Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Gryffindor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HiLo48 at Talk:2014 Winter Olympics

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bata, Equatorial Guinea

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Franjo Tuđman article was again vandalized (dif), this time by 2a00:c440:20:27e:c086:6eb0:c981:43b (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This is probably all the same person with different IPs. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

User:CambridgeBayWeather removed the insulting commentary against myself from Talk:Bata, Equatorial Guinea (dif), but his edit was reverted by 2a00:c440:20:27e:c086:6eb0:c981:43b (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (dif). This vandal really needs to be stooped. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked the last IP. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Franjo Tuđman article vandalized again by 2a00:c440:20:27e:c086:6eb0:c981:43b (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (dif). Vanjagenije (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sinosceptic userboxes

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

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

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

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

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

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

69.14.97.53 learned nothing from his six months ban

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

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

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

Script Error in Templates

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

Extended content

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

94.189.150.5

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

user Sopher99

Resolved

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

evidence broke the rule 1RR:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persistent disruptive editing by new user

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Clavdia chauchat

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

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

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

Circle jerk (sexual practice) says in the lead:

“ In the metaphorical sense, the term is used to refer to a "boring or time-wasting meeting or other event". Also can refer to self-congratulatory behavior or discussion amongst a group of people. ”

I'm happy to confirm that it is this sense which I applied to the stuffy gentlemen's club at WP:FOOTY. Huge apologies to anyone genuinely offended by any sexual connotation, although I think it's curious that such delicate sensibilities were not equally outraged by much worse flak coming in the other direction. Hmm. Let's remember too that User:Jmorrison230582 started what became a bad-tempered discussion as an attack thread against User:LauraHale.

The more audiences that see this the better because a small gang of homogeneous editors derailing a simple correction to an article title is not on. I'm not the only editor to point out this worldview is sexist and backward: because it is! Seriously guys, it's you versus everyone else now, you are now embarrassing yourselves and the whole encyclopedia.

In a wider sense, exclusively-male Wikiproject Football needs serious root and branch reform which sadly will only come from outside that project. In my opinion they (or rather their self-appointed leaders, above) have been allowed to write their own notability rules and flood Wikipedia with biased and/or non-notable content for too long. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know when and how I appointed myself a "leader" of the WP:FOOTY project. I also see no justification whatsoever of accusing users of "overt bigotry". The insults / name-calling I couldn't care less about. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject is not "exclusively-male" - though there is a male majority, which is merely reflective of the sport in real life. Basically, CC is just annoyed that community consensus from a recent RM has gone against her view and she is taking it out on others. Pathetic. GiantSnowman 19:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Where are your female members then? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

List of members here, some I know to be female, so I know to be male, most I have no clue - but I'm not going to lower myself to naming names. We also have an entire taskforce dedicated to women's football, as you fully know. But please, tell me more about how we are "exclusively-male"... GiantSnowman 20:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This is an interesting edit. What makes you uniquely qualified to edit this site and not me? This is disgusting, almost fascistic in nature. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, tales of imaginary female members and I'm a pathetic, disgusting fascist. I came here to respond to concerns in good faith but things are not going well so I'll bow out now I think. Happy jerking. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

CC, I have no idea what you're playing at - you know there are female members, you interact with at least two of them on a daily basis!

Jmorrison - don't rise to her bait. WP:DENY. GiantSnowman 21:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated page history

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

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

See WP:HISTSPLIT. We could take the old history and move it to Christine Fox (radio) and redirect it to WFHN. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Impersonator account

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

---

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

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

User Eric Corbett

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  What's seriously naïve is thinking you're doing something regarding incivility by a blind enforcement of an arbitrary list of "bad words". (The tech guys can write a BOT for that, and you can supply the lookup table of "forbidden words" -- how's that!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That analysis is pretty much correct. I don't support a block. By just stating that I could have given the impression that I think the behviour is ok. I don't think it is, so I added that in. You say it like you think that's a bad thing which I don't really agree with. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Commenting on the content, not the editor, I think it is an incomplete analysis, one designed to provide presence in the discussion but in an utterly non-committal fashion. As such it is vacuous and disappointing for an Admin. selected by the community to turn up at significant discussions and say, in effect, there is no way of addressing whatever the issue is. Leaky Caldron 16:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  As it is a policy that has to do with civility decorum (it is rather emphatic in its instruction: eg. 'comment on this, not this') in line with WP:Terms of use, it is rationally going to have an element of "don't breach decorum," even, "don't regularly breach decorum." Every breach of policy (it matters little which one) carries a potential role out of consequences, sometimes those consequences are realized, sometimes they are not but when they are, it's not like it can honestly surprise anyone. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

