Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion



    Proposal for interaction ban or 1RR restriction between Pass a Method and StAnselm

    User:Pass a Method is topic banned from religion articles for a period of 6 months. Religion based article is defined as any faith in a deity or deities or article specifically opposed to faith in a deity or deities. This includes sections in other articles about a religion. Any ambiguity about this definition should be addressed to an uninvolved administrator. For clarification, I see a specific definitive change in the progress of this discussion that led me to weigh the later votes with more strength.--v/r - TP 22:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    StAnselm (talk · contribs) and Pass a Method (talk · contribs) seem to be locked in edit wars at Lot (biblical person) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Tree of life (biblical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Garden of Eden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Other than blocking them both I can't think of any other alternative than some form of interaction ban. Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • An interaction ban would probably make things worse. Since they both edit in the same area, that would be equivalent to saying that the first of them to make an edit to an article can't be reverted, or indeed that the other editor couldn't ever edit that article. Some sort of 1RR restriction would probably be better. Or alternatively blocking them both for a while wouldn't be unreasonable - they're both gaming 3RR on all of those articles (I think StAnselm has even broken it on Tree of Life). Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't think I had, but I think that's because I was assuming move reversions didn't count. Anyway, I made two reverts[1][2], and one edit seeking a compromise solution[3]. Obviously, I realise that edit-warring is not necessarily breaking 3RR, but I just wanted to clarify this. StAnselm (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Black Kite and also because my own observation is that StAnselm does yeoman's work in Biblical areas while Pass a Method's involvement is generally disruptive and POV-ish. Roccodrift (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Protect articles Curiously enough, I find that StAnselm's efforts are POVish and he's prone to edit-warring (as shown above). This calls for protecting the articles from non-admin edits to force them to discuss rather than revert. MilesMoney (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1RR restriction. I prefer a 1 revert-rule restriction between myself and StAnselm, but alternatively would be fine with a interaction ban. It is frustrating when you've spent two to three hours gathering sources and then somebody reverts you with a vague or non-applicable edit summary. It would also be helpful when i'm in the midst of work-in-progress; my edits usually take between an hour or so in between them, but stanselm sometimes judges me by my first incomplete edit. If i was allowed time to include my unfinished draft which included Baha'i scripture and the Book of Mormon, the setence would make sense. Pass a Method talk 22:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - there is more going on between the two of us than just the resurrection of these old edit wars, of course. Pass a Method and I have had a lot of interaction lately. I thought things were improving after this exchange on my talk page, but since then Pass a Method has accused me of Eurocentric editing and then started a thread on Jimbo Wales' talk page, which to all appearances was accusing me of racism. StAnselm (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I had another editor in mind, not you. Pass a Method talk 22:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence my "to all appearances". But you talk page post came immediately after this edit on my talk page and after a string of edits to Tree of life (biblical), Garden of Eden, and their respective talk pages. That certainly makes it look suspicious. StAnselm (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have interacted with dozens of editors over the past two weeks. Pass a Method talk 23:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1RR interaction restriction per Pass a Method, I've not seen Pass a Method doing POV questionable edits but they certainly may have. I cannot say the same for the other editor, and across a variety of subjects that all seem to lie in contentious areas related to conservatism. That they are both overall improving things is of course debatable, but minimizing the back and forth on articles is probably best. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose interaction ban / Support 1RR restriction - I requested page protection for Garden of Eden and saw some edit warring on a couple of other articles on my watchlist. These two editors approach religious/spiritual topics from completely different points of view. I think an interaction ban would unfairly penalize one party in favor of the other, but a 1RR restriction on articles that they both edit would force discussion sooner and avoid edit wars.- MrX 23:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Support indefinite blocks of both with no TP/email access and indefinite full protection of ALL affected articles: I don't even think a mutual 1RR restriction goes far enough in this case. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 01:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    - "Kill'em all, and let God sort'em out"...? That's a little over the top. I'm sure 1RR, plus 24hr. block for any over-3RR's will suffice. - theWOLFchild 02:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC) ((Non-administrator comment))[reply]
    Nukes for Xmas, huh? Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why yes.... I MEAN NO... - Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Support fresh trout for Bigpoliticsfan for dramatizing things further. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose trouting In ictu oculi for failing to understand irony. ;) Iselilja (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately it's not, I searched the ANI archive box to see Bigpoliticsfan's previous appearances at ANI for context, confirmed that it isn't irony below. Rather odd comments for a new editor. Anyway, User:Iselilja the issue is whether repeatedly reposting additions like this should be reverted or not. St Anselm is reverting repeated additions of an editor who refuses to listen or stop - making reversions that you or I or any other responsible WP Religion editor should have been making with St Anselm. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have the time or inclination to investigate this, but my canned suggestion is as follows: if this is a dispute about the same topic spread across multiple articles, then a RfC should be started on one page and pointers left on the others. If these two are edit warring about different topics, then blocks of both are probably justified, unless there is (going to be) consensus here that one's edits were way outside policies, in which case a single-sided block would be ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone not using his real name (talk • contribs) 01:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose interaction ban - the WikiProject Religion / WikiProject Christianity editor pool has been decimated over the last 5 years to the point where there are barely enough competent editors to keep out the tidal wave of internet fringe. History2007 quitting and John Carter having admin tools removed for (in my view) opposing fringe and then retiring. This inevitably means that the small number of editors capable of keeping the large article stock free of fringe is going to be more prone to 3RRs. I'm referring positively to StAnselm. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    On closer look User:Dougweller, from what I can see User:Pass a Method has (a) been attempting to add Islamic weight to leads of Bible articles which are generally weighted as Jewish/Christian in English sources. That may or may not be justifiable but before radical changes discussion should at WP Judaism, WP Christianity, WP Islam noticeboards. (b) Pass a Method has been making undiscussed moves of Bible figures from (biblical person) to (Abrahamic person) which again may or may not be justifiable but before radical changes discussion should at WP Judaism, WP Christianity, WP Islam noticeboards. I haven't looked in great detail beyond the immediate edits but in every case where St Anselm has reverted these edits if History2007 John Carter were still around I think it would be 3 editors reverting not 3RR. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The wide variety of transliterations of the word "quran" means that google search returns are not always sufficiently indicative of weight, i.e. quran, koran, qur'an, alkoran, coran, alquran, qoran, Qur'ân, Qur'ān, Qurʾān, Ḳurʾān etc. Pass a Method talk 04:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Response - 1RR on Pass a Method only - it's evident from that reply that Pass a Method doesn't understand that his edits are at the very least controversial, if not disruptive.
    Sportsfan and others, has anyone actually looked at the sort of edits StAnselm is reverting and Pass a Method is pushing back? The Garden of Eden is the Biblical "garden of God", described most notably in the Quran and the Book of Genesis. Isn't this WP:OR as well as WP:POV? Is the Garden of Eden is described most notably in the Quran before the Book of Genesis? Is there anybody on this section who wouldn't revert this edit?
    If you read it that way, yes, but if you rememeber that other scriptures mention the Garden of Eden such as Some Answered Questions [4] or Sahih Muslim [5], or Sahih Bukhari [6], or Book of Mormon then no. Out of those 6 books, it is most notable in genesis and the Quran and i stand by that. Pass a Method talk 04:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't take long to see that StAnselm apparently disapproves of a variety of "blue state" ideals, and edits to remove things they don't like, even if true and referenced, in any way possible. On Wikipedia this is rather easy and unless someone actually stops them they simply continue on degrading content and articles based on their ideology. I don't see that pattern with Pass a Method, instead I see a more broadening of subject matter to encompass more viewpoints, at least widely respected ones. Often backed up with sourcing. Then StAnselm counteracts to remove more content. This is exactly opposite their trajectory on subjects for which they approve. I suppose the same could be said of many editors but that is what I see. In summary I trust Pass A Method's editing. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like out point out a couple of things that I have posted on my user page. The first is that I live in Australia. So while I am familiar with the term "blue state", I do not belong on the U.S. political spectrum. (I mention this also because Pass a Method apparently accused me of Anglo-American bias. I am not "Anglo-" either.) The second thing about me that I have posted on my user page is that, yes - I am a Christian. Now, obviously I understand the issues of neutrality and systemic bias as they pertain to Wikipedia. I try as much as possible to be neutral and objective in my edits. Interestingly, though, most of the articles under dispute are particularly Hebrew Bible topics. From my perspective, this edit from Pass a Method is somewhat akin to me editing the article so that the lead sentence says "The tree of life... is a term used in Revelation 22:1–2 and the Book of Genesis..." That, indeed, would be a POV edit. StAnselm (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    ：：：：：：：：Sportsfan5000, I have no idea what "blue state" means, nor does it help me to identify any good edits in Pass a Method's contrib history. To get a benchmark, do you consider this a good/keepable or bad/revertable edit? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Oculi, who said that edit was complete? I was reverted within 10 minutes of making that edit. I was planning to put it into context by adding Book of Mormon, Some Answered Questions mentions too. If you had read my first post you would have known that. Pass a Method talk 06:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And this makes me wonder - why didn't you say that on the talk page? Why didn't you start a discussion? Surely this doesn't count as discussing. So why didn't you follow WP:BRD? You have all these great facts about the Quran - why didn't you post them on the article talk page(s) instead of re-reverting? StAnselm (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well perhaps they were in process of improving the article and didn't realize they would have to negotiate every step of the way, even if ultimately their edits would work just fine for all concerned. People do get tired of having to battle just to improve articles. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass a Method should have known it from last time (where, I should point out, he made four edits, and I only reverted one of them) and had almost a month to draft some suitable text. StAnselm (talk) 08:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I already had collected references for Baha'i scriptures, yet after you revision my draft would no longer make as much sense. Pass a Method talk 16:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have no suggestions for what a solution should be, but what it shouldn't be is a double indefinite block; I can't imagine any situation in which Bigpoliticsfan's suggestion would be appropriate. A quick glance at SA's talk and PAM's talk shows plenty of comments from PAM on SA's talk, many of which are rather strongly worded and seemingly hostile, while there's only one comparable note from SA on PAM's talk. For examples of what I mean, see 23:26, 24 December 2013 (SA to PAM) and 05:42, 13 November 2013, 05:32, 10 December 2013 and the comment above it, 23:48, 22 December 2013, and 00:06, 23 December 2013 (PAM to SA). It definitely seems as if PAM's assuming bad faith more readily than SA, and the diffs that SA gives (example, 02:27, 23 December 2013) seem to back up his statements, while the diffs that PAM gives (example, 05:42, 13 November 2013) don't appear to be grounded in reality. Their talk page interactions are definitely not equally problematic. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This calls for the WWJLP solution. WWJLP stands for What would Jean-Luc Picard do? Picard would recommend that both editors work this out with an independent mediator selected by and amenable to both parties and agree to abide by their decision. The deliberation should consist of brief statements from both parties, followed by questions from the mediator, and two closing statements in response to those questions. This should take no more than a few days to a week. Engage. Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Viriditas, I am pretty confident that Jean Luc-Picard would revert this edit? If not, why not? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said above, that was not my full edit. I was reverted in 10 minutes in the midts of work-in-progress. Pass a Method talk 06:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The Prime Directive would prevent him from interfering. Viriditas (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Which shows the difference between a Wikipedia editor seeing someone insert Garden of Eden notable in the Quran and Genesis and reverting it and being on a starship. It's seems to be that some editors here don't understand the point of reverting edits. The Wikipedia religion articles are fringe and POV magnets, the Jesus article for example bleeps daily with editors reverting most of the edits made to it, and the main activity is simply preserving the article. The Bible articles where Pass a Method is making edits such as placing the Quran ahead of the Bible in the lead are typical of religion articles which have been long stable, finished and where new material is almost always bad. This is an example. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's about textual neutrality itself, not about being neutral on a starship. If you want to change the behavior here, then it's best to address both sides with a neutral mediator approved by both. As for the content itself, I think you will find a multitude of interpretations. I, for one, would bump up its legendary origins and role in mythological literature and downplay its importance in religion. After all, it is not as important as other religious issues on the table, and I don't personally believe that any religious narrative should dominate or supersede the comparative literature approach. And yet, we see this religious bias throughout Wikipedia, an encyclopedic work that should remain neutral in regards to scriptural interpretations. The fall of man narrative is not unique to any one religion as the Tree_of_the_knowledge_of_good_and_evil#Motif and Fall_of_Man#Similar traditions sections show. Funny how both sides ignore that fact. From where I stand, this a Babylonian myth and should be treated primarily as such. I'm sure you will disagree, hence the need for a neutral mediator that both parties will respect. Viriditas (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Amen! Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but when you compare Genesis and the Quran to the other scriptures out there mentioning the garden of eden - then it WOULD make sense, wouldn't it? Pass a Method talk 06:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I forgot to mention this before, but in the interests of full disclosure, there is a draft RfC/U concerning Pass a Method, to which I contributed suggestions. StAnselm (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment StAnselm, so you're not gonna comment on whether you support an interaction ban or 1RR restriction between us? Pass a Method talk 05:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I had been holding off to see what explanation you would give for your conduct, but in light of the anti-conservative bias you explicitly articulate, and in light of these edits [7][8][9] indicating either a refusal to discuss issues on talk pages, or else an incompetence in doing so, I would support a topic ban for Pass a Method on all religious articles. StAnselm (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentAs I started this I'm being bold and changing my section heading to include a 1RR restriction, which I see as a much better solution. I'm trouting myself (virtually) for not thinking about it first. User:Black Kite is right, and if I hadn't gone to bed I would have revised this then. I'd warned StAnselm over Garden of Eden where his 4th revert was just minutes outside 24 hours, didn't notice Tree of life (biblical) where he hit 4RR within 24 hours but by changing the order of words. I wouldn't want either to be blocked over this. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1RR restriction. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dougweller, from my perspective, the Quran is the only book in the world where millions of people have memorized chapters of it off the top of their head word for word. Plus I also know that the garden of eden is among the first stories told in the quran in sura Al-Baqara, plus it is repeated in many other quranic chapters. Hence its notability/weight to me is obvious without even necessarily doing a google search return count. Pass a Method talk 06:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See Argumentum ad populum. As easy as it is to argue by the numbers or by authority, or by the majority, it is just as easy to argue that the textual roots of the Babylonian religion are older and are closer to the original text. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How many Christians can read the New Testamant back to front off the top of their head? none that I know of. As for Muslims, there are millions of those. In fact this is standard practise to enable Muslims to pray tarawih which actually requires full quran memorization. Pass a Method talk 06:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, Argumentum ad populum. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I already ¡voted for 1RR, and 24hr block for any 3RR violations. But, as with most major religious topics, things can (and have) become contentious. Perhaps any future edits by these two, should first have consensus on either the talk page or at the relevant WikiProject page. - theWOLFchild 06:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all measures suggested. Since more details have emerged about the latest spat, it's clear that this is a continuation of the previous incident (from a month ago), so this should go to RfC/U and/or ArbCom. Transforming edit warring into slightly slower edit warring won't have any appreciable benefits. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This post by User:Someone not using his real name (for which thanks), linking Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#Editor_deleting_Islamic_content pretty well makes all of the above irrelevant. The first diff given by Pass a Method in the previous Noah's Ark of sura Hud and the Book of Genesis is self-incriminating, although Pass a Method evidently has no concept of the problem. It is not an issue of Jewish/Christian bias that Wikipedia references Bible stories/articles to the Jewish/Christian Bible, it is simply following WP:RS, since WP:RS place the 1000BCE, or whenever, ancient Jewish stories first and then the 7th Century Quran mentions based on the Jewish stories second. Muhammad's writings are tertiary references, chronologically. A couple of words in a sura does not give the Quran primary billing ahead of the Hebrew Bible in wikipedia article space. I suggest this section be closed with 1RR on Pass a Method as an interim action and draft RfC/U opened ASAP. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Topic-ban Pass a Method. I perused the diffs and the previous incident, and I can't see why this is being framed as a symmetric situation of edit-warring, when we obviously have a POV-pushing, WP:ICANTHEARYOU editor trying to introduce novel and WP:UNDUE reading into articles, then edit-wars to keep it in, and an editor with a clue who reverts to a previous, consensus version, and occasionally loses temper in the process? I really do not see any kind of honest difference of opinion, just a disruptive editor who should be removed in the best interest of the encyclopedia? No such user (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This won't happen on ANI because he clearly has fans; see the comments of Sportfan5000 above, for example. ANI is unsuitable for solving disputes unless they are very imbalanced in terms of numbers on each side of the BATTLE. ANI is also unsuitable for presenting large amounts of evidence. So on both counts this is more like the Tea Party situation that went to ArbCom in the summer. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Someone not using his real name, re User:No such user's suggestion I would expect - the more I look at Pass a Method's pattern of edits - a topic ban would be the likely outcome of taking this to a more in depth location. But are you proposing starting from User:Halo Jerk1's draft RfC/U? (User Halo Jerk hasn't been online since 16 Dec. Are you proposing something/somewhere else? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how i'm going to be judged over an incomplete set of edits, like i mentioned above; it was a work-in-progrress. Plus there has already been an RfC on weihgt given to religions; (see here), but the close was inconclusive. Pass a Method talk 16:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems clear to me that we need another RfC similar to the one earlier this year, but this time with alterations made to our guidelines, since its obvious this is currently a grey area. This entire dispute falls within that grey area. It doesn't matter what happens on this thread, because inevitably, a month from now, or a year from now similar situations are going to pop up. if we keep it as it is now, the only conclusion i can see is more editos leaving wikipedia, either through frustration and personally quitting, or through blocks, and we'll have even less editors than we have now. Pass a Method talk 17:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Come to think of it, StAnselms version of the article apppears to represent the Conservapedia version of the article; (see here). I'm pretty sure most wikipedians here don't want to turn wikipedia into Conservapedia do we? Pass a Method talk 17:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should Wikipedia be similar to Conservapedia? Pass a Method talk 18:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This discussion about (comparing) Conservapedia & WP is pointless and borders on AGF violation. If CPedia has RS (which meets WP standards) in its articles, then what's the beef? Is there a problem in our project simply because one wiki looks like another? Could it be that CPedia has copied from WP? So what?? – S. Rich (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not just an AGF violation (and it isn't borderline, either); it's an in-your-face civility violation, because it amounts to saying (to paraphrase) "Why don't you go somewhere else?" Roccodrift (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not any sort of violation to point out the similarity. The violation is that Conservapedia is openly biased, so if WP articles look like it, then they're also biased. MilesMoney (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That, my friend, is the fallacy of Affirming the consequent. "Biased articles look like X. This article looks like X, therefore it's biased." It's the equivalent of saying. "Dogs have four legs. Horses also have four legs, therefore horses are dogs." StAnselm (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but conservapedia's mission statement purpusefully presents one point of view. If this happens on an article which is as general and all-encompassing as the garden of eden, then we aren't doing it correctly. Pass a Method talk 19:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked the the Columbia Encyclopedia via Qeustia. That entry is only 5 lines long, and starts "Garden of Eden, in the Bible, first home to humankind". The last sentence says "also mentioned in the Quran". The Encyclopedia of World Mythology (2009) has no mention of the Quran. (HighBeam; paywall) Britannica has no mention of the Quran in the first 100 words (which is the only ones I can access, total article is 190). It's very common in a Western context to mostly relate Garden of Eden to the Genesis narrative. Of course, the world is changing and Wikipedia is meant to have a global focus, so the traditional Western of presenting this way may need modification. But there is hardly a straightforward answer on how to handle this. The question of how these articles should be structured is complex; several viewpoints may be valid, we should try not making it into a battleground. Iselilja (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but because of our Anglo-American focus guideline, wikipedia is different to those other encyclopedias. Pass a Method talk 21:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose proposal, support a ban on editing religion articles for Pass a Method only. Pass a Method has a long history of disruptive edits and edits against consensus, while StAnselm is one of Wikipedia's more productive editors. The comments by Pass a Method suggest an ideological motivation. -- 101.119.29.234 (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Either dole out mutual indefinite blocks or take this to AN and seek consensus for a mutual community ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigpoliticsfan (talk • contribs) 21:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Geez, I thought you were kidding. - theWOLFchild 21:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) [reply]
    No I'm not. This is a disgrace to the project of the first order. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Involved comment I consider myself involved, having myself been in a position similar to StAnslem, and this current situation feels far too familiar. Here is the pattern:
    1. Pass a Method makes a Bold but problematic edit or move (often tendentious, reactionary, and not well thought out) often making similar problematic changes across multiple articles. (Example: Moving Lot (biblical person) to Lot (Abrahamic person) ???) Typically this is done with a bland edit summary that doesn't justify the edit such as "add content" or "copyedit" as if PaM is trying to slip the edit under the radar.
    2. Someone (in this case StAnselm) recognizes the problem, reverts it, perhaps reverting parallel changes in other articles, and asking for discussion.
    3. Instead of discussing, Pass a Method simply reverts back to their preferred version.
    4. From this point the outcome varies, but generally ends up fairly quickly at a noticeboard, with a fair amount of reverting, user talk page templating, and often a bit of canvassing by PaM. ([10] [11] for instance).
    All of this could be avoided and the disputes could be quickly resolved if PaM simply followed either WP:BRD or WP:STATUSQUO. Like others who have commented, I don't think an interaction ban would be the ideal solution, and I don't think a 1RR restriction would solve the problem. It looks like a couple people have mentioned RfC/U, and with all due respect to the OP, I think that would be a slightly better direction. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic ban for Pass a Method, and Support an interaction ban for both. The "Abrahamic person" should be discussed at an RfC before someone runs off doing undiscussed moves (Pass a Method didn't reach out to the relevant WikiProject's for their comments)--especially since "Abrahamic" might not be the correct WP:UCN-compliant term for all contexts--such a move is thoroughly unnecessary since we've pretty much covered the Judeo-Christian contexts in the "biblical person" articles, like Lot, Cain and Abel, the articles on Mary, and accomplished an Islamic context in their own spin-off articles like Lot in Islam, Mary in Islam, etc. etc. We have articles on biblical persons and biblical narratives in the Quran. His contributions in adding "Abrahamic" and other information should be reviewed given that they might pose issues with WP:CFORK and being redundant at the articles he's effecting and several already-existing articles.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A non mutual punishment of any kind in this matter suggests you are more than involved; you are biased, which is the worst thing to be on ANI. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic ban for Pass a Method. I see no reason to punish StAnselm who has been trying to maintain the articles. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic ban on Hebrew Bible articles for Pass a Method - this is further to comment and additional to the 1RR restriction on Pass a Method above, I haven't looked in depth at the other contribs outside Hebrew Bible subjects to judge whether further topic bans are called for, but have now looked at both sets of edits from 27 November and this week. Conclusion: it's evident that Pass a Method has a topic-ban level problem with Hebrew Bible articles. To come repeatedly to different articles on Genesis subjects and refusing discussion edit war the lead to "in the Quran and Genesis" falls simultaneously into all 3 of the WP:POV/WP:POINTY/WP:FRINGE areas. I cannot see a single edit from either the first run of attempts to put the Quran ahead of the Hebrew Bible starting 27 November which were forestalled by the earlier appearance at ANI, and the second re-run of the second run of attempts to put the Quran ahead of the Hebrew Bible this time. Pass a Method was warned the first time, redoing the same edits and edit-warring up to 3RR justifies a topic ban. I say "first" only in relation to ANI, the editor has been trying to insert the Quran ahead of Genesis in various articles and even dabs since at least as far back as 7 Feb 2013 Eve is the first woman created by God in the Quran, the Book of Genesis and Baha'i scriptures. Abraham.. in the Quran, the Book of Genesis and Baha'i scriptures. These additions are long term and persistent. When challenged Pass a Method edit wars up to the 3RR line, then goes away and comes back later or takes the "in the Quran and Genesis" formula to a different article. If the editor's views on Judaism and Christianity moderate to recognize the usual chronological sequence of history of religions (Judaism->Christianity->Islam) then this can be demonstrated on Talk pages before the topic ban on Hebrew Bible articles is lifted. Pass a Method simply needs to demonstrate an understanding that the Hebrew Bible stories are firstly Jewish and not firstly Islamic, but there are posts above here indicating quite clearly that Pass a Method refuses to acknowledge what in WP:RS sources is axiomatic. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah. If I had had time to write more, and the skill, my reasoning would have looked much like yours. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support mutual 1RR restriction per Dougweller. The objective is to quiet the dispute not to punish transgressors. Ignocrates (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why "mutual"? If the objective is to quiet the dispute then a simple 1RR on Pass a Method as the editor adding POV controversial edits will suffice. There's no need to add a 1RR on editors reverting Pass a Method since if Pass a Method can't put edits such as in the Quran and [Genesis] edit straight back two times and three times there's nothing to revert. I see St Anselm and User:Editor2020 and before they left PiCo, History2007 and John Carter, and a few others, daily on my Watchlist reverting endless POV and fringe material edits from Bible articles. Being able to go up to 2RR or 3RR with the latest POV or fringe editor is essential to stop the articles deteriorating further. Most of these articles could actually be edit protected and frozen at 3 or 5 years ago when they were in better shape than today.
    Closer? Note that Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#Editor_deleting_Islamic_content is still open so this RM ideally should close that off too. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Either do a mutual editing restriction or nothing at all. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disclosure: PaM messaged me on my talk page, as was mentioned above. Anyway...I am not comfortable with a vote being held on ANI to enforce topic bans, interaction bans or whatnot. Why not go through a dual RfC/U for both users, hash it out there, and then turn it over to AN upon closing? It will take longer but it's more appropriate for drawn out discussions, ensures that all sides are heard and can make any resolutions afterward more definitive. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm leaning toward doing nothing at all at this point. Both parties to this dispute are veteran editors who should know better. Let them take the dispute to WP:DRN where they can find a way to work through their differences without being disagreeable. Ignocrates (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Topic ban Pass a Method from religious topics. Those who've read my WP:RfC/U draft (mentioned a few times higher up) already know that I see Pass a Method as a very troubling editor who 99.9 % of the time can never edit neutrally, especially on religious topics. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And as for Pass a Method having fans, if so, he does not have many. In ictu oculi and others, feel free to help me shape the WP:RfC/U. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Halo Jerk: You are just as biased as all the other editors suggesting a non mutual restriction in this matter. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support mutual 1RR restriction per Dougweller. Both are good editors! Both have strong convictions! The objective is to quiet the dispute not to punish transgressors. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Dougweller - I don't really understand your 1RR proposal as it relates to the editor preventing controversial edits repeatedly being added, i.e. St Anselm. The edits you have linked seem to all of them show Pass a Method adding Quran-first comments and editors, recently St Anselm, but previously other WP Religion editors, reverting Pass a Method. What about other editors reverting either Pass a Method or similar to edits to religion articles? As you know someone intent on pushing a fringe or POV or WEIGHT problem edit rarely stops with 1 revert, they very often take it to 2RR or 3RR. Under your proposal will St Anselm still be able to revert other editors than Pass a Method? If not then who is going to? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not my proposal, but it would be a 1RR restriction between the two editors and not affect them reverting anyone else. Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose As not being shown to have any likelihood of improving the project. The idea of "no reverts to each other" is weird as it does not allow for doing what Wikipedia states is the solution: require consensus for substantial changes to an article if anyone objects. Tell each to follow WP:CONSENSUS and avoid thousands of potential "solutions" which do not solve the issue as well as policy already provides. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bump to prevent archiving. I've no particular opinion in this issue, but it does seem to me that there has been sufficient input for an admin to evaluate it and close it, with or without action. Having it archived without action doesn't seem fair to all those who have participated in the discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Addition of unsourced claim to List of top international rankings by country by 99.244.158.43

