you haven't tried to resolve this between yourselves on your User Talk pages before coming here. It looks like ColonelHenry has provided (a very passive-aggressive) apology above, I know it's not great but can you please just accept that? Zad68 19:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, fuck, Colonel--there is no need to call someone an "impatient fuck", even if they sure are impatient. Fuck, Suriel--there is no need to drag someone over to ANI for a "fuck" on their own talk page. You may be right as far as MOS:DAB is concerned, but fuck, let the man add his links and then the articles. Your high-handed "cleaned up according to protocol" is pretty passive-aggressive, and wholly unnecessary. Yes, what Zad says. No action required, except for a sheesh is this the best we can do? Do you know that there may be young editors reading this exchange? Drmies (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

So personal attacks are okay as long as it's done on talkpages? Then why the hell do we have warning templates for it? If there are young editors reading, they're getting a good idea of what they can get away with. As far as my editing being "passive aggressive", well, maybe we're reading a different Wikipedia. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

So then warn them. Talk to them. It wasn't all that serious of a PA, to be honest. When I first read the link, based on the context, I saw it as "...impatient? Fuck!" not calling someone an "impatient fuck". ES&L 19:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)