  You hide behind "baiting" claims when your crew levies them, and you call for the head of every admin that blocks you. I think you don't even understand how many people are familiar with your behavior. Doc talk 16:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Why do you persist with such easily disprovable lies? As for what I do or doin't understand, it would be wiser of you to forgo speculation and stick to what you know. Eric Corbett 16:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  So, I'm not just mistaken: I'm plain outright lying? Just kind of making it up as I go along, yes? Cool. Doc talk 17:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  That's about the size of it, yes. Eric Corbett 17:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  So you will deny that your crew levies baiting claims (see below) and that you call for the head of every admin that blocks you? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  From memory I think the last admin who blocked me was user:Worm That Turned. Where did you see me calling for his or her head? Eric Corbett 17:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Ok, so you didn't do it once. That doesn't excuse all the other times. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  So basically what you said was a lie, based on your prejudices. Eric Corbett 18:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  Your attempt at moving the goalposts is cute. We're really not talking about the use of a bad word in isolation. We are talking about a lenghty, multi-year history of disruptive behaviour. Resolute 15:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Well, I could consider your assumption that I am attempting to move the goalposts to be incivil. It is a genuine request based on evidence of some clearly different standards. For example, I've called things "bollocks" before now and I left the odd "wtf" and I think even once a "fuck off". Where is the line? - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  The issue is not the profanity, it's the (repeated) personal attacks. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 16:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Indefinite block the situation is not improving and we are just going to keep coming back here over and over and over. In spite of the fact that Eric's friends like to portray him as the victim, it's not acceptable for him to feel so comfortable lashing out at anyone and everyone who disagrees with him. This remark to Khazar2 illustrates the arrogant attitude he likes to dish out. Does Eric really think he is above all the measly peons who dare to criticize his conduct? It would certainly appear that he does. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 16:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• I doubt Eric is going to be indef blocked (or Heaven help the admin who does it), and I've generally been a supporter of his throughout the years, but I guess I just don't get understand he feels the need to push the envelop day-in and day-out on this project. It was once novel—now he just comes across as vile without reason. I'm not sure whether he thinks he has something to prove to the internet, but that would certainly appear to be the case. There's simply no reason to be so vile and obnoxious, either in-person or online. While I think we'd all hate to lose such a proficient writer as Eric, his entire presence behind-the-scenes is built on a foundation of hatred and the desperate need to have the last word. It's not cute. I'm of the impression that Mr. Corbett is a highly intelligent individual, so I have no idea why he seems to thrive on contention; more often than not, that's the mark of a child. As I said, I support the editor in question, though he's making it extremely difficult to hold that position with continued legitimacy. I'll note that it makes me feel hypocritical to defend Eric now, when later today I may very well go block somebody for the same things Eric has done for years. It's an awkward position Eric has put us in. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be hypocritical, if you were defending him. To me, your statement, like Martin above, is yet another example of wishing to be seen but not wishing to be seen committing to any action of any sort - whether it favours Eric or not. Typical of many of our current Admins. I would say. Leaky Caldron 16:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right; I favor reasonable discussion over knee-jerk reactions. If that's typical of our current admins, then I'd say we're doing a pretty good job. That said, I'm first and foremost a writer here on WP, and I've deferred to Eric several times on copyediting/reviewing advice. I don't see your name anywhere on WP:WBFAN, so I guess it makes sense that you have no experience working with our content contributors. Wikipedia is about the readers, and 98% of visitors are never going to know who wrote the article they're reading, much less that he used some bad words last week. Eric has made an enormous impact on improving the quality of prose, in particular at GAN. There's no excuse for his ridiculous behavior, I agree, but I don't think you fully understand the situation as it stands. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you keep your personalised, impertinent drivel to yourself. I know everything I need to know and my contribution to WP is not under discussion here. Leaky Caldron 16:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Those are some big words. Needless to say, I'm impressed. Thanks for your thoughts. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@Juliancolton, please read your big para again, in it you admit to being confused and not understanding several things. Yet you turn around and accuse Leaky "I don't think you fully unddrstand the situation as it stands". That's hypocritical. Eric has done nothing to "put [you] in an awkward position". (If you're confused about your own actions and feelings about them, then that s/ be an indication to you that you simply haven't thought them out through resolution. And don't blame Eric for that, that's your failing, not his.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