    I removed the unsourced claim (that Iran is the world's oldest country) from List of top international rankings by country. However, the ip user, 99.244.158.43, keeps reverting my edit by claiming the linked article History of Iran as a citation. There is no claim on that page that Iran is the world's oldest country. There is only a statement that Iran is one of the world's oldest civilizations. However, the ip user either doesn't understand the difference or just doesn't care. In anycase, they keep adding back in the unsourced claim. I've given the user 4 warnings already, but they've ignored it. Transcendence (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) I would normally suggest WP:3, but it appears that the content the IP is adding is clearly wrong (and the angry edit summaries aren't helping matters either). However, s/he hasn't edited anywhere since Dougweller's final warning, so let's just see what happens. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 09:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just about to NAC this, but I noticed that earlier today the IP made this edit. I don't know enough about this topic to determine if the edit is legit or not though; would anyone else like to check it out? Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 02:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass changes to UK addresses

    This is better suited for WP:DRN. WP:ANI is for behavioral issues which require administrator tools to prevent disruption. Content disputes which can be solved by discussion should go to DRN. Administrators do not have any special authority to determine content issues.--v/r - TP 22:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Narrow Feint (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose editor whose sole contribution on Wikipedia is to enforce a particular address format on articles containing British addresses. I have discussed it with him on his talk page and a number of wider discussions have been held about the practice, most recently this one, but these discussions have always centred on the various merits of different formats, rather than the merits of mass enforcement of a particular format. While a small majority were in favour of the format Narrow Feint is enforcing, there has never been a consensus to make mass changes to that format. Narrow Feint has decided that the partial support for his preferred format constitutes a right to change all British addresses to that format. I do not believe such mass changes are constructive, and they are not supported by any guideline that I can find.

    It is important to add that Narrow Feint has always been civil, did not continue editing while discussions were being held, and has always denied a nationalist bias and claims not to deliberately concentrate on English addresses. But nevertheless, 100% of his mainspace edits are to remove "UK" from English addresses, even allowing "UK" to remain on Scottish addresses such as in this edit [12].

    I myself use various address formats for British addresses, including the one Narrow Feint prefers, and I am not concerned here about which format different people may favour; I simply object to mass enforcement of a particular format at the expense of others when there is no policy on Wikipedia to support it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) This issue seems more suitable for WP:DRN. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 19:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you explain why? As I say, this is specifically not about the merits of the various formats, it is about whether or not we are happy with mass changes from one to another. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Explain why? Sure, because it simply seems like a friendly disagreement (which is more than can be said for issues that are usually brought to this board). Have a good day. :) Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 19:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, yes, I suppose it is more civil than most. But it's been dragging on for a long time and I would like some concrete guidance on it, something I haven't found anywhere else. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Should the edits all be reverted? It seems that though this user is civil, their edits are not constructive. Epicgenius (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I would agree. An editor making such mass changes without consensus is clearly being disruptive regardless of whether they stop specific instances when called on it. (Consider if this had been an ENGVAR, or date format or BC/BCE issue.) I'm not an admin but frankly the only thing stopping me calling for a block or topic ban is the fact that they perhaps haven't received sufficient warning yet. Discussion should of course using some form of WP:Dispute resolution if necessary but that doesn't negate the disruption cause by the editor concerned. Ultimately if they can't achieve consensus for any specific usage which wouldn't exactly be surprising for something like this, then they will need to just let it be, regardless of their personal dislike for whatever format. Nil Einne (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm lost now. I didn't know if I was allowed to post here at the administrators noticeboard, but I'm told I can and anyway it looks like no administrator has replied to this topic. What do I do next? There is a clear consensus that UK is not needed in addition to the home country (there always was a consensus, but that has been reconfirmed). Apparently that consensus is the wrong kind of consensus, so do I need to ask somewhere else (and then I guess I apologise to the UK board for wasting a crowd of peoples time and effort) and will I get accused of some variant of 'forum shopping'? Then, if the next consensus is different to the old consensuses (consensi?) then what? Also, it seems that not only do you have to decide what the right form is, you then have to decide if the right form should be used and who should use it. So where do I ask that? Some advice from people who know what to do next would be appreciated. Yours, utterly baffled, Narrow Feint (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Your first mistake was not having in the first or second sentence the words "the current consensus was reached [[xxxxx|here]] and [[xxxxx|here]], and his edits were rejected by other editors [[xxx|here]], [[xxxx|here]] and [[xxxx|here]], and he refused to comply / failed to answer multiple requests by multiple editors / made clear that he doesn't intend to stop [[xxx|here]] and [[xxx|here]] ."
    The second mistake was not going to WP:DRN, not getting a few editors in WP:DRN to say "yes, these edits are against consensus", and not telling the editor "See? the guys at DRN agree that this is against consensus. If you don't stop, I'll ask that action is taken by administrators".
    Admins are always scared of blocking someone only because of content disagreements. I will repeat the same thing, in a different way. You need to:
    • show the breaking of consensus in a very clear way,
    • get independient editors to agree that it's a breaking of consensus,
    • show proof that the editor has been warned about the consensus several times
    • show proof that he refuses to comply with the consensus of several other editors
    --Enric Naval (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, nobody is breaking consensus. It's me that is editing to bring articles in line with consensus, but apparently I should not. Yours, still confused, Narrow Feint (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the confusion, my comment was addressed to the editor who made the complaint.
    As for you, you could link the discussions where the consensus was reached, and link a couple of edits where you are following that consensus, and a couple of edits where he is not following it. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The current consensus is at here. There are a couple of links at that place to the old consensus, which was the same. Sample simple edit (or one of most of my edits). Narrow Feint (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also slightly confused now, and I repeat this is not a content dispute. Enric, you seem to have the wrong end of the stick. The discussion Narrow Feint has linked to makes no mention of making mass changes to articles and does not constitute a consensus for what he is doing. He simply asked what address format people prefer and acted on some of those responses. Nowhere did he suggest enforcing any format across the entire project. NF is not acting against a consensus as such, because none exists. I simply object to someone making (controversial) mass changes with no consensus to do so or following any guideline, because similarly, none exists. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify the discussion to which which both NF and I have linked, a number of editors shared a preference for NF's preferred format, a number of editors disagreed with him, and several other editors favoured different formats entirely. How anyone could construe a consensus out of that discussion, I do not know. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    We seem to be at an impasse. My reading of the consensus discussion is different to Bretonbanquet's, no administrator has suggested that I carry on OR stop, but nobody has offered a response to my question: what do I do next? Narrow Feint (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Portillo and football (soccer)

    Portillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been systematically changing references of [[association football|soccer]] to [[football (soccer)|football]] in articles relating to the Australian game. This is a a problem for a number of reasons. Firstly when placed in prose, Australian football is ambiguous given Australian Football is the official name for Australian rules football and football is used by a number of sports in Australia. Secondly the user has no consensus for this change. There has been a long running debate at Soccer in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Football in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which is at best deadlocked and at worst leaning in favour of soccer as the name of the game in Australia. Thirdly, [[football (soccer)|football]] points to a redirect rather than the association football page. The user refuses to engage and continues on their way. I would like to go back and change these back but I'm not entirely sure what to change back to - I would appreciate some administrative assistance in resolving this issue. Hack (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note I am somewhat involved as I have taken part in a few RMs related to this issue. However, for what it's worth, as the relevant article about the sport in Australia is currently located at Soccer in Australia, then it seems sensible to conclude that 'soccer' is the most appropriate term and therefore should be used. Changing it en masse to 'football' - and yes, this user is fully aware of the issues around this topic - is nothing but disruptive. And changing the target article from 'association football' to 'football (soccer)' i.e. from a direct link to a redirect is just baffling, and raises questions about this user's competency. GiantSnowman 17:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I too think competency is an issue here, or at least an unwillingness to cooperate enough to be a helpful Wikipedia editor. None of the hundreds of changes that have led to this report were accompanied by an Edit summary, despite requests to do so. The user has also failed to respond at all in words to requests at both the Talk pages of some of the articles, and on his own Talk page. He did respond to my comments on his Talk page, by simply deleting them. So we have a completely uncommunicative editor making mass changes against consensus, and in defiance of multiple requests to cease and desist. Because he won't communicate, we have no idea why he's doing it either. All very weird. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It would appear the user in question has taken actions into his own hands in relation to discussions to change the usage of "soccer" to "football". On the last point made by Hack, "I would like to go back and change these back but I'm not entirely sure what to change back to", there is a strong desire to change the usage of "soccer" to an alternative, a desire which is currently applicable to the sport. Although HiLo48 has concluded that the topic of naming has been sufficiently discussed, I would disagree with him; I would request that the issue of naming be again looked at. GiantSnowman, you say you have been somewhat involved with the topic, what would you recommend? That the topic be again discussed, or that we draw the line, whip in hand?--2nyte (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You will continue to disagree with me that three failed RfCs is enough to demonstrate a pretty solid consensus for as long as you refuse to accept that consensus, which seems likely to be forever. That contribution of yours does not help resolve this present issue at all. In response to Hack's question on changing the articles back, the obvious thing to do is to simply reverse every one of Portillo's undiscussed edits. The longer term (re)naming issue is for discussion elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What outcome are you seeking HiLo48? For Portillo to receive a slap on the wrist and for the ~500 edits to be reverted? What about all the other users (myself included) that fail to use "soccer"? Will we get blocked form editing for 'vandalism' or 'bad faith edits'? This must be resolved. If you look at the facts plainly and simply they show that we need a compromise that is not "soccer". The three failed RfCs did not properly acknowledged the topic and on all three accounts a rather forceful decision was made. It's no longer enough to say "in Australia, it's soccer" because for many, it simply isn't.--2nyte (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I simply wanted the massive number of article changes to cease. Portillo did stop around an hour after this thread began, but still hasn't communicated with anybody, so one must question his competence to edit here. If that leads to a block, so be it. We have no real idea why he was doing it, nor really why stopped. He could therefore start again at any moment. Obviously the edits must be reverted. Is there an easy way to do that? I don't know. I'll ignore the rest of your post. It's just you using yet another soapbox to push your POV against a triple consensus. Please stick to the topic. HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hack & Hilo are biased anti-football supporters of Project AFL, a project where more time is spent stopping the official name for football in Australia being used by creating false consensus based on what one city in Australia (Melbourne) prefers to use as a nickname for Australian modified Gaelic Football, and creating pointless articles that duplicate specific articles simply to give them a platform for their hatred of Football, than on the actual subject of their project (ie, the AFL). Football is the official name of the sport in Australia, is used at every level of administration, is used as the proper name for the sport in the majority of the country both in common use and in the media, while the other major sports in Australia all have their own official name, which is emphatically not football. They have Rugby League, Rugby Union, and Australian Rules. Yet Hilo belives that only Football should be forced to use an uncommon nickname while the other sports can use their own official names. Hilo has been on a crusade for years to prevent the cultural changes in Australian sport, the media and in common life using the word football being replicated on Wikipedia. Even on articles specifically about teams who play football in the A-League, which is the Australian football competition run by Football Federation Australia, and that play in the Asian Football Confederation Champions League, the AFL Project continue to vandalise, disrupt and attack people who only want to use the correct, official name of the sport in their articles. Users Hack & Hilo should be banned from disrupting the football community on wikipedia and be told to stick to their own Australian modified Gaelic Football league articles. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As a background, Macktheknifeau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reverted mentions of [[association football|soccer]] to [[association football|football]], suggesting vandalism on the part of other users who happen to be members of WP:AFL.[13][14] For disclosure, I'm a member of WP:AFL, WP:FOOTBALL and WP:FSIA. Hack (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The above is false consensus and biased editors trying to jam their non-neutral POV down the throat of articles completely unrelated to the AFL, or even Melbourne itself. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm that the above is a true representation of the case. User Hack and Hilo should have received a topic ban well and truly by now based on the simple fact that they refuse to accept the weight of evidence regarding the ongoing shift away from soccer and towards football in Australia. I as well as many other editors have tried to establish this with supporting evidence, while Hilo in particular continues to ignore verifiability while instead promoting a POV argument that does not reflect the evidence based naming shift that has occurred in Australia. --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    yes the name has been shifted from Soccer to Football by the sports governing body, the term Football is ambigious and will remain so currently the use of football if assigned to any sport would be Australian Rules as that clearly meets the requirements of WP:Primary Topic for the term Football... but that isnt total relevant here the issue is Portillo actions clearly they are pushing a disambiguation term that isnt acceptable to 90% of all editors involved in the subject matter and using an automated to achieve 3-4 edits per minute, noting that the user isnt on the list authorised for AWB. The user lack of responding to any requests I think a block would be an appropriate action at this stage. Gnangarra 07:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Some sanity. Hack and I are among the editors who understand the evidence that has three times in the past couple of years led to Administrators closing RfCs in favour of the name Soccer in Australia. (I wonder if Orestes wants those Admins banned too?) A handful of "soccer should be called football" campaigners have refused to accept that ruling (three times!) and now routinely and vexatiously re-open discussions and throw abuse around. No new evidence has been presented, just the same evidence, rudely and repetitively. These editors are possibly the cause of Portillo's weird behaviour over the past couple of days, by giving him the idea that what he did would be OK. They certainly aren't accepting consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense, if we want sanity to prevail then there is a double edged sword here and it clearly shows that you have a history of not being civil to other users, myself included. Nor am I perfect, however, neither is HiLo48. Although unlike HiLo48 I have not received a ban due to lack of civility in the past. While I agree in principle that what Portillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did was not the best way of managing this and I agree with any necessary ramifications, there is more to it than the above. There is a concerted agenda of meat puppetry and consensus stacking in order to promote the agenda that the sport of soccer has no place being called football, even in concern to internationally recognised Australian players such as Lucas Neill and Tim Cahill in order to push the POV argument that these players and other Australian based articles should refer to the sport of soccer and not football. Moreover there is also an ongoing push to neglect the recent history of the sport and the change in official name from soccer to football. Promoting the agenda that this is one sided is hardly correct by any stretch of the imagination --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh corks, this again. I'll try and give some background here.

    The two most popular football codes in Australia are Australian Rules Football and Rugby League Football, with the country divided by what is know as "the Barassi line". Less popular but with significant followings are Rugby Union Football and Association Football. Throughout the world, "Association Football" is usually referred to as just "football", except in a few countries where not the main football code. Examples are the USA and Australia, where "Association Football" is usually called "soccer".

    I personally dislike the term "soccer", and try not to use it. It annoys people from countries where Association Football is the main football code (ie: almost everywhere). To me its Oxford "-er" is suggestive of a distinction between "rugger" (the game played by toffs) and "soccer" (the game played by commoners).

    In Australia there has been a recent push to establish "football" as having the primary meaning "Association Football". Some examples:

    News Home • Sport Home • Just In • Cricket • Football • Rugby Union • Rugby League • AFL • More

    But. It hasn't really caught on. Maybe in a decade or so, who knows? For now, and like it or not, in Australia "Association Football" is most commonly known as "soccer".

    As for this being a "Melbourne conspiracy", I've lived half my life above the "Barassi line" (if you count time overseas). I love the fact the A-League is played as a summer sport (so as not to be in competition with the Australian Rules and Rugby League) and I can listen to one of my favourite football codes on the radio during the Cricket season.

    One may as well try and rename "Soccer mom" to "Football mom" or "Raw Like Sushi" to "Raw Like Sashimi".

    Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately soccer mom is an anachronism like the US english spelling that gives it away. You are also right, I like many others including yourself try to avoid using the word soccer in conversation unless necessary. As the FFA said when they rebranded the sport, cited in context, it's not supposed to catch on over night. On the issue broadly however, I look at it from an academic perspective and while the word soccer may be a common name, the cut and dry perspective is that it is no longer the correct name. We have to look at this as to whether we want Wikipedia to represent the currently accepted official name, correctly as it is. Or whether we want to use a term that for all intents and purposes has been scrubbed out. I have suggested a few compromises Association football (soccer) and its variants in the past with a redirect to soccer. I have no agenda as Hilo48 would suggest other than to represent this particular article as it should be rather than via a term that has been put aside officially. --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As you have been told numerous times, the official name isn't always the most appropriate name per WP:TITLE and WP:DISAMBIG. Football is ambiguous in the Australian context, therefore a commonly known alternative is required. It's not a difficult concept. Hack (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course this is redundant when there are 3 other "football" codes articles that use the term football and yet the one sport that actually uses the name football proper in this country has no entitlement to it. It's this kind of illogical, irrational behaviour that leads to the reaction I don't agree with by Portillo. I may not be able to agree with it but I can rationalise with why they reacted in such a manner --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As I have said above, the current community consensus - whether you agree or not - is that the sport of association football on Australia should be known on Wikipedia as 'soccer' - it really is that simple. If/when that changes (although looking at the recent RFCs, some of which I participated in, such a change is unlikely to happen anytime soon) then we can change the terminology. But for now, 'soccer' should be used. GiantSnowman 11:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just coming back to the changes by Portillo, I was disappointed that the editor ignored attempts to discuss the issue. However, I don't feel that a block is in order - it is done, and unless Portillo starts up again, a block now would be punitive, although I'd be willing to consider one again if the issue starts up again. I'm inclined, though, to revert the changes, unless there is some opposition. I don't necessarily like the prior state, but given the intensity of the naming dispute, we're not going to get consensus to use a single term in the immediate future unless we do something extreme. Thus it seems that the best option is to return things to how they were, and then to discuss whether or not a single term has current consensus. - Bilby (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There were a number of variants used including [[soccer]], [[association football]], [[association football|soccer]], [[association football|football (soccer)]]. I would suggest there be some sort of uniform usage such as [[association football|soccer]]. Hack (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the results of the last RfC, which is the nearest thing we have to a current consensus, I'd agree with you. But as this is likely to be disputed, my thought was that it might be best to just revert now, leave the articles as inconsistent, and then try to work out what term to use. - Bilby (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That consensus is invalid, falsely declared by a biased group of people who aren't working in the best interests of Wikipedia, but instead are working for the best interests of a single sport played in a major capacity in only one city of one state of one single country. The various sports all have their own specific official titles used on Wikipedia. Australian rules, Rugby union, Rugby league, American football. Wikipedia has an official policy of referring to Football as Association football, most often shown as Football. Yet Project AFL continue to push for just one of these sports to be denied the use of the official name of the sport OR what the worldwide consensus on wikipedia is on naming the same sport. The AFL project continue to create a false consensus that somehow it is 'confusing' if Football is used alongside the official names for other sports Australian rules, Rugby union, Rugby league & American football. Their claim comes down to their belief that people from one city in Australia (Melbourne) should be coddled because they are too stupid to understand the clear and obvious differences between Association football, Australian rules, Rugby union, Rugby league & American football. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Portillo blocked for 48 hours. Aside from the disruption detailed here, he simultaneously (1) didn't respond to any of the allegations made here, and (2) just kept on going with the link changes. GiantSnowman, I'm guessing that the football (soccer) links were to facilitate quicker work, since you can simply type [[football (soccer)|]] and get a link displaying as "football". Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just unblocked. I failed to check the contribution history — he "ignored" this ANI thread because his last edit was some ten hours before this thread was filed. The editing is still highly problematic, and I would suggest that someone else reimpose a block simply because enough disruption has been demonstrated here. However, I can't allow my own block to stand when it was based on a pretty blatant misunderstanding. Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Portillo's actions, though overly bold, are symptomatic of the poisonous atmosphere surrounding this matter. "Soccer" is definitely the term in common parlance Australia-wide, but we can't use anecdotes to support our articles, and when I see the major media outlets calling it "Football", the names of the various organising bodies using "Football" rather than "Soccer", I think that if we need reliable sources, they mostly fall on the Football side of the line. Substitution of wikipolicy with personal attacks is no answer. This whole matter is a running sore, an embarrassment to us all. --Pete (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Soccer is not the common name. F

    Responding to Bilby's post at 13:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC) - I support such an approach. Portillo seems to have stopped his misbehaviour, so that half of the problem is fixed for the moment. The other half is deciding what we do about all the changes he made. Given that they were done without discussion or agreement with anyone else, the logical thing to do right now is just reverse his actions. The debate over what the name should be long term can continue elsewhere (I somehow suspect it will), but we cannot wait for resolution of that discussion before we sort out this mess. So, can Portillo's edits be reversed in any automated way? If not, I'm happy to play some part in putting things back in order. HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have consistently reminded users Hack and particularly HiLo48. That we CANNOT use anecdotes as evidence under Wikipedia:Verifiability. All of this has fallen on deaf ears. I have consistently ALSO reminded user HiLo48 about Wikipedia:ORIGINAL with regards to his claims. There seems to be an ongoing INTERNAL reference to OR concept of research on the Barrassi Line and its effects on soccer (football) which has no direct reference to soccer (football) ITSELF. This is nothing more than consistent OR and internal self referencing which is used for meat puppetry and consensus stacking. I have consistently reminded HiLo48 of this and have been treated with contempt which goes against Wikipedia:Civility. The constant provocation has at times led me to react improperly, however I digress, if anything HiLo48's consistent lack of civility should be the straw that breaks the camels back here rather than my reaction to an editor who does not understand the concept of Wikipedia:ORIGINAL . The ongoing claim about the Barassi line and its relevance to soccer (football) cannot stand on its own under Wikipedia:ORIGINAL as original research by which a consensus IS being stacked. The tendentious editing and failure to verify broad statements in discussion is an ongoing issue which cannot continue. Any further claims about the Barassi line regarding soccer (football) MUST be verified.--Orestes1984 (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please take these off-topic matters elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they're not off topic, the reasoning it has gotten this far is extremely similar to the reasoning I continue to have civility related issues with yourself. Furthermore, your consistent statement that the matters at hand RELATING to why this outcome has occurred are "off topic" according to yourself and yourself only, are a blatant violation of Wikipedia:Civility. The matters I am talking about here are directly related to why this event has occurred and WHY they have blown out of proportion. Your use of the passive aggressive line of reasoning, most recently in Talk:Soccer_in_Australia with claims of myself being "off topic" where you have directly referenced me are direct signposts to this kind of irrational, illogical, passive aggressive behaviour. The fact that you continue to deny the fact that the current issues I'm raising are meaningful and pertinently on topic only continue to highlight your problematic nature as an editor. I have previously asked you to simply clarify your position, I have also asked as with Talk:Soccer_in_Australia as to why you brought me into this discussion with much the same result. I have had discussions previously with yourself where I have been responded to with nothing more than "you're talking crap." No this kind of continued activity is exactly why these incidents have been elevated to this level. --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong place. Not helping here at all. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    To bring this to some sort of conclusion... User:Portillo has made no edits at all on Wikipedia since this thread began, so no more damage has been done, and User:Bilby has reverted all (I think) of Portillo's questionable changes. All we have left is the mystery that Portillo has not communicated at all with anybody on Wikipedia since the dramas began. Presumably he has at least read what has been written on his Talk page, and perhaps here. I think we can all move on. HiLo48 (talk) 06:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like User:Bilby is still going - there are more to be reverted. Hack (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is about more than Portillo's edits. This discussion and the long acrimonious saga on Talk:Soccer in Australia is disruptive and an illustration of what Wikipedia is not about. It's just a name, but goodness me, what a lot of egotism is invested in it! --Pete (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure who you're replying to but I would suggest that commenting in this thread is not really in the spirit of your interaction ban with User:HiLo48. Hack (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I should be done before too long - there have been subsequent edits, so I'm being cautious rather than automatically undoing each edit. - Bilby (talk) 07:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Frivolous warnings/harrassment on User talk:Raykyogrou0 and User talk:Sni56996 by User:ONITOPIA (with talk page comment altering)

    This user has repeatedly been harassing me and Sni on our talk pages: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6

    After warnings for his edits were issued: diff 1 -- me, informing him about posting on sni's talk page diff 2 -- same

    Here he struck out said warnings, which I reverted before posting another warning. Apparently, he didn't read WP:TPO so I posted another warning and informed him that deleting comments is fine, but altering the meaning isn't. And again and again. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 16:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    --ONITOPIA (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I locked both pages involved in the content dispute. I think that you all need to stop templating each other. TALK. Go to each other's pages and write productive messages. Do not just slap templates over each other's talk pages. We are a project based on collaboration and conversation, not WARN WARN WARN WARN. All three of you are now banned from placing warnings on each other's talk pages. The only thing you can place on there is conversations. I'll let others weigh in with more ideas, but you need to stop warning each other and think that's going to solve the issues. only (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked ONITOPIA for one week for disruptive editing, including persistent aggression, personal attacks, and sock puppetry. Although a bit stale, ONITOPIA, has been using IPs at the same time as he is editing to gain the upper hand in disputes on these articles: 46.115.48.6 (talk · contribs) and 46.115.122.181 (talk · contribs). Both are German IP addresses. In addition to the fact that the two IPs "agree" with ONITOPIA, ONITOPIA is apparently German (see [15] - note the user of the word "warnung" instead of warning). As an aside, I do not see the refactoring Raykyogrou0 refers to above; I see only striking, i.e., no changing of meaning. Finally, I express no opinion about the content dispute itself, which, of course, doesn't even belong here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, (if there is a next time) I will post a normal message instead. But doesn't "striking text constitute a change in meaning"? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 20:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The user is entitled to remove the warning. Striking it seems to be more "honest" than removal. They're saying they disagree with it but leaving it in place for others to see without checking the history.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued deletion of complaints about biased editing abuses

    I strongly object to the removal of my complaints about abusive biased editing practices which I placed on the talk page of the article that the editor in question edits abusively most frequently, to serve as a warning to other editors and, I hoped, to request administrator action against the abuses: [16], [17], [18]. I ask that User:Cadiomals's attempt to censor my complaints and warnings be reverted, and that User:VictorD7 be appropriately sanctioned for the clear abuses documented in the section which Cadiomals thinks is okay to delete.

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

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

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

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

    Ellen failed to even try to make a rational argument that I should be "sanctioned". Her low quality, POV pushing edits have been reverted by several different editors across multiple articles, not just me (e.g. [19],[20], [21]). In this example: [22], [23] she was reverted after trying to covertly slip in highly contentious economic/taxation material already under discussion (and ultimately rejected by strong consensus) with a totally misleading edit summary that pretended she was simply undoing some small, recent change to a different section. It's difficult to maintain assumptions of good faith under such conditions. Editors have been extremely patient with her for a long time, but she's been a persistently disruptive influence on multiple articles and Talk Pages, and perhaps it's time to examine whether she should be sanctioned. VictorD7 (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Uninvolvededitor Sounds like we're in Australia again... Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 19:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    While commenting on this probably won't help relations in our current discussions, I do feel Ellen has a WP:TEDIOUS editing style and I'd welcome any review or intervention that might help us become more productive. Morphh (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I will certainly not vouch for much of VictorD7's past behavior, EllenCT is being hypocritical plain and simple for reporting Victor's "biased editing abuses" when she also has quite the history of her own "biased editing abuses". I'm less familiar with her activity on other articles, but in United States she has a history of either childish attempts at circumventing discussion or being a general drag on the discussion and consensus-building process (though Victor too has a history of being confrontational and disagreeable). I think Ellen is misguided in how United States is supposed to look based on WP:SUMMARY, and often has a hard time letting things go even when consensus has repeatedly shown itself to be against her. At least she has stopped trying to insert content into the article without first consulting Talk, but she continues to be a general drag in progress there by continuing her advocacy of irrelevant content, and the recent off-topic dispute crossed the line to merit removal.
    I don't think much more can reasonably be done except telling both of them to cool it. To prevent drawn out back-and-forth, instead of directly addressing one another, they should only seek opinions and consensus from others from now on. Otherwise, Ellen's post to this noticeboard was just a failed attempt at trying to make herself look like a victim. Cadiomals (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I reject any attempt to equate me with Ellen (how about the other people debating her, including yourself?), especially one based on no evidence. A baseless "pox on both their houses" attitude is intellectually lazy at best. All my edits and posts have been in good faith, and I've always been willing to rationally and civilly discuss any of them. VictorD7 (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    False on all counts. I've repeatedly bent over backwards to make good faith efforts to engage you on the issues where we've disagreed, and I'm not the one who ran to report you to admin (and falsely at that). VictorD7 (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having commented on the substantive issue at Talk:Taxation_in_the_United_States#Fourth_opinion, I would suggest that you two cool it a bit and refrain from the personal insults for a while. Also avoid trading long biting exchanges on the talkpage if you can. Maybe take it to talk to clarify the confusion or even have a phone conversation. You both seem to be capable of making rational contributions to the encyclopedia. I'll admit I lean left (and believe that reality has a left-wing bias), so I'm favorably inclined towards Ellen's position (and have seen quite a bit of good work from her) and naturally a bit suspicious of self-described conservatives. I suppose that goes both ways but the bottom line is that the US taxes as a whole are not really very progressive (due largely to the payroll taxes exemption starting around 100k and the 15% long-term capital gains / qualified dividends rate) and it is difficult to paint the picture otherwise, although this seems like a valiant attempt. II | (t - c) 07:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what the point of the political commentary here is, but I'll note that in the section he linked to I and another editor politely corrected II's mistakes, and today he politely conceded "looks like I was wrong". That's the way discussions among editors are supposed to unfold. It's when Ellen gets involved that all too often rationality and civility go out the window. VictorD7 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't entirely agree with this characterization. I was wrong about some federal tax numbers, but I think there is still a legitimate argument to be made about corporate tax incidence assumptions, which are highly debatable per e.g. Corporate Tax Incidence and Its Implications for Progressivity (2009) and How TPC Distributes The Corporate Income Tax (2012). It's not clear to me that either of you are really engaging that well on this point exactly either; seems to have just descended into insults. In addition, I lean towards agreeing with Ellen on the omission of the effects of state and local taxes as it seems somewhat arbitrary (and hence potentially politically-motivated) although I understand that there may be data limitations. As far as your political self-identification, it's a reasonable heuristic. Nobody should be using Wikipedia as a political platform but in my seven years floating around here I've seen more conservatives run afoul of that then the other way around. By definition, a heuristic is not perfect, but if you associate yourself with a group where the majority don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, evolution, etc then you should expect to receive additional scrutiny. The economics wikiproject is probably overrepresented with libertarians and it's a bit of a problem. Also, keep in mind that we don't always do things based on majorities around here. It's !votes, not votes. If a majority of people !vote to change evolution so it says it's just a theory and the world is 13,000 years sold similar to Conservapedia, the one person dissenting (and hopefully reverting) is in the right. II | (t - c) 00:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    All I did was quote your edit summary to illustrate the reasonable give and take found in healthy editor discussions. I don't recall Ellen ever saying something like that, no matter undeniably wrong she's proved to be on a particular point. She keeps essentially insisting that 2+2=5 (or sometimes "green"). While I disagree with much of what you say (especially your 180 degree wrong liberal/conservative run afoul claim) and would love to debate you on various political issues, this page is hardly the proper place. VictorD7 (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Joefromrandb

    Joefromrandb (talk · contribs)

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

    1. Józef Kowalski Accuses 213.49.104.71 (talk · contribs) of being "Robert", presumably referring to User Ryoung122. Note that this IP is located in Brussels. I also note that the IP provides no edit summary and that Robert Young is extremely unlikely to have edited any longevity related articles without commenting (usually to promote his own epertise).
    2. List of people with the longest marriages. [24] and [25] accuses 81.11.203.160 (talk · contribs) and 213.49.104.90 (talk · contribs) of being socks. These IPs are also from Brussels. [26] Claims to have restored to "last clean version". A blanket reversion of (mostly) valid changes.
    3. List of oldest twins. [27] Another claim to restoration of "last clean version". Seems to have followed 83.134.143.22 (talk · contribs) (presumably the same person as other IPs as the location is Brussles) from above and blanket reverted all changes although again they appear to be valid.
    4. Accusations of meatpuppetry: [28] and [29]. Another clear example of this user throwing around false accusations and attempting to bully other editors. Joefromrandb seems to be under the impression that I am one of the GRG fan club which is so far from the truth it is actually laughable.

    DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps I'm just slower tonight, but it took me a while to realise what's going on. DerbyCountyinNZ is saying that Joe's making baseless accusations regarding edits to the following pages. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. Accusations of sock puppetry with no apparent evidence. Accusations of meat puppetry with no evidence. Sorry if that wasn't clear. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's amusing that Derby has reported his own edit-warring. Last time I reverted this user's errors, he got his buddy, administrator Canadian Paul to block me. Apparently he considers himself so bulletproof that he's brazen enough to make multiple baseless reverts and then report someone else. A small group of users have long asserted ownership of all longevity-related articles. It would be nice if these articles were eventually returned to the community, but it really isn't an ANi issue. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been a while since I've been involved in this area, but it looks more or less the same from when I was there, so if I may quickly comment before returning to isolation mode. The IPs don't strike me as being Ryoung122, because as DerbyCountyinNZ says usually Ryoung122 hastens to point out his work in the GRG. There are plenty of other IPs who edit the topic area who likely come from the Yahoo World's Oldest People group, to which Ryoung122 is openly a contributor; one could debate whether it's a meatpuppetting issue, but my experience has been they'll come over without invitation. A lot of times their edits are less than helpful, and I frequently found myself reverting them as well. DerbyCountyinNZ and I didn't always see eye-to-eye on some of the MoS issues in that project, but he's absolutely not one of the Yahoo WOP acolytes (a look at the archives of Talk:List of the verified oldest people should show that) and has always been willing to discuss things. Although I generally agree with the thrust of Joefromrandb's edits, I can see why his approach is somewhat off-putting. If he could write with a little more tact, I think the issues at each article could be resolved without too much difficulty. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    By "sock of Robert Young", I didn't mean it literally, as in Robert typing the edits. I was referring to Robert's promise to edit Wikipedia by proxy, as his legion of followers will update Wikipedia as Robert updates his sites. Perhaps I should have said "meat of banned editor"; after 3 years, I'm still learning the lingo. Yes, my tact could still use some improvement, but even if I wrote with the tact of a Dennis Brown, these issues are unlikely to be resolved until someone steps in and enforces Wikipedia's core policies on longevity-related articles. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not as bad as it once was, the area has definitely improved since the arbitration case which I was marginally involved in, but I see many of the same problems you do. It doesn't hugely matter whether the IPs are acting as proxies for him or not, they're essentially serving that function and should be treated as if they were. I think what the area needs, more than anything else, is some fresh eyes, and that would be more than a hint for anyone happening across this thread... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no evidence that these edits are being made by anyone with a link to Robert Young or the GRG, and don't recall ever seeing anything on their website on any of these topics. The IP appears to be merely someone with an interest in marriages/twins, presumably with a first language other than English. If they hadn't also edited the Kowalski article we wouldn't be here! I have been trying to reduce the OR and fanfluff aspects of these articles (check the edit history and talk pages) and eventually might be able to turn them into properly encyclopedic articles although I might have to settle for merely wiki compliant. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Wōdenhelm's sig

    Woden appears to have changed his sig. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Wōdenhelm insists on using a signature which contains 2 images (File:Flag_of_Virginia.svg and File:Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg), despite the fact that I told this user that images in sigs are against policy. How should I procede? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Displaying the confederate flag is a problem in itself, IMO. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 06:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Posted a message on his talk regarding this. Ethically (Yours) 07:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The rebel flag in and of itself should not be considered problematic, it is strictly the use of images in a signature that is disruptive. The solution is simple: if user does not agree to stop using the images, an indefinite block for disruption and blatant disregard for accepted standards is appropriate, though I would point out the signature page is a guideline, not a policy. This block can and should be removed contingent on the removal of images from the signature. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not try asking the editor politely? We've got three non-admins on his talkpage threatening him with blocks and accusing him of incivility. No wonder his only response has been "go away". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 17:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He was asked politely by an admin, and now a couple of non-admins have chipped in. Not sure how much more politely you were looking for, but the original request was just fine. I'll pretty much guarantee that his first edit after being advised of this ANI filing better be either a) here on ANI, b) on his talkpage, or c) with a newly-minted signature or else he will receive a brand-new block for New Year's! ES&L 17:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    With the exception of extreme block-on-sight violations, the first step I take (other than repairing the damage done, in some cases) is to talk to the user. I did it in this case before coming here, and got a "no" and a "go away". And I didn't threaten him with a block (although I'm capable of giving one) - that was other users, after he gave these answers. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to you both, this is the kind of politeness I would have appreciated if I was the user at the centre of the furore:
    "Hello Suriel1981, I'm such-and-such, an administrator on Wikipedia. You're not in trouble but I need to talk to you about your signature. Our guidelines state clearly that editors should not use images in their signatures so I'm going to have to insist you remove the flags from your signature before you continue editing. If you need help doing that or you have any question then feel free to message me back."
    Something along those lines. There's no way anyone could reasonably misunderstand or take offense at a friendly-but-direct approach. I only made my comment because I would have been offended if the initial message had been left on my talkpage. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 01:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I just tried friendly, direct, and uninvolved and was told to never speak to him again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This is pretty much a textbook example of how not to handle this situation. Trouts to everyone involved. Since the matter has been brought here, lets let some other editors intervene and the editors involved in the original pile-on can step away to avoid escalating the situation. Gamaliel (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Trout yourself first then. The first request, by Od Mishehu, was perfectly fine, and included the word "please". This user also used please in their second comment. Od Mishehu has acted exactly as they should've; they remained polite throughout, and escalated it to the only possible place. Given that Od Mishehu could've legitimately blocked Wodenhelm for their disruptive sig and refusal to change it, I fail to see why they are being accused of mishandling the situation... Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 21:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aaaaaand here we have another example of inappropriate escalation. I thought Od Mishehu was a bit brusque myself, but that's a minor and forgivable issue, certainly, but the other editors involved in the pile-on turned up the heat too quickly. This isn't a BLP matter and there's no need for immediate action or threats of such, so let's all simmer down now. This is the sort of nonsense and chest-beating that creates stories by disgruntled editors of administrative "abuse". Policy will be upheld in the end, but how we get there is important too. Gamaliel (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is ridiculous. The no image policy on signatures is unequivocal, and there's no iar benefit the encyclopedia to allow it to be over ridden. The fact that OM's first post wasn't perfect (should've included the wikilink to policy he posted the second time) doesn't affect the facts of the case. Indefinite block until editor agrees to change signature. End of drama. NE Ent 22:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    ^-- This ES&L 22:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite block unless and until Woden removes the images from his signature, based on his comments here and pretty much everything else he's posted on User talk pages in the last couple days. If he wants to martyr himself on this cause, fine. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It's worth noting that we don't know whether he's complied or not; he hasn't signed a post using his signature since 04:54, 1 January 2014 UTC. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Good point. Block indefinitely until they agree to remove the images and sign their posts. NE Ent 22:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose Punitive. Images in a signature don't affect Wikipedia much. Dark Sun (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all punitive. Blocks ends as soon as they want it to. If we're not willing to do this, might as well delete the policy. NE Ent 22:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Wouldn't the proper response to be to build a consensus to change the policy on sigs? a13ean (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Yes, I think it would. In fact I will post on the proper talk page suggesting that. DES (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The signature issues is not policy on Wikipedia, it is only a guideline. only (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    (edit conflict)On the original issue, i have just posted to Wōdenhelm's talk page as an uninvolved admin asking him to comply with the guideline which is so widely adhered to that it might as well be policy. I did not add any threats, but if he posts a sig with images again, I would be inclined to block. DES (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia talk:Signatures#Promotion to policy. DES (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestion: Can we back off on this guy for now? He has not, for 40 hours, posted a sig containing an image. So the immediate concern has been addressed. He is clearly a rebel who strongly resents being told what to do. So all of this saber-rattling and threatening to block, if y'all insist on escalating it, is all too likely to turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this is already being handled by cooler heads. There's no need for this escalation. Gamaliel (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no evidence it's being handled. The editor transitioning from a disruptive signature to not signing their posts is only changing the mode of disruption. NE Ent 03:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait a minute, is forgetting to sign a post "disruption"? Blockable disruption? (Not trying to sound sarcastic; I honestly didn't know this.) —Steve Summit (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgetting is not disruption, but his not posting signatures with images when no signature is present is not evidence the situation is being handled; evidence would be a signed without image contribution. NE Ent 03:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This has attention, of admins who are involved, who are not being confrontational but are being polite and firm on the relevant point. There is no need to go poking him. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit warrior keeping POV fork reverts User:Norden1990

    Norden1990 insists in reverting a redirect link instead of expanding an article that I created:

    Norden1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    [31] And also on other articles he revertes sourced text related to the war-criminal and anti-semite Miklos Horty.

    calling vandalism while he actually is deleted sourced information about this war-criminal.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[32]]

    With his edits (can be cataloged as anti-semite) Norden1990 reverts sources text about the war criminal Miklos Horty.

    And, YES, he was blocked before for edit-war:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Norden1990

    15:03, 14 July 2013 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) blocked Norden1990 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Violation of the three-revert rule: John Hunyadi)

    2QW4 (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Other edit-war 3 times edit-war, see Hungarian discrimination against Roma

    2QW4 (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Also using proxy IPs ; 195.89.201.254 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/195.89.201.254 2QW4 (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me see if I understand what is going on:
    These contain the same statistical information, though Harghita County#Demographics has more textual information and a graph showing population growth over time. In other words Harghita County#Demographics is better.
    2QW4 has three times tried removing cited information on the 2002 census from Harghita County#Demographics.[33][34][35] This did not find favour with other users who reverted this deletion.[36][37][38] The editors who reverted 2QW4 were Ruby Murray, Norden1990, and Josh3580.
    2QW4 was the editor who created the stand-alone article on Demographics history of Harghita County on 30 December 2013.[39] This is the one that contains no information not already in Harghita County#Demographics. Norden1990 has twice turned this into a redirect to Demographics history of Harghita County,[40][41] on the grounds that it is a duplicate.
    I think Norden is right about turning Demographics history of Harghita County into a redirect. It is a POV fork created by 2QW4. It has no merit compared with the section of the original article, which contains more useful information.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, who are you? How come you support war-criminal and anti-semite edits?I don't think in Wikipedia is allowed.2QW4 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear 2QW4, who are you? You are the banned User:Hortobagy, are not you? If this is true, User:Norden1990 did not and could not make any edit war with you. Furthermore, your edits were not based on the sources you seemingly used. Finally, accusing other editors of Anti-Semitism without any basis is uncivil. Please refrain from it. Borsoka (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think wikipedia has enough resources to know I am not. I have seen how you cover and delete sourced text about anti-semitism of Horty. 2QW4 (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Me? When? I would be surprised if I have ever edited this article, because the 20th century is not a favorite topic of mine. You really seem to like accusing other editors without any basis. Borsoka (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? For you his edits on Miklos Horty are OK??2QW4 (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    His reverts of your edits are OK, because your edits were not based on the sources you seemingly cited. Borsoka (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Miklós Horthy, dear 2QW4. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    SO, you do recognize you're edit warrior, because you got one time blocked for that...2QW4 (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I stumbled across this report when proposing a merge of Demographics history of Harghita County into Harghita County, and I am concerned that 2QW4 is likely a sock.Flat Out let's discuss it 13:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not, but if you're so smart tell who I am.2QW4 (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What I know, is that you have been an editor for only 4 days and are already forum shopping- which usually means sock. Beware the Boomerang.Flat Out let's discuss it 14:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Banned User:Hortobagy? Borsoka (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am not. 2QW4 (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But you are, draga. I am sure. Borsoka (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case, 2QW4 is actually the sock of literally-banned editor Iaaasi. But the fact that 2QW4 only edits this topic of articles is not suspicious to me, unless there is more substantial evidence that happened that I don't know about. Epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure, that Iaaasi and Hortobagy are the same. However, I am sure that 2QW4 is identical with Hortobagy. Please find the reasoning below. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    2QW4's claim of "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" regarding Miklós Horthy - the only post I could find by 2QW4 on Talk:Miklós Horthy was this one, made at 13:06 31 December 2013.[42] That was made at exactly the same time as he/she was creating his/her report to ANI. i.e. it is a sham.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please could people contribute the reasons why they suspect that 2QW4 is a sockpuppet to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iaaasi.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure, that Iaaasi and Hortobagy are the same. However, I am sure that 2QW4 is identical with Hortobagy. Both editors are almost solely concentrate on 2 topics: (1) the existence of a Székely language separate from the Hungarian language (2) the discrimination against Romani in Hungary. Moreover, for this purpose they were/are creating separate articles without proper references. Finally, both editors obviously tend(ed) abuse reliable sources: they write/wrote sentences and add(ed) sources which do/did not substantiate their own claims. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Uninvolvededitor FYI: 2QW4 has been indef-blocked for being a sock after all (of, interestingly, an entirely different user (Bonaparte)), but I didn't NAC this because the thread was originally about Norden1990 (I have no opinion on that). Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 18:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