What all did I admit to being confused about? I also don't believe I spelled understand that way, but I digress. I stand by everything I've said in this thread. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. God help me, I'm posting on ANI, and even I should know better. I'm not so new to this community that I haven't read an awful lot about Eric and what a terrible scourge he is on the project. But in my interactions with him (admittedly fewer than some others have had, I suppose), he has been nothing but well-reasoned and professional, and is easily twice as skilled a copy-editor as I could aspire to be. If there are people who consistently find him otherwise, surely there's some means to simply separate the parties, whether voluntary or otherwise? For my part, I have ambitious editing goals for 2014, and I hope that I can still find counsel in Eric's insights and editorial eye. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose any block - if you don't want to be bitten by a bear, don't go bear-baiting. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Awesome. I see three main options. 1: Make Eric agree to abide by the civility policy. 2: Block Eric until he does agree to do it. 3: Eliminate the civility policy altogether, for everyone. If the case were the third, I'd theoretically call you a freaking clueless idiot for suggesting that he's been baited to begin with. Since we have the civility policy, I'll not make such a comment. Doc talk 16:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  How exactly would you propose to make me do anything? And you forgot option 4: apply the civility policy equally to everyone, not just those you've taken a dislike to. Eric Corbett 16:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  I don't have to make you do anything. No one is above the law, Eric. No editor is exempt from the civility policy, no matter how big they may be. We can't have editors running around willy-nilly, calling each other "cunts", and you are absolutely no exception. You will either figure that out, or you will eventually be gone, because you will have irritated more people than are in your corner. It's simple. Doc talk 16:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  We'll all eventually be gone Doc, even you. Eric Corbett 17:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Saying "I'd theoretically call you a freaking clueless idiot for suggesting that he's been baited to begin with. Since we have the civility policy, I'll not make such a comment" is no less uncivil than directly calling me a freaking clueless idiot (and at least you'd be more honest in doing the latter). So that's a nice bit of hypocrisy there Doc, demanding that Eric adhere to civility policy while not doing so yourself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Boing, Eric has a habit of making very similar remarks (as you know). If you don't like what Doc said to you by way of example, why do you defend Eric's behavior? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Where did I say I don't like what Doc says? I'm merely pointing out his hypocrisy in criticizing others for what he does himself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Quite weak. I'm not the admin, Boing, you are. My theoretical insult being less "honest" than directly calling someone a "cunt". Start blocking for the implied insults! Then, Eric's insults will seem that much more tame in comparison. Doc talk 17:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  No Doc, I'm not an admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: So become one. Sorry, that sounded mean. Epicgenius (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  He doesn't want to be one. Can't say that I blame him. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Oh. Explains why he was desysopped. Epicgenius (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - History shows that an Indef block will be overturned by a sympathetic admin, only resulting in more drama. Mr. Corbett is a lightning rod for disruption, but it's not entirely his fault, or even mostly his fault. I propose that there should be a provision, memorialized with a banner at the top of his talk page, that anyone who comments on his talk page may experience foul language, insults, pain, nausea, cramps, etc. From that point forward, no user is allowed to complain about anything that occurs on his talk page, under threat of a block for disruption. Also, no one is allowed to respond to to complaints resulting from interactions on Corbett's talk page with the same consequences. 2nd Rule of Fight Club: You do not talk about fight club! - MrX 16:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Concrete measures, then: Eric gets blocked for 1 month (escalating from the previous one). Khazar2 and Automatic Strikeout get 10 days for baiting him. Anyone who breached WP:CIVIL in this very thread gets at least 5 days, or the appropriate next escalation if they had prior blocks. Surely that will satisfy everyone. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  And there you have it, the bogus claim that Eric was baited. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  What would blocking me for one month be designed to prevent? Eric Corbett 17:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Pretty much the same as blocking the roughly dozen (and rising) people here who are also in breach of WP:CIVIL, I'd say. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  So long as you include Admins. in that number, where appropriate. Leaky Caldron 17:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  But this, along with RfA and ArbCom pages, is a civility-free zone. The truth also seems to be a stranger here. Eric Corbett 17:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  We've read enough vague statements from you implying that you are honest and everyone who opposes you is a liar. What, exactly, is the truth, in this case? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Well, you could start by reading the explanation Khazar gives on his user page for his retirement. Eric Corbett 17:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  No, I'm not going to go looking for the examples myself. You post your examples here, stating very clearly what the alleged 'dishonesty' is, or quit talking about it. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Then carry on making stuff up to suit your case. Eric Corbett 17:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  What am I making up? Eric, you are supposed to be one of our finest writers. Can't you do better than this vague hyperbole? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  I suggested that you read Khazar's user page, but you're apparently too lazy even to do that, so why should I waste my time? Eric Corbett 17:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Ok, I just went and read his user page (assuming you meant this one). Where is the dishonesty? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 18:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Great latitudes should be permitted by users on their talkpages, but this is not limited to his userspace.--MONGO 17:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  You forgot to cast your vote for my indefinite block. Eric Corbett 17:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block: I was told on Wikipedia that I was "twee" the other day (which was a novel first), so I will tweely state that I don't like the 'C' word and I wish Eric would not use it. However, if a friend's much loved and very protective dog is known to bark and bare its teeth, sensible people do not go out of their way to provoke it. In fact, they go out of their way to avoid it - they do not shoot it. Similarly, anyone who has ever experienced a university common room of academics will know that there is always one grumpy, miserable old professor who is tolerated because his work for the university is outstanding. I'll leave you to decide which of these two analogies is most suited to Eric Corbett, but the result is the same - use some common sense and put up and shut up for the sake of the project and by doing so, show how grown up, broad minded, tolerant and cosmopolitan you are.  Giano  17:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  I especially endorse the "grumpy professor" analogy. That Wikipedia is not a democracy should be treated as an endorsement of the concept that productive contributors may be afforded leeway that might not be afforded to newer, unknown editors. We should always strive to act holistically with full consideration of the editor's record of contributions. The very issue of inflexibility, coupled with our steep learning curve, has far too often served to drive away experienced academics and strong contributors. This is not an endorsement of the idea that having a long editing record should exempt you from the rules (presuming there are any bright-line rules rather than amorphous standards). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose – although this user has been abusive before, Eric should only get blocks of definite time, at all. Probably one or two months for each violation. Also put him on editing restrictions (no more than a certain amount of edits on talk pages, and block him if he uses inappropriate language. Or even better, block him from editing certain talk and user talk pages). Epicgenius (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