    Well, Hulda can refer to a number of things, including an opera, but I would caution Gilabrand to avoid Mickey Mouse games with an editor's name. It's not very collegial. Jonathunder (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. This is childish, and Gilabrand should be warned that such behavior is unbecoming of Wikipedia editors. Hopefully that will put an end to it. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he doesn't need to be calling any editors by any names other than their User Names, so this is not okay, no matter the meaning or language. Sergecross73 msg me 17:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This is unbelievably ridiculous. I have nothing against Huldra - we have worked on many articles together to fill in the history of villages about which little is know. "Hulda" is simply a typo. But now that she mentions it, it is actually complimentary. Hulda is the name of a Biblical prophetess. --Geewhiz (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. Here is a couple of Gilabrands posts about me from just this year: "By the way, I am keeping a log of your aggressive comments to me, which is growing quite long. Another one was added today on Hittin", and "clean up but leave Huldra's threat for posterity". Please also read my entry in the last AE: it was after that that Gilabrand suddenly started "misstyping". Coincident? Huldra (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So you suddenly start repeatedly making the same typo in the name of a user you have been acquainted with for some time. Are there any other cases where you have done the same?     ←   ZScarpia   19:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you be more careful in the future to avoid creating even the appearance of an insult (though none may be intended)? If so, we are done here. Jehochman Talk 19:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I will try to type more slowly... Funny how stuff can be misinterpreted.--Geewhiz (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny, isn't it? For example, your response when she asked you about it on your talk page: "My wife and kids had a good laugh over your detective skills. Maybe they will accept you to the FBI." That might be misinterpreted as sarcasm. Typing slowly might not be a bad idea if it helps you think about how things will be read. Jonathunder (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In view of this being a repeated pattern (compare the Nableezy-refs above), please do not close this yet. As noted: Gilabrand has posted untrue statements, IMO. And was 'Nopleazy' also a typo? And how many "warnings" does an editor receive before it has any consequences? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Gilabrand makes here above as if she would be sorry for what she did but her initial answer on her talk page proves she is not sorry at all, at the contrary: [43]
    This behaviour is in total disagreement with WP:NPA and the 4st pillar of wikipedia. In more of that, there is no content dispute between Huldra and Gilanbrand. This would show that Gilabrand acted because of other reasons (my mind: because Huldra is an Arab and Gilabrand an Israeli). That is not acceptable per WP:BATTLEGROUND. Gilabrand's should be blocked at least 1 week for this and she should receive a warning that she would be blocked indefinetely if she does this again.
    Pluto2012 (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose you realise that you make typos too? For example you misspelled "Gilabrand" as "Gilanbrand".--Toddy1 (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In answer to your question, no it isn't, because that is a personal attack pbp 20:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - how many times in the November-December timeframe did Gilabrand type your account name in a comment or response? I see the two misspelled examples above, how many were there total and how many of those were misspelled? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • To Georgewilliamherbert: AFAIK: she has only addressed me those two times this last month, misspelling my name each time. While she earlier always have spelled it correctly, (like here, back in 2008). Notice that her "misspelling" comes just after I have written very critically about her in the above mentioned AE. Compare it also to her spelling of Nableezy; another editor who she has disagreed with, Huldra (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    "The Prophetess Hulda: Her Message of Hope": [44] Perhaps it was meant as a compliment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.25.54 (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not know if she is sorry or not. We cannot mandate that. An agreement to call each other by proper names is all we can ask.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes I copy and paste names instead of typing them. This reduces the chance of the kind of error that Gilabrand/Geewhiz made about Huldra - but, if the typographic error occurs once, it means that it has the potential to be repeated many times. Maybe that is what happened here.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Without telepathy we are not going to get an actual final answer here. The history of name games (3 years ago, but extensive) and repeat of the "typo" make intentional attack credible, but I have typoed enough things to know accident is possible.
    My current opinion - Gilabrand, when I closed the AE I made heightened scrutiny clear to you. That does not mean an end to AGF or understanding sbout innocent mistakes, but it puts a hard and firm limit on the number of question marks we can accept going forwards.
    This incident, given the repeat and meaning as misspelled and blowing off rather than apologizing when called on it, is a serious question mark. One strike for that.
    You don't have 'three strikes and you're out". I don't want to set up a legalistic limit or let you game this. This counts. I won't act based on this one, but AGF goes away. This kind of thing happens again and you don't apologize and strike or retract, will be bad.
    Heightened scrutiny does not mean zero tolerance for error, but it does approach zero tolerance for screwing around. Your response here was about all the slack you are going to get from me. If you goof again, make it right, and be a lot more careful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:IHaveAMastersDegree

    Use what the sources say. If the majority of sources call a subject a "skeptic" then they are a skeptic. If the sources calls them a "climate change denier" then call them that. We use what the majority of sources use. Single partisan sources that are used in opposition to the majority of sources will be considered POV pushing and sanctioned under WP:ARBCC. Mass changes of any material without discussion is disruptive.--v/r - TP 23:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In the last few days User:IHaveAMastersDegree in many articles has changed references about climate-change "skeptics" to "those who reject the evidence", "contrarian", "anti-climate-science", "denial", etc. I left a message on IHaveAMastersDegree's talk page asking if there was any hope for retraction. He/she has ignored the message and done more edits today. Some examples:

    Change "skeptics" to "individuals who reject the evidence" Change "skeptics" to "those who reject the evidence" Change "skeptics" to "contrarian activists" Change "skeptic organizations" to "organizations that reject the science of global warming" Change "(skepticism) climate-change skeptic" to "(denial) climate science detractor" Change "is a skeptic of" to "rejects the scientific evidence for" Change "global warming skeptic" to "anti-climate-science blogger" Change "climate change skeptics" to "climate change denial" Change "climate change skeptics" to "climate science detractors" Change "climate change skeptic" to "denies the reality of global warming" ff. Change "are climate change skeptics" to "disagree with the physical basis and scientific evidence for global warming" Change "skeptics" to "denailists" (sic) Change "credibility of climate scientists" to "credibility of science"

    There are many more examples at IHaveAMastersDegree contribution page. Reversion is justifiable in every case that I have looked at, but I will wait for advice first.

    Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ironically, User:Peter Gulutzan posted his concern at the moment I was composing my reply to him. I'm not sure what the customary period is to wait for a reply, but I would hope it is not less than 24 hours. I am happy to work with other editors to find a supportable solution. I can list many examples of the use of "skeptic" that are not supported by the information cited and appear to be violations of WP:SYNTH. I believe that my changes are improvements but am willing to revisit them on a case-by-case basis. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the first change listed above and I did not find the term "skeptic" used in the cited articles. It got me to thinking that skeptic is ambiguous in its meaning in these contexts. Skeptics can be irrational doubters of everything or rational individuals who doubt fringe theories (there are other meanings as well). The first change is clearer in meaning than as originally phrased with "skeptics", so while I might not agree with all the changes, I think they should be considered on a case-by-case basis. I think in the future that it would be a good idea not to be quite this bold and make one or a few changes and see how they are received before making wholesale changes. I am One of Many (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Under the circumstances, I have issued a ARBCC notification and logged it. This may be constructive but everyone needs to know about the discretionary sanctions and scrutiny. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at every edit made by IHaveAMastersDegree up to 20:55, 29 December 2013 and saw all but one as an improvement in clarity. He/she corrected the one problem I saw when I pointed it out. Most of the sources used to support the ambiguous-almost-to-the-point-of-meaningless term "climate change skeptic" do not in fact use the term, and IHaveAMastersDegree's edits are both more informative and more neutral - which is guaranteed to annoy warriors on both sides. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't expect that anyone would argue that it's okay to call living persons anti-science deniers etc. without backup, but an administrator has decided the edits may be constructive, so I won't revert the edits that have been done. As for my timing: I acted because more edits happened after I put out the message. Ordinarily, of course, it would be right to wait because it's reasonable to assume that the message receipient is away. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't expect that anyone would argue that it's okay to call living persons anti-science deniers etc. without backup Except, of course, as pointed out above, the opposite is true. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what the sources actually say and not the spin you wish them to say. --Calton | Talk 03:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I didn't make any edits that referred to any living person as an "anti-science denier." Is this issue resolved? IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't using quote marks and I was referring to later comments so it's pointless to make anything out of whether those variants of the words appeared in that order, and denies or denial or rejects-the-science or similar variants appear multiple times, see the quotes. If it's a big deal whether you used such terms near each other, you did change at least one living person from "skeptic" to "anti-climate science" and linked to "global warming denial". If you're asking whether this particular administrators-noticeboard issue is resolved, well, that was the way I understood things. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I now realize that the administrator has not officially "resolved" the matter until the notice "the following discussion is closed" appears. So I'll reply to an earlier comment. It means nothing if "skeptic" does not appear in a cited source, when IHaveAMasterDegree's words also do not appear. And IHaveAMastersDegree has changed even if "skeptic" does appear in a cited source, when IHaveAMasterDegree's words do not appear. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I started editing again because I understood it to be resolved. I will discontinue if I'm supposed to be waiting for resolution. Where can I find guidance on what I'm supposed to do or not do? I am new at this, so apologies for not knowing where to look for this information. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As I and others have pointed out, the term "climate skeptic" is so ambiguous that it is essentially meaningless outside of context. Sometimes it refers to scientific skeptic as defined by the traditional skeptic community, e.g. those involved in the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. But it also serves as a euphemism for those who engage in global warming denial or generating disinformation. Because of the overloaded nature of this expression, it seems to be best to avoid using it unless it is explicitly defined. Where it is defined in source material, I have just used that definition. Moreover, it is a label rather than a description of belief or behavior. I think it is always better to avoid labeling people, especially living persons who might change their beliefs or behavior. It seems preferable and more neutral and non-judgmental to describe what individuals have done or what they say they believe in a way that nobody disputes. Then we can avoid and not get into semantic quibbles over what "climate skeptic" really means. If there are specific instances where you feel I did not do this properly, why not just go to the associated talk pages and discuss there? IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a lot of instances, and still growing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please point to the one that you consider the best (or worst) example of inappropriate editing and let's talk about it on the associated talk page. I'm happy to work with you (or anyone else) on a case-by-case basis. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Masters, if you are making contentious edits, especially to WP:BLP pages, you need BLP-grade RSs. Please read WP:BLP carefully, and refrain from editorializing. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not understand what is contentious about removing an ambiguous label and replacing it with an accurate description of opinion. The term "climate skeptic" and similar expressions are incorrect in the cases I edited and in some in some instances constitute pejorative editorializing and not supported by sources. Can you specify something I did that was actually contentious? IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's contentious because of the history this subject has had on the English Wikipedia, with discussions going on for several years. Of particular note is your focus on removing the word "skeptic" or its related forms simply because it seems that being described as someone skeptical of climate change is in your eyes at least equated to being a global warming denier. All of this is suspect when coming from an account that has joined this site so recently and seems to be well versed in most matters of discourse.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryulong is (correct me if I'm wrong Ryulong) alluding to the fact that a number of warriors on all sides of the climate change debates have been banned from editing in that topic area, and some have been kicked off the encyclopedia altogether. Some of these turn up from time to time with new user names pretending to be newbies, carrying on their problematical behaviour. You will inevitably receive skeptical (sorry) sideways glances for a while. This topic has been a genuine nightmare here.
    I have no interest or expertise in the topic: I noticed this edit on Australia Institute and checked IHaveAMastersDegree's contributions. They look to my untrained eye to be mostly improvements in clarity that didn't appear to me to be biased one way or another. The editor has also made several classic newbie mistakes (talk page indentation for one) - and I didn't see anything too suspiciously proficient. So I urge others to maintain their skepticism but also keep an open mind. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits, for the most part, seem to be removing the word "skeptic" when it regards global warming.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryulong is mischaracterizing my intent which I have explicitly stated multiple places. When the word "skeptical" is used in the context of global warming, it is ambiguous. It can refer to the global warming denial often associated with uninformed or politically-motivated individuals, which is involves denial of the incontravertible facts and has no basis in science. Or it can refer to the scientific skepticism of individuals like Richard Lindzen who accept the facts but have criticisms of the details and publish their criticism in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Richard Lindzen should not be tagged with a label that implies that he is a denier. My intent is to resolve the ambiguity associated with the word "skeptic" in a fair and neutral way. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to the other point, for the record I have edited some pages before I got an account (so only my IP address was shown). Probably no more than 3 or 4 pages in the last 5 years and none were related to global warming. My editing interest is associated more with skepticism than it is with global warming. If you review my edit history, you can confirm this fact for yourself. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like another editor, dave souza, has found an acceptable and neutral solution for the ambiguous "skeptic" problem on the Ian Plimer page. In deference to those who have been objecting I will stop editing BLP pages until it is clear that there is consensus on this particular case. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    These wee alert tags are helpful, glad to see my name being raised in this thread. As I've stated on the article talk page, Plimer is a credulous opponent of mainstream science rather than a climate change sceptic in terms of scientific skepticism. Using the phrase properly, Michael E. Mann is a climate change sceptic in exactly the way that Plimer isn't. Thus while Mann carried out detailed research and published his concepts in scientific literature, Plimer appears to have publicised in interviews and in a book assertions about volcanoes which the EPA states have no factual basis. Unfortunately some editors posting above seem to be attempting to give "equal validity" to fringe views, and trying to drive IHaveAMastersDegree away from this topic area. It should be made clear to them that such battleground tactics are not acceptable in this topic area. . dave souza, talk 18:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    IHaveAMastersDegree is simply bordering on the edge of disruption in a controversial topic area by completely eradicating the word "skeptic" because he automatically equates it with climate change denial. I don't see anyone trying to push fringe views, unless using the word "skeptical" when referring to someone who is (the dictionary definition of) skeptical of climate change is a fringe view.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The word is commonly misused [as a self-description] for or by those denying the science of climate change to give credence to their fringe views, but that's not the dictionary definition of wikt:skeptic. Clearer wording is desirable, and it's hardly the edge of disruption to attempt to find improvements which avoid misrepresenting these fringe views as though they were in some way justified as scientific skepticism. Are you suggesting that Plimer's views on volcanoes emitting CO2 are not fringe? .. dave souza, talk 18:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    All I know is that it's easier to use the word "skeptical" than "individuals who question the evidence".—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that Plimer (and for that matter Monckton) don't question the evidence on climate change, they make up assertions that are directly contrary to the evidence and publicise them in non-scientific channels. We should describe them in neutral language, and not use this loaded and misleading term "skeptic" which can give undue weight to their fringe views. . dave souza, talk 19:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    per a recent controversy caused by me with the topic of holocaust denial, I think it makes sense to be narrowly explicit as to describing the views and opinions of the parties. "Climate skeptic" carries a lot of baggage, and in many cases what the person is actually skeptical about is much more narrow than the baggage implies. (IE, some believe in climate change, but that the effects are being exaggerated, or that certain evidence is exxagerated/faked but do not disagree with the thrust (Fake but accurate). As BLP is obviously applicable to these issues, we should avoid labeling people with any negative labels that are not heavily supported by sources. That being said, I am not giving an opinion to if skeptic should or should not apply to any particular person, as I have not read through the evidence/sources discussed above.Gaijin42 (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree in principle, evidence is needed in each case. It is true that in this field "skeptic" is sometimes used as jargon for those opposed to mainstream science, but that in itself is a source of confusion or is misleading to those less immersed in the topic area. Hence a more neutral description is better. . dave souza, talk 19:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    IHaveAMastersDegree wrote: "It looks like another editor, dave souza, has found an acceptable and neutral solution for the ambiguous 'skeptic' problem on the Ian Plimer page." The original words there were ""Climate change scepticism"; dave souza's change was to "Views on climate change". If IHaveAMastersDegree means that for all cases where he/she dislikes the word "skepticism" he/she will only change to "views on climate change", and will only change "climate change skeptic" to "person with views about climate change" or "organization with views about climate change", and nothing else, well, I for one could hope for nothing more. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I said "in this particular case" referring specifically to the Ian Plimer page. Since it is a section heading and the individual's opinions are clearly stated beneath it, then "Views on climate change" is entirely appropriate. I hope you are being ironic when you suggest that inline statements that someone has "views about climate change" without further elaboration would be any more meaningful than calling them a "skeptic". IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryulong, calling my edits a "disruption" does not make them a disruption. I have taken the discussion to talk pages whenever I have been asked, and have provided my reasons for the edits. I have attempted to reach consensus (successfully in at Ian Plimer case it appears). I have not simply reverted my changes that have been undone by others without any discussion. It is my understanding that this is how Wikipedia editing is supposed to work. It seems that some users are attempting to create a disruption where none actually exist. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryulong, if a brief online dictionary definition of skepticism is the only one that matters, then you should consider editing the Wikipedia skepticism page to reflect that view and see how it goes for you. That said, Ian Plimer is not a skeptic by any definition. According to his page: "Plimer's views came to be associated with Monckton's claim that the international left created the threat of catastrophic global warming..." How is it "skeptical" (by your dictionary definition or any other) to believe in such a conspiracy theory? IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Climate change is a controversial topic on Wikipedia and its subject to certain restrictions on editors. You may or may not be skirting those restrictions. That's all I've left to say other than indent your responses properly.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The ARBCC restrictions are clear that battlefield behaviour is unacceptable; edits should be assessed in the light of sourced evidence, not a focus on allegations of behaviour and a blanket attempt to restrict one editor. In opening this thread, Peter Gulutzan wrote "Reversion is justifiable in every case that I have looked at, but I will wait for advice first", I've looked at some of these cases, and have so far not found any where reversion would be justifiable. As for evidence of misuse of the term skeptic, the NCSE cover this point and give a useful link to a paper by historian Spencer Weart: Global warming: How skepticism became denial – "the self-styled skeptics were not proceeding in a normal scientific manner" and "At some point they were no longer skeptics — people who would try to see every side of a case — but deniers, that is, people whose only interest was in casting doubt upon what other scientists agreed was true." . . dave souza, talk 07:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you accusing me of battleground behaviour? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks dave souza, for your authoritative references that validate everything I've been saying (and in fact go much further). I think the pages of Richard Lindzen and Steven Milloy need to be edited to reflect the fact that they describe themselves as deniers and appear to prefer that much more straighforward and well-defined term to the ambiguous and weasely word "skeptic." Before I make those changes, does anyone object? If so, what is the basis for objection? IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's pretty clear to everyone now that Peter Gulutzan's complaint about me was frivolous. Are we still waiting for some kind of resolution or are we just talking now? IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:108.48.144.42 disruptive editing.

    Hello I would like to report that this IP user has continued to be disruptive. While reverting the IP's edits on The Powerpuff Girls here [45] (Removing a reliable source and violating WP:NPOV) and here [46] (WP:NPOV) I noticed that there are already a heap of warnings on the IP's talkpage for disruptive and breaking NPOV edits. Also noteworthy is the removal of warnings placed by other editors [47]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Having encountered some of the editor's contributions, it appears they are either deficient in understanding that Wikipedia is a community project with rules, or they are deliberately engaged in disruption. AGF led me to consider this edit a test, for which the IP received a warning. IP blanked their talk page, which is considered an acknowledgement of posted warnings, which included warnings for NPOV, edit tests and damaging articles.
    User has also been engaged in the unexplained removal of sourced content, the removal of sources, and the addition of unsourced future dates, for example in these 17 consecutive edits. User seems to not understand our rules against the introduction of original research, for example when they submitted this edit "Most fans wonder what [Snow White] would look like with her ebony-black hair down." There are also these edits where the user submits repetitive non-neutral descriptions "the girls all strongly fall head-over-heels in love with the same guy", "...[the Spies] figure out how NV makes her hypnotically, irresistible siren-like perfume that spellbindingly attracts all males." This edit was reverted, but then the IP user attempted to sneak some of the content ("head-over-heels in love"), and the grandiose style of writing, back into the article here. User seems to have a POV that they are pushing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 108.48.144.42 is also one of several IPs being used to add unsourced ages for fictional characters in a range of youth media articles.[48][49][50][51][52][53] The editor seems to have just started using 108.10.240.190.[54][55] - SummerPhD (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KahnJohn27 at Ariel Castro kidnappings

    User KahnJohn72 was warned about edit warring on a different article [56] [57] some 48 hours ago.

    Previous consensus at this page has been to keep the name of the daughter out on two seperate occasions. KahnJohn27 added it back in [58]. I removed the name citing previous consensus. KahnJohn27 then added it back in with a personal attack directed at myself [59] "....Stop trying to make Wikipedia ignorant like yourself. Stop trying to impose your views.". I undid the change again citing previous consensus requesting he take it to talk and not engage in personal attacks, then KahnJohn27 put the name back in [60] claiming that there was permission from the family, and "Stay in your limits". I then undid it again citing WP:BLP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. After my third revert I put a note on the talk page requesting discussion. KahnJohn then reverted the name back in without discussion, ignoring WP:BRD, something he was told about two days ago again claim permission from the family. He did not partake in discussion until several hours later saying "Naming of a victim of a horrible crime should be avoided if the victim or their family does not want the name to be mentioned and there should be reliable sources for the name". I then removed the name again and warned him [61]

    Since the beginning of this case, the victims have all requested privacy, [62][63] especially the name of the daughter [64] to the point where her name was stricken from court records.[65][66]

    User KahnJohn72 has ignored WP:3RR, WP:BRD, WP:BLP (specifically WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLPNAME) WP:NPA and has made misleading edit summaries claiming permission to include the name against WP:BLP and specific requests for privacy.Martin451 21:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    diff of notice on users talk page.Martin451 21:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have issued a warning and strongly urged him to seek a new consensus on the talk page (if he can find a new one). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe someone should consider revdel-ing, so the name isn't found in the page history? HandsomeFella (talk) 10:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Not a bad idea. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 18:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Anon on an unusual spree

    What's going on here? This anon 2602:306:36ED:42C0:54D3:7A59:E490:5A36 (talk) has tinkered with latitude/longitude coordinates on several dozen locations in what seems to be at rather high speed over the past three days. Plus two other edits, perhaps valid, no references, I have no idea. Choor monster (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to be removing unneeded accuracy. The Earth has a circumference of 40,000km. One degree is about 111km. One minute 1.85km. 1 second 30m. Coordinates are often given to the accuracy of the size of the feature. e.g. if something is 2km by 2km the coordinates will be given to one minute. 30m by 30m they will be given to 1 second. Stating the position of a city to an accuracy of 30 metres when it is many square km in size is not scientific.Martin451 23:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides, the coordinates, before the IP editor's changes, only describe one very specific point in each city, the latter of which can be described in minutes, instead of seconds, due to the cities' size. I guess the IP editor is actually doing some good. Let's not dismiss their edits prematurely. Epicgenius (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Many cities have specific features (a building or a square) from which all official mileage is measured. Are these editors moving the coordinates to those features, or away' from them, or, in one example IO looked at, removing unnecessary "0 seconds"? In other words, are the changes helping or hurting the accuracy of the articles? If they're neutral, then they're unnecessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing false precision improves accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilesMoney (talk • contribs) 20:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is, is the precision "false" or not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @MilesMoney: "Removing false precision improves accuracy" is untrue. Imagine the actual value being 0.333... (3s repeating). Suppose "X" is 0.333 followed by random numbers and "Y" is exactly 0.333. Which is closer to the truth, X or Y? Turns out "X" will be closer if it's between 0.333 and 0.333666... (6s repeating). Therefore "X" has 66.666...% chance of being closer, and removing false precision does not improve accuracy. QED. 88.113.145.84 (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't the place for this, but: removing false or unnecessary precision certainly does improve things. I remove unnecessary precision from geographical coordinates on Wikipedia all the time. The flaw in your argument is the notion of "the actual value". What is "the actul value" of the latitude of Boston, MA? It's a meaningless or at least slippery question, on several levels. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "removing false or unnecessary precision certainly does improve things" - do you have a basis for your claim? "The flaw in your argument is the notion of "the actual value". What is "the actul value" of the latitude of Boston, MA?" So what you're saying is that because we don't know the exact value, that gives us the right to mess around with it? That's like saying you shouldn't lock your door because a burglar would just pick the lock anyway. 88.113.145.84 (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm saying that the exact value of the latitude of a city (i.e. to six or more more than six decimal places) has no meaning -- not because we don't know what it is, but because the concept doesn't make sense. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC) [edited 15:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)][reply]
    • Quite simply, I have no idea if there is supposed to be a policy. At the moment, reverts have already happened to some of the anon's edits. I asked here before doing anything—others just took action. To clarify: it's an anon with no previous history, there is no stated reason given, no mention of policy, and the edits are happening rather rapidly, perhaps semi-automated.
    • As one example, picked for personal familiarity, Philadelphia displays two-digit decimal coordinates above the infobox, and degree-minute-second coordinates inside the infobox (I assume this is done by the template, since I saw no explicit above the box coordinates). Interestingly enough, the two-digit decimal coordinates exhibits exactly the round-off mentioned above: the inside Geo URI geo:39.953333,-75.17 (seen at the top after clicking on the link) becomes geo:39.95,-75.17. Neither location is a particularly notable street location, however, the inside GEO URI is east-west aligned with City Hall. So if the -75.17 were also lowered just a tad—I eyeball it as -75.165—the inside Geo URI would land on City Hall. Choor monster (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Philadelphia has two sets of coordinates because it contains both the latd and longd tags in the 'settlement' infobox, and also an explicit {{Coord}} template. That's an error, IMO -- I'll fix it.
    As to policy in this area, I don't know of one, but I'll look around and see if I can find anything. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is, unsurprisingly, a WikiProject on this: WikiProject Geographical coordinates. And they have specific guidelines on precision (the basic advice being, as others have mentioned here, "avoid excessive"). There doesn't seem to be concise policy on whether to use, say, the location of a city hall as the location of a city. I also haven't found a policy (and I've certainly observed wide variation) in whether to use decimal degrees or degrees/minutes/seconds. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by user ANTONI20

    EDITOR REFUSES TO DISCUSS
    ANTONI20 blocked for continued disruption despite numerous efforts to engage editor. If this continues after release of block, an indef block is in order. Toddst1 (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    ANTONI20 has been removing sourced material from articles on U.S. District Courts. He does not leave any explanation for these removals, either in an edit summary or on the appropriate talk pages. See:

    See his contribution history for more examples, [74].