When did this degenerate into a vote? Eric Corbett 17:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Whenever this was first posted, that's when. An admin should seriously consider taking away one or more of your user rights, probably the ones that you use most abusively. Epicgenius (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Which ones and on what basis? Eric Corbett 17:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Rollback, maybe? You don't use it often. Epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't use it ever, those were all done with Twinkle. But there are some things that don't work unless you have that user right. Anyway, you were suggesting that I'd been abusing one or more user rights, so which are they? Eric Corbett 18:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think it's fair to state (or imply) that Eric is abusing any user rights. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 18:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose any block. Eric's haters should man up and get a grip. It's who he is and he should not have to change for anyone. People should learn that we don't live in a sugar coated land of pink marshmallows with liquorice made friendly folk who whistle lovely tunes and give a cheery nod to all persons all of the time. This is Wikipedia and 2013; some persons need to be told that they are a twat if they are being a twat, simples! It will be a sad day if he gets blocked, not just for WP but for the people who learn so much from him. Cassianto^Talk 17:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

So, Eric doesn't need to adapt for the sake of the project, but the project needs to adapt for Eric instead? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't speak for me and I am part of that project. Let me remind you that this "project" is made up of people from all walks of life and I for one am glad that there are people like Eric around who sticks up for what they believe in and who is not afraid to speak his mind. Have you ever pissed someone off and then had to "adapt" for the next time when that person let it be known that you had pissed them off? If Eric and I had come to blows, I would assume AGF and learn for the next time that I engage with him. I wouldn't come running along here like a petulant child waving the bullying card! Cassianto^Talk 18:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You act as if it is important for Eric to be able to lash out at others. It's not. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 18:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It is ok IMO, especially if those "others" you speak of come to bear bait. Cassianto^Talk 18:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It's on its last legs, according to Eric.[31]. Typically inspiring words from a fearless leader, ready to take Wikipedia into the next (possibly more ornery) age. Huzzah!!! You have my bow as well!!! Doc talk 17:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to situations like this it is yeah! Cassianto^Talk 18:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Somebody swans along, out of the blue to an editor's talk page, makes a claim, gets short shrift and goes and retires. Various page stalkers have their say, none of it invited, editor reacts. Somebody else swans along and just has to run to mummy and suddenly mass righteous indignation. Nobody died, nobody, unless they wished to be included in editor's remarks, was insulted, and nobody vandalized the encyclopedia. I just don't get it, if you want to write articles, write them, if you don't like somebody unwatch their page and this one, the drama will evaporate. The most uncivil here can only see incivility in others. If everyone was treated equally without recourse to these kangaroo courts, there wouldn't be so much drama. It takes all sorts, only the very petty try to force their values on the rest of us. Get over yourselves. J3Mrs (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