    ANTONI20 was questioned here about blanket changes to an article and here about changes without discussion. He was warned here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

    This has been discussed here, here, and here in addition to the warnings on his talkpage.

    Based on the number of changes, deletions, and warnings, I believe that a one week block might be appropriate to get his attention so that he will stop removing sourced material. I will notify him on posting this and will post a diff to the notification in a minute. GregJackP Boomer! 05:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    ANTONI20 was notified of this discussion here. GregJackP Boomer! 05:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    He just started doing it again, at United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Can an admin please look at this? GregJackP Boomer! 04:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This has gone on across about ten different articles. I've put another uw4-vandalism tag on his page and reverted, but he is gutting article after article. GregJackP Boomer! 04:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin needed to look at above entry

    Please look at ANTONIO20, above. GregJackP Boomer! 04:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    user:Lgcsmasamiya

    At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#Lgcsmasamiya's patrolling, user:Lgcsmasamiya was banned from patrolling the new pages feed. Well a look at [[75]] shows that he is still doing so. I cannot see how he is doing it properly at that speed. Is he still banned? Can anything be done? Op47 (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, Lgcsmasamiya was banned from page patrolling, and it looks like he is still doing it haphazardly. As someone who has had to clean up some of his messes, I think it's time to prevent him from further violating the ban.- MrX 18:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ETA: It looks like he is not adding any cleanup tags to any of these articles. I'm going through them now to make sure there are not any copyvios or WP:BLP vios.- MrX 18:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lgcsmasamiya blocked until they can demonstrate an understanding of, and a willingness to comply with, the guidelines and conventions involved with new page patrol. Tiderolls 19:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This ban is not listed at WP:EDR yet. Should the topic ban on Lgcsmasamiya be put up there? Epicgenius (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. I have added it. - MrX 7:12 pm, Today (UTC−5)

    User:TheoneIlookupto -- block requested

    Blocked by Mark Arsten due to WP:DUCK. Epicgenius (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:TheoneIlookupto (no user page) appeared today and is edit warring various music articles, apparently replicating edits by indef-blocked sockpuppeteer User:Stiarts erid. The DUCK test seems clearly satisfied, and even if it's not the editor is apparently unwilling to edit constructively. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, I've blocked per the duck test. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Can't revert Talk:Leader of the Opposition (Thailand)

    Done by Darkness Shines. Epicgenius (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A false positive with the auto filter is preventing me from reverting the addition of irrelevant spam/soapboxing content at Talk:Leader of the Opposition (Thailand)[76]. I've filed a report re the false positive, but the page still needs to be fixed. --101.109.234.32 (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editor who was disinvited from my user talk page ...

    SUPERCEDED
    See follow on discussion below NE Ent 23:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Now inn full harassment mode.

    I asked User:MilesMoney not to post on my UT page on 29 December at 6:23 He posted after that on my UT page at 6:49 [77] I iterated my request at 6:53 [78]

    His response is now to simply keep "thanking" me for edits for which there is no rational basis for his "thanks" whatsoever: Giving me "notifications" which are actually quite annoying, and appear to be the result of following my contributions:

    Today
    MilesMoney thanked you for your edit on User talk:A Quest For Knowledge. 2 hours ago | View edit
    MilesMoney thanked you for your edit on User talk:A Quest For Knowledge. 5 hours ago | View edit
    MilesMoney thanked you for your edit on User talk:A Quest For Knowledge. 6 hours ago | View edit
    MilesMoney thanked you for your edit on User talk:A Quest For Knowledge. 6 hours ago | View edit
    MilesMoney thanked you for your edit on User talk:BD2412. 19 hours ago | View edit

    The cumulative effect sought appears to be harassment at this point, and I ask whether others also would view this "thanking" in order to make the "red notification" thingie keep appearing at the top of every page as in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines for editor behaviour.

    [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MilesMoney&diff=588721389&oldid=588717594[ Editor notified of discussion.

    If this is not harassment, then what is it? Collect (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm inclined to agree. Anyone who plays that kind of game should read WP:DICK, just to make sure they're not making the grade ES&L 22:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ESL, could you please show me the policy against thanking editors? MilesMoney (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Vis-à-vis WP:DICK, I believe the pièce de résistance is this response from Miles when he was asked to knock it off.[79] Seems to me that a simple, "Oh, you don't like that? I'll stop it then," would have been much more appropriate. Roccodrift (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Which part of that policy says not to thank editors? MilesMoney (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy you're looking for is WP:HARASS. You need to consider yourself unofficially on a 1-way interaction ban with Collect before it actually becomes official. When someone says "leave me alone", thanking them 5 times in one day is not leaving them alone. ES&L 22:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What he said was to stay off his talk page, which I have done. You know, WP:ANI is supposed to be for serious violations of policy, not for complaints about being thanked too much. MilesMoney (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Miles, if you continue to deliberately piss off Collect, I will block you. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If that were my intent, I'd block me, too. But it's not. Strange that nobody -- including Collect -- bothered asking me what I was doing or why. MilesMoney (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment:: A full log of MilesMoney's "Thanks" can be found here. Regards, Ross HillTalk to me! 22:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Instead of playing 20 questions, let me make this simple:

    1. It wasn't my intent to annoy Collect. I'm sorry if I annoyed him.
    2. If I had known it was annoying him, I'd have stopped.
    3. He really ought to have told me, since it's not obvious that thanking is a bad thing.
    4. Now that I know, I won't thank him ever again. Promise.
    5. So, uhm, why was this in ANI instead of a polite request from him that I'd have immediately honored?

    There we go. MilesMoney (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    One minor problem: You "thanked" me for edits where my edit summary was yeppers -- either he is stalking my edits or he is extraordinarily adept at ESP and I doubt you "thanked" an edit where the gist was that I was being stalked. He "thanked" a post which stated The editor has recently been editing a number of articles very closely related to that article, and involving BLPs. (expect a stalker to comment imminently. He "thanked" a post which stated And again. I think at the fourth "thank" for this sort of edit he should be rewarded on a noticeboard? and he avers that it was not his "intent" to harass me. I waited until. his fifth "thank" lest he not notice what my post stated clearly. And I trust he actually read the posts for which he "thanked" me else the behaviour is even less honourable on his part. Cheers -- but I find his comments that he was really thanking me to be less than credible. Collect (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you didn't want me to thank you, all you had to do was ask on my talk page. Sometimes a thank you is a sign of deep gratitude, other times, it's more like a nod or a wave to acknowledge that the post was noticed. As for the red notification box, triggering that is no more annoying than saying User:Collect, and there's no policy against that, either. On the other hand, WP:AGF is definitely a policy. MilesMoney (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And of course by deliberately wikilinking me, you guaranteed yet another red Notifications flag when I suspect you knew I was already following this discussion. 6 strikes (deliberate acts calculated to get me that red flag as often as possible - solely from you) better mean someone says "Out!" folks -- this last link was deliberate, calculated, and quite frankly untenable as "thanking" anyone, but is pure harassment without even the need to ask anyone. Cheers ... Collect (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, it's obvious that this new year has found you very low on patience and good faith, but this is the wrong way to deal with your unhappiness. Why didn't you just ask me to stop if it was bothering you? Why did you assume I could read your mind? What possible recourse is there now? I can't unthank you. MilesMoney (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no salient human who thinks it's appropriate to randomly thank someone 5 times in one day. I know I'm prepared to propose a 1-way interaction ban of Miles from Collect, which would include everything from thanks to talkpages, to echo links, you name it ... Miles is either being intentionally obnoxious or wholly clueless ... neither are beneficial to the project ES&L 00:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't randomly thank him, so I'm not sure how that applies. MilesMoney (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse interaction ban. I'd personally give Miles a few months off from editing, given the sheer number of threads here recently about his behaviour, whether intentional or not, his presence is not conducive to the harmonious operation of the project. Nick (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse boomerang. Collect has been trying to stir up trouble with me all day. The first diff he was thanked for was his attempt to get me blocked by misinterpreting an article ban, and this report is nonsense that could have been averted by assuming good faith and simply asking. MilesMoney (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse one-way interaction ban. Miles' comment immediately above is an eminently clear demonstration of his intent to be annoying if not undeniably disruptive, and his other comments in this discussion only pile up the evidence. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse one-way interaction ban. Miles' comment just above Hullaballoo's demonstrates clear intent to abuse the "thank" tool. Miles keeps going back to "all he had to do is ask," but Collect did ask [80] and he was ignored. It's time to draw a line in the sand against the nonstop disruption. Roccodrift (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked MilesMoney for 48 hours for abusing the thanks function as well as the other notification function. Compare this conversation on Someguy's page and MM's comment above: "If I had known it was annoying him, I'd have stopped." Really? Why didn't you stop after this, then? That's nice that you undertake not to thank Collect again. Please don't replace it with any other puerile clever breaching experiments for annoying him or others again, either. Bishonen | talk 00:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
      Endorse block. MilesMoney was obviously being deliberately obnoxious with all these childish thank you notifications and anyone that has been paying attention knows that the relationship between Collect and MilesMoney has been less than cordial. All these tedious thanks after being asked by Collect to leave him alone can't be construed as anything other than harassment.--MONGO 01:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Further discussions about bans not appropriate at the time. Collect came, Bish blocked ... the next logical step is to wait and observe MM's post block behavior before considering further sanctions. NE Ent 01:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on Miles' behaviour in this thread alone, it's obvious the block isn't enough - the block merely prevented continued issues while the IB discussion is underway ES&L 01:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur, the discussion regarding an I-ban was only just beginning and I see no reason at all that one could not still be imposed. Roccodrift (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Cue Is there an option to disable MilesMoney's thanks (i.e. no thanks button for this editor)? Epicgenius (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Can blocked editors thank anyway? You can turn off the red facebook alert number thing in preferences --> notifications. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 02:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block (thank you!) and knowing the long,long, long story of MilesMoney I fully endorse a one-way interaction ban for them versus Collect. With MilesMoney disruption is a feature, not a bug; and Collect appears to be one of the prime targets for the moment. Iselilja (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse one way interaction ban. I recognise one way bans can be problematic, but I see no other choice. If you know another editors has problems with you, you have to be very clueless to not realise following them thanking them may be unwelcome. But even if we WP:AGF that MilesMoney was really that clueless, which isn't a good thing, they should have realised they were bothering Collect when Collect made it clear in their edit summaries and posts that they felt they were being stalked by the 'thanks'. (If MilesMoney is not even reading what they're thanking, that sounds like an even worse problem, particularly since the only credible justification they've offered was that their thanks was intended as an indication the posts were read.) And if that wasn't enough, if I'm reading the logs right, MilesMoney continued to thank Collect after Collect had made it clear in an article talk page [81] that such thanking was unwelcome and after MilesMoney had replied to said post [82]. MilesMoney then comes to this page and reading the complaint, instead of promising to stop they then start arguing about what policy there is forbidding people from thanking, even though the issue of harassment was mentioned (albeit not wikilinked but it sounds like MilesMoney has been around long enough they should know it) in the original complaint and in the request to stop from before the complaint. When it becomes clear things aren't going their way, they finally promise to stop while in the same post claiming it would have stopped if they knew they were being annoying or received a polite request and that they didn't know they were being annoying, despite the fact they didn't stop for either (okay we can debate whether the request was polite, but you don't continue just because a request was insufficiently polite) and received amply notification some of which they read that they were being annoying but continued anyway. MilesMoney clearly has a decent command of English so either MilesMoney is so clueless that I'm not sure if they should be welcome on wikipedia, or they purposely being obtuse. Whatever is really the case, I see no choice but to impose a onesided interaction ban since Collect's frustration with them is completely understandable. Nil Einne (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The pool at the Full Harassment Inn[83] is rather shallow. Diving is prohibited. Bish, can I get you a another fruity drink with one of those little umbrellas? Jehochman Talk 18:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Sharedupload-desc-here help

    Could you please help me on with this?--Carnby (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, not sure what the issue is, can you maybe explain it in 1-2 sentences what you try to do and where exactly you need help? Describe the problem a bit and the place to ask for general help can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Questions Prokaryotes (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    DMB112

    DMB112 (talk · contribs) and I had gotten into an unfortunate content dispute in mid December that resulted in both myself and DMB112 receiving a 2 week long block for edit warring. Apparently, during this time, DMB112 began editing under the account RedPill1785 (talk · contribs) which he used to edit several articles, including two that had been part of the dispute (although he did not edit content that was central to the dispute). Today, RedPill1785 left this comment responding to me at WT:CFB and then DMB112 replaced the signature with his own. DMB112 has admitted that RedPill1785 is an alternate account and has admitted that he will use the account in the future should he be blocked as DMB112 again (SPI case if relevant).

    In addition to this sockpuppetry, DMB112 has repeatedly made ad hominem attacks towards me during the dispute and after, calling me "nuts" and using my block log as a reason to discount my opinion (again), saying I need to be removed from Wikipedia, saying I have problems, and today left me this message saying that he had hoped I had gone through with my plan to leave Wikipedia as he believes I am not well suited for it and will pursue an RFCU as at the beginning of the block he had made it clear he wanted to "press more charges" against me. I had hoped that the two weeks wold have allowed him to disengage, as beyond a statement I had made at WT:CFB to act on the new consensus they had reached in our absense I was planning on leaving things be. But his repeated personal attacks, his clear WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mentality at WT:CFB (his proposed additions were unwanted but he simply kept them and modified them into what he thought was a lesser version, this is touched upon by editors during the block under WT:CFB#Truly back on topic), and this revelation that he evaded the block and has clearly stated he will evade again are matters that should be dealt with.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I also expect that DMB112 will attempt to use this thread as an attempt to follow through with his plans to seek further punishments against me. I know I've not been the best, and I've been nearly Jekyll and Hyde in recent months, but I only mean to improve the encyclopedia. And that unfortunately has resulted in me being somewhat pigheaded, which has caused the many stupid disputes that in better judgement I should avoid. He is obviously free to make his statement, but based on the interactions I've had with him I only expect it to be full of ad hominem attacks against me and be completely misinformed about everything that I have done, simply because I would not allow him to act against consensus and let there be some weird tables about academics on sports pages.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no energy to deal with this user. I will not awknowledge his existence any further. Goodbye Ryulong. We will no longer be engaged in any form of conversation. DMB112 (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely blocked the acknowledged sockpuppet account and I have reset the 14 day block to expire 14 days after the last time he edited using the sockpuppet. I leave the community open to taking further action against DMB112 or any other party involved in the dispute. Nick (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Uninvolvededitor Frankly, I'm surprised there isn't an indef-block on DMB112 as well, but it is what it is. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 01:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's what the community wants, I'm happy to do that. I'm mindful that prior to the previous block against DMB112, he had a clean block log and no history of sockpuppetry, the severity of the edit warring warranting a lengthy 14 day block. Nick (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparent Battleground/POV editing

    First, I find it neccessary to clarify the definition of WP:CBAN. A community ban discussion of uninvolved editors means that a group of predominately involved editors in the current dispute cannot determine who gets banned from the project. It does not mean that editors involved in the dispute cannot contribute to the consensus. This interpretation is fairly new and recent. Regardless, the underlying dispute here appears to be participated in by a variety of editors on all sides of this dispute. If I discount some of those who are supportive of action against MilesMoney, I would similarly have to discount two of those opposed to action against MilesMoney which equates to losing 22% of those supportive of him. The definition of CBAN proposed by his supporters would actually harm him rather than help him. But it's not about numbers, it's about arguments.

    The claim of personal attacks isn't supported by the diff provided by the TheFourDeuces. However, SafeHaven86 provided several diffs of using an ad hominem of "Conservative cloud" as a perjorative to describe editors with whom MilesMoney has been in disputes with[84][85][86][87] and accusations of a cabel [88] and that this cloud is "morally bankrupt"[89].


    Community Ban 23

    Topic Ban on Libertarian Articles 5

    Ban on BLPs 1

    Ban on Politics related articles 5

    Oppose any 9

    Some folks have said that taking action against MilesMoney is going to reward editors on the opposite side of the dispute. I disagree. For one, there are other editors who hold the same position of MilesMoney who will continue in their editing. The dispute doesn't go away because one editor has been removed from it. Second, if there are other editors who are also misbehaving, the onus is on editors in the dispute to bring appropriate evidence to ANI so those other's behavior can also be addressed. But failing to address all behavior in a dispute does not absolve a particular editors whose behavior has been addressed. (WP:NOTTHEM)

    Finally, SPECIFICO's hounding of editors in this dispute hasn't been helpful at all. Attempting to tie nearly every editor to MilesMoney in someway is an ad hominem. It doesn't address their argument in any way and attempts to discredit them based on who they are. That's not good dispute resolution.

    The consensus of this discussion isn't that MilesMoney is particularly wrong in his editing of Libertarian articles. It appears to be that he wikilawyers, filibusters, and otherwise disrupts discussions that are not leading to a course perferrable to him. On the subject of BLPs, though, there appears to be significant consensus that MilesMoney pushes the acceptable limits of WP:BLP policy with regards to labeling living people as "far right" or some variety of "denialism" (Holocaust, evolution, and climate change).

    I see 34 editors agreeing that a sanction of some sort is neccessary and only 9 opposed. Similarly, it could be said that 20 editors feel that an option less extensive than a community ban is perferrable. However, from reading the discussion I don't see any articulated opposition to a site ban from those supporting lower remedies and so I discount that latter summary. The consensus here is that MilesMoney is community banned from Wikipedia indefinitely. He may appeal via email to any uninvolved administrator who will make a request on the Administrator's noticeboard no earlier than 6 months from today's date or he may contact WP:BASC at any time. He has hinted on his talk page that he may seek an WP:Arbcom case to pursue resolution. If he wishes to proceed, any uninvolved administrator may unblock him provided that he contributes only to Arbcom (or whatever conditions Arbcom and it's clerks chose to set).--v/r - TP 03:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Note for potential closing admins - please review WP:CBAN procedure for min duration etc; with blocked user this case especially should be allowed enough time for all relevant parties to contribute and be heard. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

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

    This user, who began editing in July 2013 has shown a consistent pattern of battleground behaviour on articles about U.S. conservative individuals. He puts in contentious short additions that connect individuals with extremism or perceived extremism, often without sources, then provides lengthy argument on talk pages often spilling into noticeboards, long after it is apparent that he has failed to obtain consensus.

    An example is trying to link Murray Rothbard to holocaust denial, "evolution denialism", and falsely claiming that he endorsed a political campaign by former KKK leader David Duke. (See "Revisionism", "Evolution" and "Kirchick's opinion piece allegations even supportable?".)

    He added Pamela Geller, which is a "biography of a living person" to Category:Far-right politics in the United States,[90] although the source used does not call her far right or right-wing for that matter.[91] The term far right normally refers to neo-fascist, neo-nazi or similar groups. Most of Talk:Pamela Geller is now devoted to a discussiion about that.

    MilesMoney's battleground attitude is evident by his comment, when he moved a discussion thread from AN to ANI: "wrong drama page."[92] He also uses frequent personal attacks, such as accusing other editors of vandalism[93] and tag-teaming.[94]

    In his six months here, he has been banned from the article Ludwig von Mises Institute[95] and blocked 48 hours for wikistalking Collect. I therefore request the following:

    1. a community ban,
    2. a topic ban from U.S. libertarian articles, and
    3. a ban on editing biographies of living persons.

    TFD (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support the topic ban on libertarian articles, as I have in the past. Oppose the other bans. In the matter of Pamela Geller, it's clear to me that MM is far from the only problem. There are half a dozen editors there guilty of behavior ranging from tendentious editing to battleground mentality to personal attacks directed at MM. There are abundance of sources describing Geller as "right" and even "far right", including the newspaper The Guardian, and yet there are editors there instead arguing with a straight face that the US' most famous anti-Islamic blogger is not a right-winger but instead a liberal. To pin all of this on MM would be both inaccurate and also encourage and embolden this behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As a quick note, the 48 hour block started about 3 hours ago so someone will need to copy MilesMoney's comment here (or alternatively they will need to be unblocked solely to participate in this discussion). Nil Einne (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose the BLP ban, at least for now. The Geller article, as Gamaliel said above, has been the subject of severe conservative ownership to prevent her from being characterized as "far-right" or "right-wing" even though it is pitifully easy to find sourcing of the second at least. MM's participation in these struggles has been substandard, and I have been one of a string of editors advising him that he has to play better, but I'm also against rewarding the protectors of Geller's article (among others) for an editing climate in which his sort of reaction is unsurprising if also unwelcome. That said, my patience with him is not infinite and I would agree that he needs to be less combative and more collegial in his interaction with others. Mangoe (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support an indefinite ban from the website. A time wasting POV pushing troll is all he is...time everyone wake up and stop coddling these time wasters.--MONGO 03:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Complete and total ban. While I originally supported a ban from BLP articles several days ago, a quick perusal of MM's wikipedia activity is reminiscent of a Texas Twister touching down amongst a mega trailer park; He wreaks havoc everywhere he goes. He thrives on disputes, and makes discussing disputes next to impossible. Look at the Geller article at RSN. An impartial editor asked him to cut it out because he was making the discussion difficult to proceed. Note: MM is only one of several participants who share some of his views on Geller. None of those (or anyone else on that page) has even come close to wreaking the discord that MM has. Enough.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Those who think TFD is exhibiting "conservative ownership" of anything are in sore need of bifocals <g>. MM has recently edited on a number of libertarian economist BLPs associated with the von Mises Institute, but the topic ban appears to have covered only the Institute, but not people who founded that Institute. He has been the topic of several AN/I discussions and seems unwilling to learn from what his critics have said in them, and his behaviour in denying harassment and denying that I had asked his harassment thrice to cease was sufficiently blatant that my annual season of good will was prematurely spent. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban per WP:NOTHERE, major battleground mentality and lack of respect for BLP concerns. I have said many harsh words about that editor previously and I don’t regret any of them. Should the community ban not pass, I naturally support the BLP ban and also the Libertarian ban, although I am not so sure banning him from Libertarians without banning him from other right-wing articles will help a lot (the problem will just move). If this thread is closed with a message to "evaluate own actions" before going to ArbCom, I hope someone will take him to ArbCom. Iselilja (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It seems to me the biggest problem is MM's persistent incivility. I have noticed that he tends to comment on other editors, rather than edits. That seems to transcend the types of articles he edits, so I'm not sure any sort of topic or article ban will solve that. He has repeatedly accused me and a wide variety of other editors of being part of a "Conservative Cloud." [96], [97], [98], [99]. I told MM I perceived this as a violation of WP:NPA [100], which he dismissed, calling it a false accusation, and in turn accused me of making a personal attack (by "falsely accusing him of a personal attack"). [101] Yet he has accused others of personal attacks and demanded redaction for behavior that is similar, if not as hostile, as his own behavior. [102] I find his edits to be condescending [103] and adversarial, and they are creating a hostile environment on the articles he edits. He repeatedly admonishes other editors to WP:AGF while superficially complying with the policy himself through apparently clever rhetorical techniques ("some people might say you were lying, while I was more tactful than that.") [104]. He has accused me of trying to "protect" a page from "inconvenient facts." [105]. This, despite the fact that when the issue was taken to the noticeboard, 17 editors disagreed with MM, with MM being the only person arguing his opinion. Despite this consensus, he's persisted in accusing me of lacking good intentions. At Talk:Ocean_Grove,_New_Jersey, he's accused me of "whitewashing," and when I asked someone to give a WP:3O, MM said to the 3O provider, without explanation, "you're not neutral." [106]. That was, conveniently, after the 3O provider had opined that my suggested version was better than MM's preferred version. There are dozens of diffs that could support MM's noncompliance with WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:AGF, and other policies. But this issue keeps reappearing. How many times does MM's behavior need to be the topic of discussion before the community decides to do something about it? I've decided to just ignore MM, but I worry that his incivility, if unchecked, will do permanent damage to the project by providing a hefty disincentive to participate. It's not terribly rewarding when you're constantly being attacked, and made to feel like we're all a part of a "win" or "lose" battle. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It has been hard to avoid MM's relentless push, and MM will be removed sooner or later—sooner would be better for the project as MM is thriving on drama and causing disruption on multiple pages. MM has assumed that maintaining good self control and never going too far would ensure a long Wikipedia life, but this comment from above shows the battleground style ("could you please show me the policy against thanking editors?")—a great way to needle your opponents, but not useful for collaboration. Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As MilesMoney is currently blocked I'm copying this from their talk page per their request [107] without comment except that it doesn't appear to be a personal attack or anything so bad that it shouldn't be copied Nil Einne (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This ANI report is the sequel to that one. The same people who tried for two weeks to get me banned then are trying again. Here's what TP, the closing admin, wrote:
    No consensus for any of the proposals. This topic has been discussed to exhaustion. The next step is an WP:RFC/U or Arbcom request. All participants in the disputes at hand here should evaluate their own behaviors before proceeding down either track.
    He's right. ANI is not the place for this. If the community has a problem with my behavior, then we should take this to RFC/U. MilesMoney (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support whichever of the restrictions gains community consensus. I have had limited interaction with the editor and no significant conflict myself. However, I have observed the ongoing behavior and read the disturbing diffs. It is clear to me that the editor sees Wikipedia as a political battleground and takes to the fight with gusto. Dealing with the ongoing disruptions is a big time sink. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Support, because IMO the proposed measures are not optimal. I think a general BLP ban is too broad and a topic ban only on Libertarian articles is too narrow. It would have been better for the topic ban to cover "all politics-related articles, broadly construed". That would have covered BLPs of political figures, which is where the BLP problems are occurring. But, clearly something must be done, so even if this proposal is less than perfect I am still willing to endorse it. Roccodrift (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - multiple personal attacks over an extended period of time (e.g. [108][109][110][111]). If the above is all he has to say in explaining/defending himself, then it is clear that he just doesn't understand civility and harassment policy. Now, it's clear that Miles feels persecuted in some way, and having an ANI thread about his behavior running for two weeks couldn't have been easy. But I think he reacted in the wrong way to people who supported some sort of ban for him. StAnselm (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, Wikipedia:POV railroad seems at play, again. In the last discussion it was mentioned of the cloud of conservatism editors, and I think MM brings uncomfortable attention on their efforts. Any banning should take into consideration the many players, who seem to hang around this board a lot, who are also continually causing these issues to erupt causing a need for attention. MM's activities did not occur in a vacuum, and getting him excised will only chip away at the opposition. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It was indeed mentioned - by Miles. He flung around the accusation of "POV railroad" and "conservative cloud" without providing any serious evidence or diffs. I suggest you refrain from doing the same. StAnselm (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Checking the archive, I see "POV railroad" was first used by yourself, and then Miles picked it up. Also, User:Mangoe used the phrase "cloud of conservative defenders", and then Miles used it in the ANI discussion a further five times, the last occurrence being "On a gust of foul wind, the Conservative Cloud settles above my head and rains hatred upon me." StAnselm (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The phrase "conservative cloud" is not original to him; it was introduced by me as part of this observation about yet another of these conflicts. I've managed on occasion to lay an accurate compromise version in underneath all the shouting, but really only someone who is inclined towards the battlefield or at least bloody-minded has the stamina to keep prosecuting the sanitizing that all these articles are subjected to. And the same not-very-large group of editors appears at all of these conflicts, and they are showing up here as well. It is a useful tactic to pick one source and assail it while ignoring the likelihood, in these political topics, that sources are easy to come by and that therefore the usual neutral solution is to look for more respectable sources saying the same thing instead of arguing as if only one crackpot ever said it. We've seen this in pretty much all of these fights, and it's only when some of the more neutral onlookers get drawn in that we get diverted from this. Mangoe (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    While you are in "defence mode" consider [112] MilesMoney wrote: you are trying to assassinate your colleagues. See if you can defend accusations of that nature against any editor -- and note this is only one of many, many such posts MM has made. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC) (appending) [113] " TFD has perjured himself shamelessly", "It really comes down to whether the community has the will to oppose them. If not, then it gets what it deserves: more articles owned by the Cloud, fewer editors willing to contribute their free time. If we forcibly recused every member of the Cloud, the report against me would evaporate" indicates, I fear, a real danger to the community from this editor at this point. He views everyone else as being in a "conspiracy" against him, that they commit "perjury" and will "assassinate" foes. Collect (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What you have pulled out of context, Collect, is a bit of hyperbole in a passage which accuses you of what you are doing: trying to get rid of MM as an opponent on these subjects. You also tried a (in my opinion quite lame) SPI accusation. The question really is not whether he is being pursued by a group of conservative editors, but whether that pursuit is justified. Mangoe (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the things that struck me about Miles right away was the focus he had on some editors that Stillstanding had previously had encounters with...I suppose one could say they are part of some Conservative Cloud, but if his intent here was to fight such a hypothetical then that's not what the website is about.--MONGO 16:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Only I brought up StillStanding unless I've missed those conversations where that person was mentioned prior to this ANI. But I was on a hiatus unless you're free to brush me as part of that "cloud". Like I said, the fact is the behavior is both the same where both StillStanding & Miles employs tendentious editing and creates overwhelming discussions even where there is clearly no consensus or is overwhelmingly against them. Then they use another policy to try and get away with their attitudes. That's why I said "The duck test". The fact is he harassed Collect's page despite being told not to. Guess what, StillStanding was told not to harass me by myself and yet he still did it. So pardon me if this hits a bit close to home for me because of the same tactics and burned the hell out of me. My participation dropped off the rock due to this crap. I do sparse editing but I'm in no mood anymore to play "Who can try to outwit the other." ViriiK (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support community ban as preferred outcome; support other proposals if ban is not enacted or upon expiration or lifting of ban. Milesmoney is deliberately personalizing and inflaming editorial disputes in order to discourage other editors who do not share his/her political views from editing particular articles, and thereby introduce political bias into content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I've been on a hiatus for a while and recently came back seeing all those articles under massive contention that were not contentious before because editors could actually agree and have consensus. The very fact that I've dealt with this kind of person before makes me think of "The duck test" and even if SPI failed to yield anything, there are multiple factors that can hide such track. Now, the harassment behavior is very similar to the StillStanding-247 for the very specific reasons here [114] which I've clearly outlined that the user was prohibited from my talk page but he kept persisting. Then with the intersect tool, I get the following results [115] & [116]. There's a clear pattern here. Now, I don't have much say in this due to my long break (IRL major events). ViriiK (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Another info. I was talking with him on his talk page since he accused me of making an SPI accusation. My post and the reply in response to another person is not an SPI accusation but sharing the same kind of pattern and behaviors of how they edit and spar off in discussions against others. However he dropped this line. "how morally bankrupt the Cloud is than anything I could ever say." Honestly, this speaks of a person who does not care to work with other people except those who share his opinions. ViriiK (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I was unaware of this prior discussion between StillStanding-247 and MilesMoney here [117] until I searched for it. If the consensus leads to a site-wide ban for MilesMoney, is it acceptable to re-open a CheckUser case in order to see if the "conspiracy" was true or not? ViriiK (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    CheckUser was declined in the earlier report because any data related to StillStanding was stale -- a problem that would only be worse three months later. --RL0919 (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how the process works but if it has something to do with data retention or whatever, then I understand. ViriiK (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fully support a site-wide ban. The amount of drama and time wasting this user causes isn't worth any positive contributions he might bring to the project. -- John Reaves 15:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, I will have to support a topic ban, and a site ban can even be considered. Epicgenius (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC) See below.[reply]
    • support topic bans and weakly/conditionally support site/community ban I would prefer Miles stretch his legs in an area other than politics, but based on his documented heavy use of technicality (see the prior thanking issue) and skirting the edge of his already existant bans, I think he will find the exact edge of what "libretarian" means and edit in the same controversial manner. If the topic ban were extended to US politics in general (or at least an controversy in US politics) (or the "widely construed" is actually wide), I would remove support for the site/community ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support some kind of ban, maybe from politics and political BLPs ("political" in that broad US sense). The battleground behavior is really intolerable, and I say this knowing that Miles Money is probably in the same "Cloud" I inhabit: their inability to stop painting all opponents on editorial matters with the same broad brush is very, very bothersome. I don't think it should be an indef block or ban at this point; I hope that won't be necessary. Let me note also that they're not the only troublesome editor in these areas, but Miles Money's edits and talk page behavior have only increased the troublesomeness. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support all three restrictions for an indefinite duration. It's doubtful that a workable topic ban can be found given that the previous topic ban merely shifted the problem to different articles; so site ban, and if that fails to achieve consensus, BLP ban, and if that fails to achieve consensus US politics ban (won't really work though.) MilesMoney was topic banned "from Libertarian topics" [119] although that was reduced to just LvM [120] a bit later. It turns out his behavior is the same pretty much anywhere else he edits. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regretful Support for Site Ban - Two weeks ago, I privately told MilesMoney "You really need to choose your battles, and if you want to influence decisions at WP you have to build credibility, invest in the project and be factor for positive, incremental change. You have to earn trust. You can do this by limiting yourself to one or two reverts at most, always making well-reasoned arguments, respecting your opponents, being more strategic, offering compromises, staying off of ANI, not reacting to baiting, walking away, and showing some humility now and then." I also told him that if he ignored that advice, he would be ejected from the project again. Unfortunately, for reasons unknown, this user has become a net detriment to the project. I'm sorry to say this, but a site ban seems to be the best option for the greater good.- MrX 16:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support -- Enough is enough per MONGO and so many others. Although I appreciate Bishonen taking a step to resolution, a person like MilesMoney needs an indefinite block. A 48 hour block just puts off the problem for 2 days IMHO. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 17:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a ban on politics-related articles, broadly-construed, per Drmies. Miles' behavior has not really convinced me that their behavior is improving (e.g. Progressive Tax, this thread on Ayn Rand, and more recently, on Talk:Pamela Geller), or that Miles recognizes that there is a problem at all. It's true that in some places (like on Talk:Progressive tax), Miles has had very productive interactions with some editors, and I am not convinced that Miles is a troll or whatever. However, this is not offset at all by combative back-and-forth and incessant bickering with other editors during RfCs I've closed, multiple discussions on AN/I, and talk pages. I agree with Johnuniq that Miles frequently accuses long-time editors of incompetence in various, unconstructive ways. This kind of behavior is not offset by their commitment to article improvement, and more importantly, it is persistent. Miles does not show any signs of minimizing their battleground mentality given recent events on these topics. I would not prefer a site ban, because I believe Miles has shown potential for working well with other editors, but I must admit the community's patience for Miles is wearing thin. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    When he holds an attitude of certain people as "morally bankrupt" (his words, not mine), I don't think there's any potential for working well with others in the future. ViriiK (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support community ban, topic ban and BLP ban. Particularly the community ban; this user is WP:NOTHERE. Pure and simple; nothing more, nothing less than that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per I JethroBT. The comment about patience wearing thin reminds me of a winning entry in the annual "Peg Leg Smith Liars' Contest" held at Anza-Borrego Desert State Park one year: The tires on my truck were so thin you could see the air inside. – S. Rich (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: While MM told me that repeatedly accusing me of being a member of "The Conservative Cloud" was "certainly not meant as an insult", [121] he has described "The Cloud" as a "cabal," [122] and said that it is "morally bankrupt." [123] Since according to MM, I'm in "The Cloud," I don't see how this can't be viewed as a nasty personal attack. Actually, everyone who disagrees with MM's opinions is apparently in "The Conservative Cloud," even self-professed liberals. [124] I'm sick and tired of having these aggressive attacks thrown my way without MM facing any consequences. While many of the things being discussed on this thread and other threads involve content, I think this issue is about conduct. Other users MM has battled against have had content and conduct issues of their own, undoubtedly. That's not a reason to absolve MM's attacks. I've never even visited the Pamela Gellar page, so I don't know what is going on there or who is to blame--but there are plenty of other diffs from a variety of different pages that show poor conduct on MM's part. We can discuss content issues in the appropriate places, and open up additional threads about the conduct of other editors, if necessary. Let's not use legitimate content disputes or the poor behavior of other editors as an excuse for MM to treat other editors poorly. That's fighting fire with fire. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a site ban. I previously supported a topic ban on any subjects related to libertarianism or the Tea Party, and would support a politics topic ban now as well (his problem activity around politics is broader than just "U.S. libertarian articles"). This could either stand alongside a site ban (so the topic ban would continue after a site ban expired or was appealed) or be a second choice if there is not enough support for a site ban. However, at this point I no longer believe a topic ban alone will be adequate. MilesMoney has demonstrated problematic behavior outside of specifically political topics (e.g., Jodie Foster and List of Asian pornographic actors). As User:Someone not using his real name points out above, previous efforts have just shifted his locations without doing much to improve his behavior. When it became clear that uninvolved administrators were going to sit on Ayn Rand to enforce the discretionary sanctions there (imposed years ago by ArbCom), he moved on. When the community put the topic of Austrian economics under general sanctions and he was banned from Ludwig von Mises Institute under those sanctions, his editing migrated away from that area as well. But the net result was just to move his focus to different articles and editors, not an end to his WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. The proposed ban on editing BLPs does not strike me as likely to be helpful since WP:BLP problems can occur in articles that are not themselves BLPs, making the ban either too narrow (if it literally just means not editing BLPs), or too difficult to monitor/enforce fairly (if it covers all the possible BLP issues in any article). I think it would just produce a lot of enforcement drama. Thus my support is for a site ban/topic ban combo, but not the BLP ban. The site ban should be at least six months (either a fixed period or indefinite with the option to appeal after six months). The topic ban should be indefinite. --RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Per RL0919 and Drmies et al. Persistent battleground behavior and what I broadly perceive to be WP:NOTHERE. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support an indef block and a concurrent topic ban, because of WP:NOTHERE and WP:VULGAR. Epicgenius (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    COMMENT - What we seem to have here is a tailgate party of all those with whom Miles has sparred, all those on whom he's called BS, all those against he's done one revert too many, or otherwise offended in his fearless forays into many of the worst articles on WP. Lots of anger, hurt feelings, and blood lust here, beginning with my friend TFD who appears to dislike Miles considerably. That's all well and good, but per WP:CBAN what's needed is discussion among uninvolved editors, with diffs and reasoned arguments for the proposed sanctions. Memo to all those who browse these ANIs Could we have some comments that qualify per what's described in CBAN policy? The stuff in this thread doesn't fit the bill. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    As we consider your credibility in this "tailgate party", we should review your recent advice to MilesMoney: " "if you keep going to contentious articles all over WP and getting in peoples' face, then eventually everyone on the site will be an "involved editor" and you'll be practically immortal." - MrX 23:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize to you for the irony which you apparently failed to recognize. In the context of my other remarks to MM recently and over the past several months, I'd thought it would be clear I believe and have told him that he doesn't know how to avoid trouble, that he reverts too much, etc. Sorry. I'd appreciate your striking that, lest things become any more confused than is already the case. Why not address the issue I raised here, namely, does this thread meet the test of CBAN policy. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope that is sarcasm, because otherwise that is spectacularly bad advice. Specifico's point here remains, however. Whatever actions are taken against MM should reflect the consensus of the community, not the group of editors MM is in a current disagreement with. Gamaliel (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'm wp:uninvolved. I don't recall participating in any content disputes with MilesMoney and provably never edited the same articles [125]. As for diffs, I agree with those involved (who have provided diffs in the start of the thread) that they are indeed evidence of continued disruptive behavior, e.g. [126] etc. I realize US politics is a perennial wiki battleground (just like religion), with pretty much the same editors forming editor fan (and anti-fan) clubs here as in the other thread current ANI thread. Is MilesMoney the only editor in this area who should be topic or site banned? Probably not, but WP:OSE... Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly the problem. Yes, OSE, but this isn't other stuff, this is the same stuff on the same article, and if you sanction one editor doing it and not the others on the same article, you're essentially rewarding those other editors for their misbehavior. Gamaliel (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then people should put together a case against those users. I don't think I've edited that many articles that MM has also edited; I'm just sick of seeing MM's "activities" on other user's talkpages, and at AN/ANI. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    These are important points for the closing administrator to take into account. My read of the situation - and I believe I am conflicted enough not to be eligible to close, so it's not entirely unbiased - is that about half the SUPPORT editors are those who have been in conflict with MilesMoney. Those should not be discounted entirely, but reading a consensus of all the other editors is better. Similarly, the supports are largely from his "allies", as it were, and should be similarly considered carefully in assessing the close. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As one of MilesMoney’s sharpest critics, I can safely that the difference between my own constructive and mostly peaceful editing and the constant havoc that is MilesMoney is enourmous. And I can say that without boasting because MilesMoney's record is so abyssmal. I provided comments (1, 2) on the disruptive nature of MM with lots of diffs in the previous ANI thread and chose to link to that thread instead of repeating it all here, for space and time reasons. One thing that bears repeating is the frivolous SPI he filed against Orlady (and Srich), which is the same kind of nonsense as the multiple "thanks" he recently gave Collect. Now, though I take a dim view of the user MilesMoney, it is still not as dim as the views he holds about fellow Wikipedians, as laid out in his post-mortem letter from October 2012 where he alleges that there is a War on Vandalism on Wikipedia that is just as bad as the War on Terror. Furthermore Wikipedia is “a failed state akin to Somalia”, “ it’s a hostile environment controlled by incompetents and sociopaths” , according to papers MM has read Wikipedia mostly consist of “crazed and inbreds”. He concludes that “Try as I might, I can only muster up pity and disgust for the otakus trapped in this web”. It would seem best for both parties if this user and Wikipedia parted for good (though I doubt it will happen, even if this thread results in a siteban). Iselilja (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Iselilja, I commend you for stipulating that you are an involved editor with MM on various articles, and I commend you for your constructive and peaceful comportment on WP. SPECIFICO talk 02:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: Are involved editors allowed to support a ban proposal? I had thought it was common practice - for years I thought only admins were supposed to respond on ANI, and then I realised that plain old editors were allowed to do so as well. Anyway, I have had significant involvement with Miles (though not as much as some) and so I guess am "involved" in some sense. But the closing admin will, I'm sure, assess the arguments made, and so it doesn't matter much who made them. StAnselm (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (Uninvolved user.) I have been swayed from mere "Comment" to "Oppose" by the self-righteous prickishness of comments in the "Who is" section below, from a user who was then nicely hoist on his own petard by another user's riposte. I would infinitely prefer to deal with candor and cheekiness in a colleague's behaviour than with passive-aggressive comments sliming the holder of a different view; or indeed with the self-righteous tone that's common to the comments from many of MM's adversaries. It takes two to tango. Articles on topics that can be viewed through lenses of opposing political ideologies inevitably attract opposing ideologues who can be quite ruthless in trying to assert whatever influence they desire in their areas of interest. It would be naive to suppose that the strategies attractive to them would not include getting rid of a resilient opponent altogether. In the skirmishes at issue I see a tenacious majority up against a very small and equally tenacious minority, one of whom is extremely resilient and outspoken. Few on either side are without fault (I've noticed TFD, for whom I have great respect, is an honorable exception; doubtless there are others). Although MM's opponents take exception to the "Conservative Cloud" characterization, it's understandable to an outside observer how MM might perceive them that way, deduced from his interactions with them. The most just outcome would be for MM to receive advice here to be more diplomatic and less outspoken in future, and for him to be given a chance to act on it if he wants. He is intelligent and knowledgeable and I think he can be a valuable contributor in his areas of interest. I just want this perspective on record. I'm not fool enough to think for one moment that a voice of moderation here will make any difference to an immoderate outcome. The ducking-stool is at the ready and the crowd gathered round will not be denied. Writegeist (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm disappointed that those comments influenced you to such a degree, since they were off topic - that is, it seems that your main reason for opposing has nothing to do with Miles' behavior. StAnselm (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if somehow I failed to make it clear that "I would infinitely prefer to deal with candor and cheekiness in a colleague's behaviour than with passive-aggressive comments sliming the holder of a different view; or indeed with the self-righteous tone that's common to the comments from many of MM's adversaries" is very much about MM's behavior and how I find it generally more honest and straightforward, and considerably less tiresome, than most of his adversaries' behaviour. If you still don't get it I'm afraid I can't help you any further. Writegeist (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've chosen not to weigh a !vote at this point due to past interactions, but as many times as MM has been discussed on ANI/SPI/etc, you'd think if he was going to be more diplomatic and less outspoken (not the term I would use), he would have done so by now. He's even kicking the teeth of the admin trying to help him. Morphh (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that even if an SPI fails, admins may suggest other actions, as was done at the second MilesMoney-related SPI - pardon me for failing to mention that below. But obviously meatpuppetry is not the topic of this ANI, nor need it be. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that as meatpuppetry is obviously not the topic of this ANI, nor need it be, then raising it here is obviously a gratuitous act of well-poisoning. Writegeist (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Bink, you've been involved with MilesMoney on many articles. Could you explain to the assembled guests and closing Admin what you believe is demonstrated by the links you've provided above. Much obliged. SPECIFICO talk 02:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The link to the July discussion is significant because it involved a completely different set of editors (User:Arzel, User:JanetteDoe, and User:Matticusmadness). I think Miles in incorrect in making comments like "This is the same bunch as last time up to the same tricks". StAnselm (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas, I don't believe that July was the most recent preceeding ANI. Several recent noticeboard and ANI threads have involved the same ones -- the ones he calls the Cloud. SPECIFICO talk 02:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait a second. Your defense against MilesMoney's disruptive conduct is point out that there's several more noticeboard and ANI threads regarding his conduct? Seriously? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you mean my defense "of" MM? Response: I'm not accusing or defending MM in any respect. My statements here are in support of due process and careful application of WP policy regarding CBAN, as cited at the top of this thread. The post to which your snide and unconstructive remark is addressed was not about the number of threads. I was stating that @StAnselm:'s statment that the unexplained July link "is significant because it involved a completely different set of editors" is incorrect because the July link was not, in fact, the "last one" as referenced by the accused MM. QFK, I sincerely hope that you're able to understand the importance of a fact-based discussion here. My comment was intended to correct an erroneous misstatement of fact. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry - I think you've misunderstood me. I didn't mean to imply that Miles was referring to the July report when he said "last time". StAnselm (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm puzzled in that case, because MM has recently been engaged in disputes with the editors he calls the Cloud who appear to have been involved in the past several Noticeboard actions against him or his views. I don't see that his statement was inaccurate. Sorry for the misunderstanding but are you sure you cited the correct link in your attempt to refute the MM statement? SPECIFICO talk 03:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I had the right link, but I had made two separate statements that weren't particularly connected. "I think the link to the July discussion is significant. I also think Miles is incorrect in making the comment that he did." The reason for my second thought is not the July discussion, but rather the number of editors who have supported bans who did not voice support in earlier discussions. StAnselm (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Well my take on this is that Miles is correct that he's accumulated a group of editors who dislike the edits he makes and who appear to disagree with him on personal ideology as well as WP content and sources and that their lives would be happier if MM would disappear from WP. So they have Miles on a hair trigger and he's pretty easy to bait into various indiscretions and they keep bringing him to various boards. So in terms of the CBAN policy: This thread may appear to demonstrate an overwhelming consensus for decapitation among those who wish to rid themselves and WP of MilesMoney. This thread does not appear to demonstrate any consensus to that effect among the uninvolved editors who have participated. I think Miles' statement about the same bunch going after him repeatedly was correct, at least to the extent I've paid attention. I really have only followed his exploits to the extent he edits on economics or Mises Institute related articles. Unfortunately for him, it looks like he's ventured onto some of the worst hell-hole articles on WP and the cast of characters from some of them has shown up on this thread. SPECIFICO talk 03:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly looks like a strong consensus at this stage, but I don't know which editors are "involved". Do you consider yourself "involved" SPECIFICO? StAnselm (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (I realise you haven't !voted.) StAnselm (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support on libertarianism, Austrian economics and any place else people say he's driving them crazy. It's certainly easy enough to ban him from all Austrian economics articles, including bios, under Austrian economics sanctions. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Carolmooredc, The CBAN policy specifically says that consensus to ban must be demonstrated among "uninvolved" editors. Question for you: in light of the fact that only "involved" editors could credibly claim that MM is the cause of their insanity, how would your proposal be implemented? As an "involved" editor yourself, how do you reconcile policy with your statement above..."Any place people say..." ? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What I see at Wikipedia:CBAN#Community_bans_and_restrictions is that Discussions may be organized via a template to distinguish comments by involved and uninvolved editors, . So I don't know what you are talking about. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Try reading the several paragraphs in the section to which that links, not just a half-sentence of it. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Try reading Wikipedia:CBAN#cite_note-2 which makes it clear the Community Sanctions Board to which only uninvolved editors could contribute is no longer active. I have no problem with saying I've had the misfortune to be "involved" with articles MilesMoney has been involved in and been very troubled by his behavior. Who else but involved editors would know what he was up to?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Read, Rinse, Repeat. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, as proposed, broadly construed. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - After reading all the commentary here, I am convinced that a community ban of MilesMoney would be beneficial to the project. If, however, there is insufficient support for that, that I am willing to support either or both of the topic bans, on the theory that a disruptive editor becomes less disruptive as one limits the subject areas they can work in. The community ban, though, is really the best option. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two additional comments:
    • The first is that the notion that only "uninvolved" editors can comment on community discussions of sanctions is ridiculous, and is not supported by policy anywhere that I am aware of. (Perhaps there is some confusion with the restriction against involved admins using their tools?) If this were the case, a disruptive editor could simply ran rampant, annoying everyone in their path, and those editors could never !vote in discussions about that editor. Such a system would obviously be silly, as only those not aware of the editors behavior would be allowed to decide their fate. We are not jurors, and this is not a trial, we are fellow members of an editing community determining what should happen to one of us, and we can take into account everything and anything we wish to.
    • The second is the idea that this sanction request is politically motivated. I have no idea what the motivation of any other editor is in expressing their opinion about MilesMoney's disruptive behavior, but I, specifically, have no political motivation whatsoever. In fact, like Drmies above, I assume from the discussion here that I am in the same general political "cloud" as MilesMoney appears to be in. Nevertheless, I find his behavior to be counter-productive to the purpose of building an encyclopedia, which is why I have supported the sanctions. I assume, but don't know, that at least some of the other editors feel the same way, and it is of concern to me that editors such as SPECIFICO are castigating editors who support the sanctions for being "involved" or for acting from political motivations. Neither are necessarily true, and even if they might be, neither excuses MilesMoney's behavior, nor do they invalidate the opinion of other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - This is being spearheaded by ideological users who have a vendetta against Miles (e.g. have supported erroneous accusations of sockpuppeting against him). To responsibly impose such a measure, we would need evidence of terribly disruptive editing, but there are no compelling diffs listed by OP. Steeletrap (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Per BMK and others. Any claim of ideology and bad faith by those who support this also require evidence. MarnetteD | Talk 06:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Writegeist, and I have had content disputes with Miles. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support very broad topic ban (all politics, all economics, all BLPs) or a site ban. Ideologically, I agree with MilesMoney, but he seems more interested in epic battles with his ideological enemies than edits to improve the encyclopedia. Yes, I agree with Writegeist on some matters that he brought up, but none of that excuses MilesMoney's actions, such as the thankspam and continued battleground/POV warrior behavior. He is not the only one with a problem, but he's the one that has exhausted the patience of the community. If he wants to copy edit articles about the ASPCA or Iron Maiden discography, that sounds fine, but he's incapable of positive interactions on articles related to politics and economics. I have a pessimistic feeling that he'd find some way to turn the ASPCA article into a rant about the Tea Party, but I'm willing to give one last bit of rope. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: EIR shows Steeletrap, MileaMoney and SPECIFICO have all participated in 15 articles as editors, and in a manner strongly suggesting absolute agreement with one another, and at least two in over 50 articles. This is a significant overlap. As for Writegeist being "uninvolved" I suggest [127] debunks that claim pretty clearly -- and I ask that he admit that he is primarily here simply because I am here. [128][129][130][131] etc. show his cleanliness of hands. I would also point out that MilesMoney stalked me deliberately and with clear malice, and that he has done similarly to others -- discounting their views because of his actions is not what is contemplated by noticeboard actions -- in fact virtually every ban enacted by the community has, in fact, considered the !votes of such editors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The links provided in the preceding post do not appear to support the various personal attacks and other irrelevant claims stated therein. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    User Collect: Did you mean to leave that first diff or did you mean to leave something like this SnottyWong link? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct -- and thanks. Their interactions are fairly clear to the most casual observer. Collect (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hard as it may be for Collect to come to terms with the fact that the editor in the spotlight here is not him but MilesMoney, it is nevertheless a fact. As far as I recall I have had no interactions with MM. I am uninvolved here, and have no intention of giving in to playground bully smear tactics. I am as unsurprised by Collect misrepresenting my presence here as I am by Carolemooredc using this thread as another opportunity to add more poison to the well re. the actual subject of this ANI discussion. I mean, this is ANI so this is the kind of crap people have to put up with here. And I stand by the idea, conveniently linked by Collect, that WP would be a much more pleasant experience if blocks could be administered for douchebaggery. Writegeist (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The material presented is clear. Your opinion of me, expressed now in several hundred posts, is clear. Your behaviour has long been clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Opinions, be they positive or negative, about your contributions and modus operandi at WP are totally irrelevant to an uninvolved editor's contribution to an ANI report which, as has already been explained to you, is about MM's behaviour not yours. Red herrings, misrepresentations and smear tactics are of absolutely no benefit to anyone needing honest, relevant information to form a view as to what action, if any, to take re. the subject of this ANI. Please stop now. This little section should be collapsed as oiff-topic discussion. Writegeist (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I do believe Miles is here in good faith to improve encyclopedic content. The problem is that his desired improvements regularly run afoul of numerous content policies, particularly BLP policy, and the manner in which he pursues such improvements is disruptive to a collegial atmosphere. He has only shown a significant interest in subjects where he seems incapable of avoiding this problematic behavior so a topic ban would be little different from a site ban in effect.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    To put it another way, Miles -- young idealist that he is -- believes in the Five Pillars and core WP content policies. So he's drawn to articles where he identifies swarms of obstinate obstructionists who are skilled at what they do. Unfortunately, Miles is idealistic and devoted to improving WP even when local conditions at an article make that impossible. So he walks in with a bullseye pinned on his back, and when he gets a foot or two over the line, he's nailed by the assembly of experienced and skilled warriors who carefully stay a foot or two on the other side of the line, knowing they'll get their chance to call newcomers "disruptive" and "uncollegial." Now, nobody is entirely stupid here, so it's unlikely that the baiters don't know what they're doing and what effect it will have on Miles or others who arrive fresh at these failed articles. They're every bit as uncollegial and disruptive, but they are much more practiced and have perfected their skills. Ingenu vs. Masters. It's just another pointless reality show. "Your Fired!"
    So look at it this way -- there's a large group who are +/- past the line of acceptable conduct. It's within the margin of error whether Miles or any of the other "involved" editors are over the line on any given day. They all engage in unconstructive behavior from time to time, and this ANI, now that it's rich with statements from all the involved parties, just appears to be one more tactic in the content dispute that's now become a traveling circus from article to article. Policy is very clear that we don't promote the appearance of collegiality by removing one side in a content dispute. Do that and while there will be no further discussion or argument, there will also never be improvement to WP. SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You could certainly spin it that way. The more accurate way to describe it would be that all editors come with their biases and some have more difficulty keeping those biases from affecting their work here than others. As a result, those who know how to make more of an effort at collegial and objective content development get really tired really quickly with someone whose biases are too strong to allow for such work. One way to respond is to take a break and focus on something less controversial for a time. Upping the ante and intensifying the conflict is generally a poor way to respond. Do it too much and you may find yourself removed altogether.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - His opponents are doing everything they can to get him banned. QuackGuru (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, if the main concern is edits to Pamela Geller. The description "right-wing" is supported by reliable sources. I am not sure how many people commenting here are uninvolved. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's not about Pamela Geller, it's about a long-term pattern of combative and POV editing. There's no one diff to demonstrate this. It's a long-term pattern. MM came to my attention as the result of this WP:RSN discussion.[132] And if you know me, I rarely get involved in disputes that come up at RSN but edit-warring to include possible BLP violations is never acceptable. Please see the following.[133] I've had MM's talk page on my watchlist and this editor basically makes one type of edit: inserting/defending negative (or at least what some may perceive as negative) information regarding some living person with which they disagree politically. And it's not just the edits. This editor is as combative as they come. Even now, they accuse everyone who supports a ban as being guilty of "slander".[134] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The whitewashing has continued. QuackGuru (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Calling that "whitewashing" really is a kind of personal insult, but it boomerangs right back since it shows a lack of knowledge of various guidelines related to editing, esp. for BLPs. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support community ban. I have had only the most tangential contact with this editor (I don't think I have ever addressed him, but I may have), but at one point with his contentious edits to Ayn Rand he had the article frozen and more text on the talk page due to his starting a new thread every six hours than was in the article itself. His edits were out of contempt only, and included attacks on the subject's husband. Everywhere I have come across him since then the pattern has been the same, contentious hostile POV edits with no respect for other editors and a kamikaze-style incoherent barrage meant to wear down opposition with sheer ferocity. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Greetings Medeis. I see that you were involved in the edit-warring with Miles and others on Ayn Rand a few months back. Congratulations, join the party. You're "involved." SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifico, by my count you've commented on this thread 14 times already, and have made numerous edits to user talk pages related to the thread. You are as involved as anybody, and more involved than most, yet in your first post to this thread you said, "what's needed is discussion among uninvolved editors". Ad-hominem comments against people like Medeis aren't going to solve anything, nor is a flurry of involved comments. By all means, say your piece, but please allow others to do the same without being badgered. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Adjwilley:. I have not stated that I'm uninvolved. In fact, I clearly fit the definition of "involved" and that's why I have scrupulously avoided posting a support or oppose opinion or any statement which advocates any particular course of action here. My comment to Medeis is not what is meant by ad hominem. We have a note at the top of this thread -- posted by an Admin -- which links to the policy which states that consensus among uninvolved editors is required. Therefore the status of each editor as to their involvement is central to the application of core WP policy. Ad hominem would be if I said Medeis' view should be discounted because he's a Rastafarian or because he has 6 fingers on his left hand, or because he's a vegan. I consider your assertion that I have made an ad hominem to be a false disparagement of me and I would appreciate it if you would strike that remark. The suggestion that I am "badgering" @Medeis: is hard to understand. I am pointing out that Medeis was part of Miles' long-running contentious interactions on Ayn Rand and that Medeis was one of a group of editors on both sides who engaged in numerous pointless and unproductive reverts. The closing Admin needs this information and you will see that there's been discussion on MM's talk page about the best and least burdensome way to get that information into the file. My comment to Medeis was prompted by his statement that he hs had the most tangential interaction with MM. I view it differently and there is no badgering or other impropriety involved in bringing that to this public forum for the information of interested parties. You know from various other Noticeboard threads that I have long had a concern about due process on these boards. That doesn't harm other editors and I hope that at least some of my thoughts are helpful and supportive of WP process. Please reconsider your remarks. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifico is invited to show how one reversion of a very bizarre edit amounts to edit warring. A link by him to the talk page at the same time signature would also be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "One of a group of editors?" Please show the diffs of my edit warring, not the figments of your own imagination, Specifico. Otherwise you are just trolling. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? "Involved" people's opinions don't count? Yes, we are all aware that some page in the admin rulebook mentions they should be taken with a grain of salt. You've made your point, however you have passed the point of repetition sometime back. "You're involved, and you and you and you." This reminds me of The Sopranos where to gain the upper hand in a divorce proceeding, Tony consulted with all of the top lawyers to prejudice them from taking his wife on as a client.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As for "involved", On Talk:Ayn Rand there are 200 comments by Miles on the live page and last two archives since October. His "poor Frank, I always felt sorry for him" comments on archive 47 are typical; nothing to do with improving the article, all about contempt and disruption. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree that User:SPECIFICO's response to User:Medeis is inappropriate, but I have been impressed with SPECIFICO's personal decision not to !vote, presumably on the basis of his own involvement. StAnselm (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While it may be premature optimism, discussions on the Geller talk page are progressing, I strongly suspect in part due to MM's absence. It's still a tense atmosphere, but here's to baiting abatement.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reminder: per the policy of WP:CBAN – "the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute. [Emphasis added.]" Thus editors who have disputed with MilesMoney on Talk:Pamela Geller or in other underlying disputes (such as RfCs) are "involved". I submit that advisory comments to MilesMoney, such as civility or edit-warring messages, are not an "underlying dispute"-type involvement. Also, I do not think opinions about MilesMoney expressed in other behavior related discussions constitute "underlying dispute involvement." Editors agreeing with this assessment can assist here by stating whether or not they have been involved in underlying disputes. – S. Rich (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a reminder that this community ban discussion stems from a complaint of a "consistent pattern of battleground behavior" on MilesMoney's part, therefore it is based on the editor's general behavior and not on his behavior on any one article. What this means is that no one is "involved" by CBAN's definition, since there is no one "underlying dispute". To eliminate anyone who has had difficulties with MilesMoney on any article from participating here is to reward the misbehavior of a wide-ranging disruptive editor, which cannot be the purpose of the CBAN statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    SRich: What I see at Wikipedia:CBAN#Community_bans_and_restrictions is a note about only uninvolved editors on the community sanctions board with [Wikipedia:CBAN#cite_note-2]] which makes it clear the Community Sanctions Board is no longer active. So the only operative principle here is the next section that reads Discussions may be organized via a template to distinguish comments by involved and uninvolved editors, . Obviously I'm in favor of that sort of thing since I did it at WP:RSN where it turned out it doesn't belong. So I suggest in the future we all do it at WP:ANIs and it be put in the instructions. Right now it is not there, which is probably why this is the first time I've seen such a big Ta-Do about who is and is not "involved". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban. I've had a bit of involvement with MM on a few of the many libertarian articles & I've said things that they have both agreed and disagreed with (I'm ideologically neutral - I don't even understand what the libertarian thing really means). On those articles and many more where I've watched from the sidelines, it is apparent that MM is here to right great wrongs at practically any cost. They've shown no inclination to edit outside of these highly-charged left/right political articles and thus a topic ban is a site ban, as indeed they pretty much acknowleged here at few hours ago. This statement from late October is illuminating, I think, and the repeated attempts by MM and others to wikilawyer their way out of sticky issues - especially drama board threads - has grown tiresome. - Sitush (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: User:Alanyst has started an intentionally unconventional RfC/U concerning MilesMoney. It can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MilesMoney. StAnselm (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement copied from Miles' talk page