And here come all of Eric's enablers, right on cue. And SOP until Arbcom finally stops shirking its duty. Resolute 17:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)In(de)finite ban - Given that it seems we can have a free pass on absolute incivility, I feel safe in stating that Eric Corbett is an attention whore. After so many years of this ridicolous spoiled brat behaviour, there's nothing left to justify him. He's not stupid. He's just trolling all of us -I'm convinced he is uncivil on purpose to see how much drama he can stir and recognize his fans and foes. Enough. WP:DENY states: True vandals (as distinguished from users who engage in harassment and edit warring or dabble in minor vandalism) usually suffer from chronic alienation and real or perceived powerlessness and seek recognition and infamy by interrupting and frustrating the Wikipedia project and community. Such users experience exceptional attention as empowerment, reward, and encouragement - This is the case here. --cyclopia^speak! 18:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose any block. I have never interacted to my knowledge with Eric Corbet. WP:CIVIL is critical for Wikipedia to work, but its interpretation, as with any policy here or in the larger world, depends on context and background. The context of Eric's user page and

discussion matters. If this behavior had occurred on and article talk page or edit summary of an article, I would support an indef block, but not in this context. I am One of Many (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sarcastic support for indef ban, per this conversation: [32] Wikipedia user space is censored, and we should keep from huring peoples feelings on talk pages. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Some people seem to be far too sensitive, this is the Internet, not real life, with a mix of people of all nationalities and all backgrounds. Meaning that we'll have to accept more than we might do in real life. So cut down on the drama, ignore the four-letter words, or whatever, and get back to what we're here for, creating an encyclopaedia. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC) (Seems like I clicked "save" a few seconds too late, but I'll leave my comment here anyway...)

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

User Eric Corbett continuing discussion

• Comment - While the sentiments expressed are probably accurate, it is procedurally inappropriate to close this thread the way that it has been closed. There is an ongoing debate about a proposed indef. Carrite (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I know, I know. Call it IAR if you like, or SNOW: there's currently no consensus either way as I read it, and I think we all know that this thread will never lead to one, so I decided to skip the vitriolic, two-minutes-hate-filled middleman, which can only harm and not heal. Revert the close if you (or anyone else, for that matter) like; you certainly wouldn't be wrong to do so. I still think keeping it closed is for the best, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think expecting that this be left open for 24 hours before someone makes a call is unreasonable. One thing of which we all should be aware is that bending the rules to reduce drama often has the opposite effect. It'd be best if you self-reverted. Carrite (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do understand your point, but I disagree. I won't take umbrage if someone else makes a different call, and certainly if someone else makes a different one, theirs can override mine. But following the rules to reduce drama can also have the opposite effect, and given the history here, I think it will, so I'm going to stand by my close. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You made the right call here, Writ Keeper. Nothing was going to happen. An issue with this history and the number of highly opinionated contributors requires a more structured discussion than ANI can ever provide. If it helps others to swallow it, think of this as a forum non conveniens close. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion? I didn't see any discussion. Eric Corbett 19:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

All the more reason to close it (and keep it closed). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree with the closure above. A discussion was in progress and was 24 hours old at termination. Regardless of ones views on the topic, this is a breathtaking abuse of process. Jusdafax 22:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with others above - this thread should not have been closed. We can't just assume no resolution will be found and close it, nor should this issue be foisted onto another page/board. This discussion should play out some more, and therefore should remain open. Writ Keeper, it should be you that re-opens (un-closes?) this. - ^theWOLFchild 23:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Writ's closure was sound since it was already obvious that this is not the day the indef happens. no sense prolonging the drama that Eric sought. Resolute 23:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Anyone who wants it re-opened should do it themselves (and accept responsibility for the consequences). I still don't see any way that anyone would benefit more from a re-opening than from letting it stay closed, so it won't be me that reopens it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose indefblock I wish Eric would stop using four-letter words, mainly because it sets off reams of discussion like this. I also with more editors would write content rather than seemingly waiting for some dispute to pile in on and offer opinions. I also wish we had more medical doctors writing and consensus was easier to achieve here. Unfortunately we have to be a bit pragmatic. Look around folks and have a think - we're trying to write, maintain and improve an online encyclopedia and we're at a crossroads and need all hands on deck. Ultimately, if someone is a great copyeditor and extremely helpful 80-90% of the time then I see that as a net positive. Unfortunately, we have to be realistic at times. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

need all hands on deck. Including the likes of Khazar2. DeCausa (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

What has Khazar2 got to do with it? Eric Corbett 23:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@DeCausa, I haven't interacted much with Khazar2 but have found him friendly and helpful when I have, so I can't speak for his benefit as much - his talk page indicates folks will miss him, and I think that's sad too. As far as I am aware, this is the first editor who has cited eric as part of a reason for leaving. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Similar cumulative collateral damage isn't known or knowable. One can only guess.DeCausa (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Or make it up. Eric Corbett 00:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I have used Khazar2 for several GA reviews, and have found him competent, friendly, and quick. There are not many editors who will go through an article with a fine-toothed comb, and really be able to do it well. As well as having lost a friend, with whom I was planning to do Jimmy Carter, there is one person less to whom I can turn to evaluate my work. I'm probably not interested enough in Carter to do it on my own, so that's a FA that won't get done, at least by me.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

But what's that got to do with me? Eric Corbett 01:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Putting this all in perspective for a moment: debate team A thinks saying goodbye this guy would be horrible because he's a content contributor, and presumably those are hard to come by these days because the environment has become too toxic to attract more of those. Debate team B wants to say goodbye because they don't like people who don't seem to be able to be "civil" while telling someone to fuck off. Then there's the peanut gallery (team C) who just likes watching team A and team B make one another and themselves look silly.

The only question worth asking here is: which team are you on? --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there a team D, that actually wants to reduce drama god? Sign me up for that one, although I guess I'm not its MVP. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Well yeah, there's team D. As a member of team D I try not to mention it's existence, out of fear of causing dramatic outbursts from the members of teams A, B, and C. So, shhhhh!!!--SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia created a highly secretive Tier-one 'anti-drama-ism' unit only as 'Team E'. Only for the elite, the few, the proud... and those who don't give a rat's ass. - ^theWOLFchild 23:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, not so secret now, bigmouth ;-)!--SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

And then there's Team F, which the vast majority of Wikipedians are in. They don't really give a crap either way. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Not only did you completely miss what Thewolfchild said, but then you started a new subthread talking about bringing this to arbcom. Nothing wrong with that, but presumably groups F through Z are going to have a hard time getting people to take them seriously thanks to you. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

And possibly groups Œ, ∑, ´, ®, †, ¥, and all these other symbolic groups. Anyway, something has to be done about this. Epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

We all know that arguing over Eric Corbett is going to get nowhere, and that he isn't exactly breaking the rules. But then again, Eric is uncivil and sometimes harasses people. Could someone file a request for arbitration? Talking here isn't working. Epicgenius (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, but I take issue that the claim that he 'isn't exactly breaking the rules". He most certainly is - Wikipedia:Civility says "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect". It explicitly "applies to all editors and all interaction on Wikipedia" and defines incivility as "one or more of the following behaviours, especially when done in an aggressive manner: personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments." StAnselm (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I have never harassed anyone. Why are you making stuff up Epicgenius? Eric Corbett 00:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You want me to provide some examples? Epicgenius (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That's generally how it works, yes. I was surprised to see the word harass link to WP:HARASS and not a diff in your post above. Nick (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nick: Look at this edit to Talk:Malkin Tower. In that edit, Corbett sarcastically asks me if I have "anything better to do". I think that was harassment. Then this edit summary to Hanged, drawn and quartered. Very rude. This is just two examples of incivility by this user. Epicgenius (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You were asked to provide evidence of harassment, and unsurprisingly you evidently can't. Eric Corbett 01:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to provide good evidence of dishonesty, an accusation that you throw around regularly. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 01:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe one comment in response to one edit "harassment", especially as it relates to an article Eric had extensively edited, upto FA status if I remember correctly. I'd be looking for a long line of diffs showing Eric following you around the project, making snide remarks, reporting you for vandalism, generally making your editing difficult. I'm not seeing that. If you're labeling that one edit "harassment" I'd be very careful the actual edit isn't similarly considered "harassment" towards Eric. It certainly could be considered antagonistic when someone comes along and changes the layout of a Featured Article without speaking to one of those responsible for its promotion.