    I can't respond to everything in the time remaining, but I can at least respond to TFD's original post.

    • "An example is trying to link Murray Rothbard to holocaust denial, "evolution denialism", and falsely claiming that he endorsed a political campaign by former KKK leader David Duke. (See "Revisionism", "Evolution" and "Kirchick's opinion piece allegations even supportable?".)"

    It turns out that everything I tried to link to Rothbard is legitimate.

    1. Rothbard really did endorse the Holocaust revisionism of Harry Elmer Barnes, with one reliable source saying, "Rothbard endorsed Barnes's revisionism on World War II and the Cold War, which included Barnes's denial of gas chambers and his alternate explanations for American entry into the war, and promoted him as an influence for revisionists."
    2. Rothbard really did endorse the political platform (not campaign) of former KKK leader David Duke. In an essay that started with "Well, they finally got David Duke. But he sure scared the bejesus out of them.", Rothbard stated that, "there was nothing in Duke's current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians", and went on to suggest embracing Duke's right-wing populism as a model for libertarians.
    3. Rothbard did express doubts about evolution. He said he "had doubts about the official church of Darwinism".

    On all three points that TFD tried to characterize as trying to link Rothbard with "bad things", I was right to do so. In fact, the article currently does link him to all three. What TFD did here was to weave a false narrative in which I'm trying to discredit Rothbard, when the truth is that I was on the side of not whitewashing the article, and that side won out.

    • "He added Pamela Geller, which is a "biography of a living person" to Category:Far-right politics in the United States,[210] although the source used does not call her far right or right-wing for that matter.[211] The term far right normally refers to neo-fascist, neo-nazi or similar groups. Most of Talk:Pamela Geller is now devoted to a discussiion about that."

    This is 80% lies, 20% BS.

    1. We have many reliable sources calling her right-wing. Despite this, a variety of editors (all of whom have voted to ban me, by the way) have worked very hard to keep this out of the article. There is literally not a single source, even an unreliable one, which denies that she's right-wing. Scholarly works say it, newspapers say it, her own blog says it. It's ridiculous!
    2. We also have many reliable sources saying she is aligned with far-right organizations, including neo-fascist ones in both in the USA and abroad. I believed this was reason enough to put her in that category, though I haven't pressed the issue.
    3. The BS part was in suggesting that I'm trying to defame a woman who is, in fact, openly right-wing. Instead, I've been fighting against whitewashing. What's ironic is that TFD has actually been arguing in favor of calling her "right-wing", yet he blames me for doing the same. Hypocrisy.
    • "MilesMoney's battleground attitude is evident by his comment, when he moved a discussion thread from AN to ANI: "wrong drama page."[212] He also uses frequent personal attacks, such as accusing other editors of vandalism[213] and tag-teaming.[214]"

    This is a combination of misinterpretation, cherry-picking and ancient archeology.

    1. I call WP:AN and WP:ANI drama pages, but that's the opposite of a battleground attitude. Rather, I'm saying that they're bad places that should be avoided because they're full of unnecessary drama, crazed accusations and lynchings. This report is evidence enough of that!
    2. He claims "frequent personal attacks", but his links don't show any such thing. The first isn't calling anyone a vandal, it actually says "removal of cited material without explanation is akin to vandalism". In fact, removing cited material without explanation is Very Bad, bad enough to be akin to vandalism. I stand by this and so should you. There's no personal attack here.
    3. The last link dates back to July, when I had just started editing and admittedly had no clue of what I was doing. Nonetheless, I don't think I was wrong to call it tag-teaming: there were two editors who demanded citations but reverted each of my attempts to add citations, taking turns. If this is a personal attack, we're all personal attackers.

    Now, I don't claim to be an innocent, but I deal with some of the ugliest places on Wikipedia, where there are actual personal attacks all the time and I've learned to just redact them and move on, instead of responding in kind. The fact that he wasn't able to find any clear and genuine examples of personal attacks just goes to show how wrong-minded and unfair his summary is.

    • "In his six months here, he has been banned from the article Ludwig von Mises Institute[215] and blocked 48 hours for wikistalking Collect. I therefore request the following:"

    My response to Bishonen on my talk page covers the Collect issue, which is a misunderstanding, and the LvMI article ban is old news. How does any of this translate to "burn the witch"? In my six months here, there have been dozens of attempts to get me blocked on any basis possible, using tools such as SPI and ANI. It's not primarily about my behavior, although that can often be misinterpreted to provide an opportunity. It's about my goal, which is to keep libertarian-related articles honest with reliably-sourced, relevant facts prominently in the articles. This goal is opposed by the Conservative Cloud, which includes TFD and which has uniformly voted to get rid of me (again), which is what motivates them to pile on to ANI's such as this one and pack them with false accusations.

    I believe I've shown that the original post by TFD was predominantly false. I can do that for all the rest of the other attacks on me, but time does not permit it. If you've voted to get rid of me based on false allegations, you may wish to reconsider your vote. This is more complicated than it looks, and "kill the bad editor" is not an honest narrative of what's going on here. It's more like "West Side Story", except without all that singing and dancing. MilesMoney (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Response: Per my above !vote, the personal attacks extend further than this. Miles - I would be interested in hearing your explanation for the four diffs I provided ([135][136][137][138]). I also notice you continue to use the phrase "Conservative Cloud", despite other editors finding it offensive, and objecting to your seemingly indiscriminate use of the term. Finally, I take issue with your statement that you "haven't pressed the issue" with Geller's far-right categorization. You added the category, it was reverted, and then you re-added it. Although you added a reference, that reference does not mention the phrase "far right". (It is this sort of BLP addition which made me conclude that you lacked competence on BLP matters, which is why in a previous ANI discussion I had supported a topic ban.) But the other question is - after two different editors had reverted the addition of the category, why didn't you start a discussion on the talk page? StAnselm (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's more better sourcing on the talk page now, but sheesh, giving this as a reliable source to call someone "right-wing" in the opening sentence of a BLP? Well. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Who is MilesMoney?

    This has been tried twice before with no success at SPI and the sub-thread has degenerated into banter. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Who is this editor who came out of nowhere, started editing immediately, and now appears in new noticeboards treads -- as both subject and commenter -- every week? A very odd trajectory, raising interesting questions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that the editor is currently blocked for harassment, but this is a pretty damn good indication that the editor, whoever he is (and I don't believe he's new to Wikipedia), is not here to improve the encyclopedia. People with edit patterns such as this ought to be indef blocked just on general principles -- we're not a forum, we're a project to build an encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI is not the place to throw speculative slime to see if it sticks. (Although it seems to be a popular pastime here.) If your first comments are alleging sock-puppetry, as they appear to be, you know where you can post them. But before you do, please be aware that another user already tried a not entirely dissimilar tactic, lobbing copious quantities of slime without a shred of evidence into SPI, and it failed to gain traction. Writegeist (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone who thinks that the intuitions of veteran editors that "Something is rotten in Denmark" aren't worth consideration by the community, even at those times when they cannot be backed up by specific allegations, doesn't have a really good handle on things around here. Some of us spend most of their time here improving the encyclopedia, not contributing primarily to Talk pages and Wikipedia space, as is the case with other editors -- who should refocus their energies into more productive directions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: What's wrong with editing talk pages and Wikipedia space? If anything, talk page feedback seems to be beneficial to the project. Epicgenius (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Um, I'm not here to defend MilesMoney, but it takes all types to run this project -- are you going to look down your nose at me because my pie's the wrong color for you, too? —Steve Summit (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scs: Well, according to BMK's pie, only 14,197 of his edits are to talk pages. Epicgenius (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note there already have been two WP:Sockpuppet investigations mentioning MilesMoney, launched by admins.

    While it's hard to get definitive evidence someone is a sock, and thus neither proved it, it certainly is telling that these investigations were brought. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Guilty unless proved innocent, right, CMDC? Here's some late nite reading for you: B-O-O-! SPECIFICO talk 03:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think this discussion about possible sockpuppetry is a distraction, and should be closed as inappropriate to this forum. (And I think pie-chart discussions are even less helpful.) However, I think BMK may have a valid point in that excessive participation of a new editor at ANI may be possibly disruptive. StAnselm (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP brings stale complaint about Nick-D

    Civility complaint made by a third party after the event. No admin tools involved. Apology offered, which would seem to resolve the matter as the entire incident has been over for a week. No obvious further action suggests itself, therefore closing. Euryalus (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Is this sort of language and abuse now acceptable behaviour for an admin of Wikipedia? [1] User contributions For Nick-D "07:08, 25 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-29)‎ . . Australian Labor Party ‎ (Undid revision 587593076 by Adn1990 (talk) provide a reference, or fuck off)"

    Someone should really have a word with him about his behaviour.58.7.32.90 (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Such language should generally be avoided I think, but everyone loses their temper once in a while. We can't reasonably expect everyone to be 100% polite 100% of the time. It looks like this happened over a week ago, is there a reason to be bringing it up now? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    His posting was as an editor, not as an administrator. TFD (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Before that Edit summary appeared, Nick-D had reverted an unexplained change from that editor with a very polite Edit summary seeking a reference, and made the same request for a reference, very politely, on the user's talk page. For the user to then repeat the unacceptable behaviour without conforming to that request is, to my mind, far less civil than a frustrated "fuck off". HiLo48 (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What's done is done. The edit summary isn't right but no further action is needed or possible. Jehochman Talk 04:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What's done is done? So telling people to fuck off is now acceptable behaviour on wikipedia, especially by an admin? I didn't read that in the help section. Perhaps whats done, should be warned never to do again?58.7.32.90 (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I was cranky and fed up with people edit warring supposed ideologies for the Australian Labor Party without bothering to provide anything to support this (which has been going on for some time and is pretty obviously not a good idea). I shouldn't have been cranky in the edit summary, and especially not that cranky, so I do genuinely apologise to Adn1990 for any offence. I'm a bit bemused about this being reported at ANI by someone who isn't Adn1990 (I presume) without them making any attempt to discuss it with me on my talk page first though, which seems rather ...odd. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Montanabw in Rodeo

    Discussion has started on the talk page (where it should have been taken right away). Leaving this open is just inviting more heat. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi.

    I was hoping to avoid this but I feel strangely out of options here. (Perhaps you guys can show something.) Montanabw is engaged in an extreme form of disruptive editing in Rodeo article.

    Earlier, I noticed the following issues:

    • CS1 errors
    • ISBNs that did not match title
    • Absence of {{Refbegin}}/{{Refend}}
    • Forbidden external links ({{Cite book}} must only have links when those links lead to the text of the book; generic Google Books links are forbidden in favor of ISBN links)
    • Bare links e.g. ref #85 through #96
    • Inconsistent citation style

    So, I fixed the first three and tagged the last two. Only Montanabw reverted them all, stating loss of Alphabetical order as the reason! It was a very irritating to see the result of three hours of work mass-reverted while the alphabetical order fix would take two minutes – which I did]. Yet, Montanabw continues to remove maintenance templates ({{Citation style}} and {{Linkrot}}) claiming that he does not see them.

    I am afraid I fail to come up with a good message to send him. When a veteran editor with 55115 edits since 2006 says he sees no linkrot, what should I tell him? That he is blind? (That'd be impolite.) Still, I believe this disruptive editing must stop.