I'm completely lost with your second diff, where it looks for all the tea in China someone has set up a SPA to cause trouble, trolling Eric and the project. It's telling they made one edit to WP, argued, shouted and swore at us, then buggered off, never to be seen again. Nick (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

User:No such user reported by Cognoscerapo.

Once again I have to bring this user here for a blatant abuse but this time I want to see action, a block from editing. He has misued rollback and this isn't his first time[33]. And here. He needs to learn that it is for blatant vandalism ony and not for edits you don't approve of, even if they are NPOV. I lived out a block but now it is his turn. Cognoscerapo (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

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

The relevant threads are Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#Sock_of_just-blocked_editor and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#No_Such_User, particularly the latter. In sum, either Cognoscerapo is just trolling us (which is far more likely, since they seem quite intelligent: knows about WP:RS in his 10th edit, using citation template in his 12th, and is familiar with policies about proxying for banned users and rollback in ~30th), or is completely unable to grasp that his edits are blatant pov-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, therefore practically indistinguishable from plain vandalism. In either case, he was given an ARBMAC warning, then blocked for 7 days, and still continues to restore pretty blatant pro-Albanian POV like this [34]. Certainly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. No such user (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Leave Cognoscerapo alone, he's only new and he'd doing a grand job. I really like him. Please stop reverting his fantastic edits. Borbayner (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Another day, another stalker in the Balkans. Evlekis, I presume? bobrayner (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• I knew there was something fishy about a couple of the posts I saw here - was just about to remove it when I saw this. Sigh. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Cognoscerapo needs to tread very lightly in this area: they were blocked for a week once already, and their language and behavior is tendentious, to say the least. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree with Drmies, Cognoscerapo edits are highly disruptive to say the least. 23 editor (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

FkpCascais

Proxing for banned user User:Evlekis. [35] and other examples. Deserves block and topic ban thereafter. Cognoscerapo (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The point of this editors is to insert their POV in all this articles. Exemple. As everyone can see by looking to article history, they do it either by using the sock-revert excuse, or using bad excuses directly, as in the diff I showed. The problem here is that most are obscure Kosovo-related articles with not much editors working on them, so their disruption passes unnteced, however Evlekis (or his socks or whoever) edits are actually correct and far more in accordance to the Wiki rules than the version this users are edit-warring for. FkpCascais (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Full disclosure, FkPCascais: My accusation should probably be taken with a grain of salt since I'm being stalked by Evlekis. Nothing personal against you. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I know that, don´t warry. It´s just that this entire sock-war-reverting is causing more disruption to the wikipedia articles than the socking itself. I reverted the sock-reverts which are not correct and which go against wikipedia rules, and I reverted them because I agree with the edit, and not because of socking/anti-socking or whatever. Once I edited some article that edit is mine, and I am fed up of seing editors reverting me with the socking excuse, and reinserting their POV edits (peacock weasel wording, pipped links, wrong countries, profund pro-Albanian nationalism in Kosovo-related articles, constant edit-warring, etc.). I´ll be reporting this from now on. FkpCascais (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If you can't stick to what Albanian language sources say, don't edit this Wikipedia because we neither want truth nor neutrality, just something pushing pro-Kosovar viewpoints. Borbayner (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we do want neutrality, and no, we don´t want "pro Kosovar" or "pro-anyone´s" viewpoint. FkpCascais (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ignore the above user, that was an impersonator account run by Evlekis. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's unfortunate that FkpCascais has gone back to proxying for Evlekis. (I'm surprised that Cognoscerapo chose a relatively weak diff). Alas! Neither proxying for permablocked editors, not systematic pov-pushing, nor deliberate insertion of factual errors, nor accusing other editors of lying, seem to be punishable offences these days. bobrayner (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Its unfortunate that you use and abuse the sock-reverting-excuse to add absolut rubbish against all wiki norms in Kosovo-related articles. As far as I noteced, you seem to be a productive editor in some other subjects, but your extreme (emotional I guess) link to Kosovo-related subjects make you be absolutelly unbearable editor to work with in that area. You can complain about me as long as you want, but I am policy-follower editor, and all you can complain is that I am a barrier in your POV-pushing in those articles, and you try to imply everyone opposes you is either a Evlekis sock, or his proxy. Prepare yourself for boomerang in nea future if you don´t change your edditing pattern. FkpCascais (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Please, y'all, try to settle down, and don't let Cognoscerapo dictate the agenda. Bobrayner (did I type the correct name correctly?), I agree with the principle of restoring (or not undoing) good edits. I can't judge, from where I'm sitting, whether they were good edits or not--but why don't you (plural) take this up on a talk page, discuss it as a content issue, and come to an agreement before you let someone else turn it into a discussion on POV and behavior? And FkpCascais, don't you think you're going a bit overboard in your original research into Bobrayner's supposed emotional background? All of you, drop that language and discuss content. Cognoscerapo, I suggest you take it easy before you get blocked again, this time for inciting animosity by preventatively destroying collegiality. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Reverting nationalistic edits such as those of Cognoscerapo (especially in cases where they are clearly geo-historically wrong, see: this , this , and this ) has nothing to do with Bobrayner or sockpuppets. It has to do with the fact that Cognoscerapo is pushing Albanian nationalist POV down the throat of every single article s/he edits, siding with Bobrayner and his reverts of the good faith edits made by others (see this .) Just my 2 cents. 23 editor (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Blackberry Sorbet

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

---

Abusive language. Initial attacked as per this diff - [36] Followed up with deliberate emphasis - [37] - Bhtpbank (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

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

IP removing content with no consensus nor discussion

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

• [38], 29 Nov
• [39], 3 Dec
• [40], 3 Dec
• [41], 3 Dec
• [42], 3 Dec
• [43], 3 Dec
• [44], 4 Dec

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

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

Copyright violations by an offsite party

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

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

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

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

http://www.funimation.com —Ryulong (琉竜) 15:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Address, phone and email: [45]. You're right, support@... does seem to be their only registered email.Yunshui 雲‍水 15:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• It'd be more helpful if you could post exactly what is alleged to have been taken. For those who know nothing of this, it'd like MGM or Pixar or Disney taking your work for their own purposes. Without more information to go on, I cannot really comment further. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Funimation blatantly copied the summary I had written in April for the first Ghost in the Shell: Arise installment which more or less exists in the exact same state as of the last time I checked the article. The only difference is that Funimation's version does not include the word "Set" before the phrase "In the year".—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were so worried about this, but there does appear to be merit to the argument. I used an old version from June after the announcement that they had acquired the rights.[46] Specifically this version.[47] As no previous cache is available at Archive.org, I did a duplication detector result.[48] With that being said, I'd contact Jackie Smith (Public relations manager) or possibly Joseph Nicholson (Marketing and Communications Executive). At the very least they might be able to direct you to the right person. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is a postal address. De728631 (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Truss Bridge

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

---

I want some feedback. I was looking over the article Truss Bridge and when I got to the revision history, I saw almost every edit was either vandalism or a undo of the vandalism. I think that we should semi-protect it so people can work on more important things other than taking their time to revert some stupid spam. What do you all think. Should it be semi-protected? Leoesb1032 (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest that you report this to WP:RPP instead? Epicgenius (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Update: I've done that. Epicgenius (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Next matchday scenario

There has been a discussion on WT:FOOTY which can be read at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Next matchday scenarios (will soon be archived). The issue is about next day scenarios (what will happen if team A beat team B and team C do not defeat tem D...?) on sports article and wheter or not it should be included. There has been a lot of discussing if we should include this future predictions (is it WP:CRYSTAL?) on wikipedia or not and also the complexity of the calculations if they are routine calculations or not and if it is original research. In the discussions votes were casted (even if consensus is not result of voting) and I calculated thirteen editors oppose inclusion of the material, four suppport and two support if very good sourcing. This is to me consensus to not include the material with so many opposing.

The issue has also been at WP:DRN (read at this link) earlier were the decision was do not include this material after 3 independent uninvolved editors all opposed.

Now User:Ivan Volodin (the editor starting the discussion when they were removed) has resumed inserting these edits against consensus (he does not agree there are a consensus and tried to form his own consensus) and added the scenarios with a blog as a source (which is hardly a reliable source), the same blog he used when he was reverted before the discussions started. You can see it at diff, diff, diff, diff.

In the disussion a INVOLVED admin, User:GiantSnowman said on WT:FOOTY that "Sigh, if I wasn't INVOLVED I would block seeing as he is editing against consensus. I suggest taking this to AIV/ANI" seen on the link i provided.

Can any admin not involved please take a look at this issue, would be much appreciated. Maybe an admin can stop this edits and tell him to stop. QED237 (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)