    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Montana has asked you to discuss on the talk page, which is a good start. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Well, you may be right about CS1 errors etc., but it seems to me like a step has been skipped here. I think this could probably be resolved with a talk page discussion. My advice is to lay out your concerns on the talk page and then ask Montana to comment there. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've already posted on the talk page. Hope this helps. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! It is amazing how impossibly hard it is to write it for an elite editor, whereas I have done it a million times for newcomers and IP editors (guests). Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    This editor fixed her initial mistakes and was told - MULTIPLE TIMES - to take the rest of this to talk per WP:BRD, which has yet to occur. (I posted a comment about her behavior at her talk while she was apparently filing this) What was just posted here should be posted on the article talk page and discussed; no dispute resolution discussion has occurred, and this is not an appropriate issue for ANI at this time. This user is also failing to understand the difference between guidelines and policy. I would not call any of this an "extreme form of disruptive editing" - this is an article that often attracts controversy and a lot of vandals - any "drive-by" editor who is too bold in their edits (and created confusion) is going to be mass-reverted and then the matter is to be discussed. Condescending edit summaries and accusations of Dickhood (especially given that I am also female, not male) are not a discussion. Montanabw(talk) 04:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

    These difs are extremely weak examples. I don't see anything actionable here, all you're proving is that you two are still completely incapable of interacting with one another. I can't help but think your respective WikiProjects and AN/ANI are both very tired of your bickering, but that's a two way street. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you can find where i'm provoking him, or being directly uncivil, most of this is still his attempts at attacking on his part. And they add up quickly. thats the thing. most of those are from the same conversation, and you can see in my comments that i'm not trying to fight, and yet he continues to do so.
    This constant back and forth should end. And I've already paid mine, and i'm making it so i don't come back here again with WP:BOOMERANG. yes the wikiproject and ANI are tired of this. But why not just do what needed to be done in the first place? Issues of him and his incivility still continued even when i wasn't involved. He manages to get saved by repenting, and apologizing, but in the end he continues to do so.
    i don't find these weak because he makes it easy to make any situation escalate. and its still related to previous ANI of behavior (and even back then, it was closer to making action). the issue is more out of "response" to neutral comments. I'm doing my best to give him a neutral, and non-personal comment, and he continues to poison things. He calls it spitting in his eye, over something that simply isn't related to him personally. And continues to make accusations and poisoning discussions.
    He's been saved before, i gave him peace offering, and he still treats things as its a personal agenda against him. And this should be proof enough that his previous apologies that he made in the past don't mean anything. And whenever he does this, he is the one disrupting the discussion, not me. But worst of all, is when he attempts to hide my comments so he doesn't read them, and yet chooses to get involved in a more debatable issue that i'm involved in. So its more incivility.
    Me? i can work well with him, i'm monitoring my own comments so a topic/bully-one-way-interaction ban happens again. But, if he chooses to not lit up over every discussion. If i could bring up an entire case of history with him, i would, but this is what i have, and it should be enough. a lot of attacks being thrown. Incivility is clearly there, and there is alot of it even if you think its "weak"Lucia Black (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think either of your are really being incivil, it's just the endless arguing between you two that is a problem. Most of those "personal attacks" are just him not agreeing with you, or saying you're wrong, which, true or false, I don't know, but they hardly constitute as an "attack". The only action I'd see as remotely plausible would be an interaction ban between you two, but I don't want to be pulled into this bickering any further, so I won't driving that effort.
    I'll let others voice their opinion, but I can't see this going anywhere if those are the difs you're working with... Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • This problem is all Lucia's doing I don't think I should be penalized for her abusive behavior that extends to nearly every editor she's ever interacted with. I doubt anyone will read this whole response because it contains so much evidence, but Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucia Black/Link Bank is indicative of the editor's attitude. She's backing it up on Wikipedia and "another site", because she has no "word pad or memo" on her phone and "... if you don't give me trouble for a long period of time, i do end up deleting the info. but not truly deleted."[139] She made the ANI to justify her userpage that was previously cited as a violation of WP:POLEMIC at her talk. Which her response was to try and make friends, and saidforgive and forget. Than started it again with a perceived slight from Sergecross[140] Though all these issues that are "so bad" are actually based on Lucia's WP:RANDY behavior that infuriated and irritate me to no end, with a deliberate intention to harass and undermine and constantly abuse me. These actions got her the topic ban and interaction ban prior. She broke her interaction and topic ban no less than five times and got blocked for it. I find it inexcusable that an editor will present false issues and announced the intention to fail a GA and altered a previous comment I had already responded to.[141] Lucia misrepresented official sources as "fanbooks" and other issues in the GAN. @Huon: got involved in it and has tried to help, but I walked away from Lucia in that GAN and she keeps finding new ways to start a fight. After Sven's RFC she started another discussion including yet another attempt to override a merge RFC that was closed only a month ago by Armbrust that had a clear consensus to not merge the article. Which @Catalan: also mentioned was WP:GAMING since no one wants to split up a GA. Lucia made the discussion out of the blue because "I boldly split things" and wanted to get consensus to split or not to split One Piece and Naruto, something which no one wants to split. It is a hypothetical "what-if" that goes against the community RFC that Sven made stating it would be on a "case by case" basis and Lucia needs to "test that consensus". She argues with the other Ghibli editor with drama like "you're just picking fights now. one more word of it, and i will delete the ENTIRE thread." Her constant WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, bad faith accusations, edit warring and general lack of knowledge of the topic area makes it all the more irritating. I mentioned that this is a WP:RANDY situation, I am a scholar in the anime and manga field, but I simply have no patience for an editor who inserts blatantly false material, misrepresents sources and will purposely try to "destabilize" a GAN to feed their need for attention. Lucia Black does more arguing and fighting than actual work and I've said it repeatedly, that I don't have the time to waste on this. I don't think anyone else should either; it's just noise. If anyone needs me, I'll be tending to my GANs until the next time Lucia decides to overturn consensus - a pattern which has been repeated since her first topic ban and interaction ban. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure Chris meant me when he referred to a user "Catalan" in the above comment. Calathan (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    You guys both should realize that they massive blocks of text are probably part of the reason why your issues never get resolved. Why should "volunteer" editors spend their time wading through all of that mass of text? There's no way there is going to be a consensus forming when there's so much info being jumbled together. Which is fine this time, I guess, since I don't believe any action is required, but still, going forward, you both should keep this in mind... Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, Chris. stop derailing discussions. the oens you jsut sourced shows how much you derail things, and choose to become incivil.Lucia Black (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, I was referring to both of you, really... Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    like i said, i can work with this editor, if he chooses to be civil, and compliant. And he makes a fuss, takes things personally, and chooses to escalate a situation and derail it. if you have any evidence of me doing that after my ban. by all means provide it, but i've been doing from what i believe is my my all to avoid causing any more trouble, and yet, it follows me.Lucia Black (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Don't drag me into this bullshit Hasteur. Chris and Lucia's dispute with each other predates my (resolved) dispute with Chris.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Mind not changing other editor's talk page statements M'kay? And you were already dragged in from the statement by Lucia Black at 16:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC), you were just never notified about it. Hasteur (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I don't want any part of it and I've done nothing except remove the link. I've no dog in this fight.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Questionable motivation

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

    you could make arguments about that. but since i already found a site to help me keep track and be able to save them, its of little concern to me whether it gets deleted. The key was to save the recorded incivility in a place where i can keep track. and i did confirm that i was going to use the information quite recently, and that's regardless of the outcome. I've restored the information pretty recently, and that should be taken a sign of me taking action, and Huon just happens to pick up on it the moment i restored it and decides to MfD (and seems to only act when it invovles ChrisGualtieri). So as you can see, it's not that the ANI notice came at a convenient time to protect the Miscellaneous page, its more that when i'm making advances to put it to use, Huon decides to put it up for MfD. and even so, i find it a tad ridiculous to bring these "recent" issues up for the sake of protecting one page.
    My issues for ChrisGualtieri are real, and many other editors hae noted it in the past.Lucia Black (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And this is why your restrictions should've been indefinite. Although Chris may be causing a problem, Lucia, you are the one creating a page that violates WP:POLEMIC and WP:POINT and is now going back to the same problem behavior of ranting at ANI's door about Chris. Seriously, Lucia cut the crap unless you want to have an indefinite block. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 17:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I request Lucia request speedy delete (post {{db-u1}} on the page). NE Ent 17:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    Closing a proposal started by me in favor of one of two proposals below, since this proposal is not gaining traction and has degenerated. (NAC) Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • Support -- as nom. Enough is enough. ChrisGualtieri doesn't deserve this and neither does anyone else. The fact that she got away with a single 48 hour block when she breached her restrictions daily astonishes me and she is exhausting patience with these games. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 18:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sportsguy17: If you're starting your conversation with "this is why your restrictions should've been indefinite" and admitting Chris is at fault too, then by no means are you having a fair opinion here. You're still admitting that Chris is causing trouble and you're trying to make something not as clear, look like it broke the biggest rule of them all. and quite frankly, thats what bothers me about ANI. that they admit theres an issue, and choose to not act on it for another, and intentionally over-exaggerate. and i will inform you on why its exaggeration at least for this instance:
    WP:POLEMIC allows such a page to exist in the chance of it being used in a timely manner, and again i had a system set up so that it would be "timely" or set up to be timely to ones eye (again no number is put and so you can't make this out as a clear violation). if the issues died down, then i would remove them from the list, but if the editor then chooses to continue some time soon, it comes back along with the new incidents that made it come back (obviously, i'm not going to bring up an issue that happened 5 years ago if the same issue comes again. it wouldn't be "timely). The system is simple, can be considered to be used in a timely manner, and one can say "not violating any policies". And i say that because there's no distinction on what can be defined "timely". If the information dies down, i don't use it. simple as that.
    if you don't agree, and consensus believe its not timely. then it can be closed. no big deal. banning me "indefinitely" for a policy that makes no clear distinctions and can easily be misinterpret? You have your thoughts set out for restrictions to be "indefinite" from the start and from before, so its not like you're looking for a good reason. you're just looking for a reason in general. Be realistic here, and take the situation for what it is. The Policy makes no clear distinction. but even so, i did my best to keep it timely, and you can't block me indefinitely for even trying. that would just be pretty messed up thing to do.
    And no, this isn't WP:POINT. like i said, the use was going to be quite recently, but Huon MfD the page on the same day that i restored information that i intended to use regardless of the MfD within this time frame, so now it looks like i'm making a pointy-edit to keep the link bank (despite making it clear i found a site that allows me to save the information without the hassle of interpreting "timely") rather than this being already taken a course of action and Huon decides to intervene.
    Also, i'm not going to dicuss this any further. you want me to nominate it for speedily deleting it, i will. but don't you dare try to make this to cover up what the purpose of all this, and this is to prove someone is being problematic. @Sergecross73: another editor, besides having an agenda of indefinite block over trivial things, just admitted another editor is being troublesome. So you really have to grasp the truths that are being said. if one editor believes he's being troublesome, then why not consider what i provided in a more serious matter.Lucia Black (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Lucia, have you thought how Chris feels? He is trying to understand how you feel. I was on IRC with him and he said he was miserable. Lucia, why do you care about Chris at all? His conversation with me on IRC suggests he wants to be away from you. Please leave him alone. He wants to build content, not fight with a nuisance like you who is wearing down patience rapidly. Sportzilla | ROARR!! 19:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WOw...so if someone just suddenly confides in you, then that means that they must be you're talking with the good guy. and anyone who is making this person feel miserable has to do with
    And calling me a nuisance already, shows how one-sided this. There's two sides Sportzilla. if you want to stick with one side, so be it. but just because Chris confide with you in IRC, doesn't mean for a second that he's right in all this. The links says it all Sportzilla. did you actually look at them? He has done the opposite of avoid.
    you're just bias Sportzilla, you're sympathizing over him for how he's feeling, not for whether he's right. and yes, maybe he has the right ideals, but everything so far has been against procedure. If you actually knew the stuff he isn't telling you.Lucia Black (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposal 2

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

    Support NE Ent 19:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But look at where its heading. you simply want to control the situation by making you not hear a thing. That wont solve anything. and i know you're fustrated, but its not right to do it indefinitely. I've been blocked enough, and i taken extra care of my comments, but i'm not the one looking for chrisgualtieri. everything so far has just been thrown at me.Lucia Black (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Lucia, stop it. You are the one who has WP:BOOMERANGed this right back at yourself, by raising a frivolous ANI based on incredibly weak evidence, just to make a WP:POINT. I think everyone is sick to death of Lucia vs Chris. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment just make your vote, and don't start making snippy comments. WP:BOOMERANG over weak situation, is like catching the thief who stole a 100 dollar bill but wont act until its a 1000. HOw about you take a look at each one. the only way you canb ring a relevant WP:BOOMERANG is if i do the same thing Chris is doing. AKA being a hipocrit.Lucia Black (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its a "boomerang" because you were the one who reported him, but sanctions are now being thrown at you. That's appropriate usage of the term. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're admitting there is a bias perspective on who brings it up, not what the editor is doing. so theres a strong loophole here.Lucia Black (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, all I did was explain to you the concept of boomerang. I said nothing of "bias". Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lucia, if you keep up this bullshit, then a WP:CIR (not NOTHERE, because I don't think that quite applies) indef block will be dropped on you. You will stop at nothing to attack Chris, or anyone who objects to your attacks. You need to change tack; instead of spending all of your energy on attacking one user, use it to improve your spelling, grammar and syntax, which are sorely lacking. At the very least, please proof-read your comments - doing this may also make you realize just how far out of line you are. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - As with what NE Ent said above, I don't think a ban would gather support yet, but I do think something very strict is necessary in order to stop this. All they do is clutter up every discussion avenue we have with endless arguing and bickering, and they do it in such as way (large rambling walls of texts) that its virtually impossible to follow along, let alone get any sort of third party input. They clearly can't handle themselves when it comes to calm discussion, so I feel like something like this proposal is necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Although NE Ent's proposal sounds reasonable, we have to consider the fact that Lucia is always the one that drags Chris by the ears to these drama boards and is the one breathing down Chris's neck. Also, see her rants above. The thing is, Lucia's disruption is all across English Wikipedia. As I said, she is WP:NOTHERE. Sportzilla | ROARR!! 19:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • See this as an example of her causing disruption with someone besides Chris. Sportzilla | ROARR!! 19:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't disagree, but this proposal may be more likely to garner support. Also, if Chris is as tired of dealing with Lucia as you say, then this shouldn't be much of an issue for him, he can happily not interact with her anymore in this proposal. Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If Chris was as tired as he was to interact with me, he would've simply avoided discussions that he felt were meaningless. On another note, the edits says it all, and you can see it by the links provided. What Chris claims (or what Sportzilla claims he claims) and what he says during a discussion doesn't compute.
    That is only one link. agianst me, why not bring an entire ANI case regarding chris? you see, this can work both ways Sportzilla. I can show you what he's done, you can bring merely one link. which i guarantee you, thats all you're gonna find. But when it comes to me and Chris, i've been the civil one. and no one here can deny that. and if you dare try, i challenge you to bring links.Lucia Black (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "No one can deny that"? Are you reading the same discussion as everyone else? Not a single person has come to your defense. Everyone's denying that. Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Do i really need number of votes to prove the truth when i already have it in number of evidence (links). The only link you've provided isn't even Chris-related. But I've provided the truth. I've provided that Chris has been an issue. And Sportzilla despite efforts to be one sided openly admits in the beginning that Chris is indeed being problematic. Just imagine if he was nuetral on the subject. how much his opinion would weigh in?
    And you know this Serge, look how far its been to not only deny the links, but the very thing they prove (Chris always making the first attack) you say the exact opposite and without proof. I've done my part after my ban. And i'm honestly sick of the harassment by Chris. and yes, if Chris claims he's miserable, than i'm miserable as he is. maybe even more, since he's the one throwing the punches this time. Who's the one coming into my talkpage and making outrageous claims? Who has to humor him for the sake of civility?
    Can you deny that? can you deny that Chris hasn't been aggressive and combatant? or do i need to bring editors who i know will vouche for this? that would be considered inappropriate right?Lucia Black (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes,you provided some "links", but as I've said, they have garnered zero support. Quite the opposite, they've only lead to a few comments about how "weak" they are, and some BOOMERANG accusations towards you. And yes, WP:CANVASSING would be inappropriate. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support though I must add this is not due to bad faith on the part of Chris. I simply don't think sanctions on one side will gain any traction. But, as was mentioned, the diffs provided here don't incriminate Chris and in at least one case they seem to incriminate Lucia. Sucks getting hit by the boomerang but that's how it is, if she is serious about improving the project then this will be a motivation to commit to more productive interactions and I don't imagine Chris will have difficulty with such sanctions anyway but in the event that he does, it will be noticed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    • (edit conflict) Actually, Lucia, Chris does not want to interact with you. How about you not follow ChrisGualtieri? On IRC, he was upset, he does not want to be near you or interact with you. And the diff provided by me shows that you attack more editors than only ChrisGualtieri. Also, I proposed an indefinite block, not a ban. The fact that we need to continue to comment shows how Lucia is a time sink and a net negative to the project and keeping her blocked until she understands how to collaborate with others civilly, calmly, and respectfully. Sportzilla | ROARR!! 21:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a good point, Sportzilla. She's been arguing with every single person on this thread, posting entire books underneath each comment. The other person doesn't seem to be doing that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • weak support, pending clarification though I think a topic ban of Lucia Black from the areas CG typically edits would be wiser. If those diffs are the worst of CG, there really isn't a basis for doing anything. He sounds frustrated but I'm not seeing actionable issues. That said, Chris IME has communication and ownership issues (which I think he's been improving on) so the two-way thing isn't utterly unreasonable. I'd like a clearer proposal though. Can they comment on each other's comments? AFAIK, this type of restriction hasn't been placed before and given the personalities, I foresee much boundary pushing. So getting things clear early would be helpful. Hobit (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah hell, I'll bite and throw my two cents at each diff.
    1. What is remotely provoking about Chris's question? (What the hell is "irrelevant provoking"?)
    2. Given that you argued in a circular fashion with regards to Chris's original point, I doubt anyone could blame him for dismissing you.
    3. Your declaration to make "a bold edit, and once you revert it, per BRD rule, you will have to continue to discuss it until gaining consensus, and that ultimately will cause problems with GA status per stability issues" is basically gaming WP:BRD. Something even Huon brought up.
    4. (Lumping all the "personal attack" diffs into 1 comment) Have to say that there is nothing remotely anything in NPA territory there.
    5. This is quite a "comment on the content not the editor" sort of post. Given your history, it seems about par for the course really and really doesn't fall into harassment territory. Somewhat pointed and uncivil, certainly, but harassing? No.
    6. False accusations of what? Filibustering? Hate to put it this way, but reading through the discussions that you and Chris took part in, all I saw was a lot of roundabout argument from you that didn't advance the discussion in any way. Can't say that's a false accusation.
    7. This is about the only one I could remotely agree with.
    8. A misrepresentation of what Knowledgekid87 actually said. They made a point that Chris threw the first punch, metaphorically speaking, and nothing about whether it was a false accusation.
    All in all, this case is as weak as a termite infested house. Blackmane (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to make an alternate proposal to see if maybe removing Lucia from Chris's main areas of editing and a mutual IBAN may solve things. And these sanctions need to be indefinite, mostly because Lucia cannot be trusted to follow a restriction. You may recall that she managed to violate the restricitons almost every day. I'm making an alternate proposal below. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 19:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, the case is extremely weak, and if anything, the difs only go to prove that she doesn't fundamentally understand WP:NPA or WP:CIV. I honestly think she should be banned from ANI. If she truly has something that needs reporting, she could notify an Admin or something. Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 3

    Here is a new proposal.
    1. Lucia Black and ChrisGualtieri are indefinitely banned from commenting on, at, or mentioning about the other. The normal exceptions apply. Persisting violations will result in escalating blocks up to and including an indefinite block.
    2. Lucia Black may be banned from any page in all namespaces if any individual administrator thinks that she is causing disruption.
    3. Lucia Black is also banned from filing a report at any administrative noticeboard. If something needs to be reported, she can ask an individual administrator.
    All restrictions will be for an indefinite duration.
    Here is the proposal. This is a new proposal as an alternative to 1 and 2. Part 1 is what should've happened a while ago. Part 2 is mostly because Lucia has also been seen to disrupt pages that don't concern ChrisGualtieri. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 19:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Until the quantity of clue improves, there is little to no reason for volunteers at large to have to put up with the disruption and no-holds-barred argument style presented by Lucia. The other disputants have kept their noses clean so it seems we finally have the single irritant to cut from the flesh. Hasteur (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - everything I've said above. I prefer proposal 2, but approve of 3 as well. Sergecross73 msg me 00:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - This is the only way to ensure that I can continue to work in peace without further issues. It is terrible that I won't be able to get the articles to GA or FA, but this has been too much to handle. (Answered below.) I'm overwhelmed, miserable and exhausted. I ask, will there be a way in which I can request changes or submit improvements to a third party before making edits go live? I think this would head off additional problems. Either way, this needs to be done. Another ANI without this resolution will only result in another ANI and a future waste of time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd imagine you'd be able to carry on with anything you've nominated/brought up to GA/FA standard, otherwise that doesn't really help anyone out. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChrisGualtieri: -- Of course you would be able to continue with your articles. What this does is prevent Lucia from provoking. Since an admin can ban her from any page she is disrupting. If you both are editing a GA nominee or FA candidate, then this basically says that if Lucia is causing a ruckus, then an admin can remove her from the page/article in question. I also added per Sergecross73 that she is also banned from filing a report at noticeboards, since nothing good comes out of it and quite frankly, there is no good reason why she should still have access to these noticeboards, since most of what she does is filing frivolous reports about Chris. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Hasteur says. (Though, I must say, I really enjoyed NE Ent's proposal.) Or just block right now, based on the rather clueless and certainly interminable rebuttals in this ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely understand. I want to try to find a solution already. NE Ent's proposal sounds good, but personally, indeffing Lucia now may be it, or maybe this proposal. Either way, Lucia's responses say enough for themselves. Sportzilla | ROARR!! 03:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOt reallly. and i'm content with iths, because the only editor who causes trouble is Chris. And indefinitely locking me wouldn't even work SPortzilla, i've given you the chance to prove when i have been disruptive and abusive to Chris, and you continue to just burst out claims, rather than defending your point. If chris indeed isn't happy, he can avoid the conflict and claims.
    • I dont have time to be on top of every discussion here. And just trying to respond will result in several edit conflicts.Lucia Black (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Given that both Lucia and Chris agree with this. Although, I'd also suggest that any attempts to game these restrictions should be grounds for an immediate indef, such as getting in on an article just to prevent each other from nominating for GA or what have you. Blackmane (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment@Blackmane: fair enough. but if real issues are found in a GA< that doesn't stop either of us from bringing them up.Lucia Black (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. The GA process always involves 2+ people. If there are issues, they will be brought up by others. Judging by how much the terms "indef block" and "indef interaction ban" keep coming up over and over again in regards to your interactions with Chris, I'd say there's just about no possibility that your contribution would be considered constructive in such a scenario. Sergecross73 msg me 21:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If a GA passes, and the issue is still there, it wouldn't stop me from bringing it up on the talkpage without interacting with Chris. keep in mind, this is brought up because Ghost in the Shell (film) in which i actually had a point and they did eventually fix the issue i brought up (the links are provided, and hshows how aggressive and slow it took Chris to finally realize). and even then, the GA nominator didn't even understand how the need for third party source worked. either way....if issues are brought up and there's a debate on it, that could be considered a fault in "stability" as it was used against kingdom hearts 358/2 days. So its not like i was making it up to stop GA.
    BUt, so long as "i" don't interact with him, that doesn't stop me from bringing up issues in the article, and considering there's a huge lapse in the topics, i think this proposal is intentionally trying to find a way to indef block. obviously, leeway has to be done such as allow commenting in the same discussion.
    otherwise, you're just trying to make it look like you gave us a chance to fix it.Lucia Black (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No. No commenting in the same discussion. If you think that that's even a remotely possible outcome of this whole thread you really lack clue. If this proposal passes, your comment on a GA of theirs is grounds for a block in the eyes of most admins, I suppose--including this one. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies summed it up nicely. That's precisely the sort of gaming the restrictions that should be grounds for a block. The fact that you see this proposal as a way of "intentionally trying to find a way to indef block" is a symptom of the behaviour that the bans are supposed to stop. These restrictions must be as strict and as watertight as possible to stop any sort of wiggle room. Blackmane (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Drmies and Blackmane. Lucia still seems unware as to how she's in the wrong here, so there's no way she'd be able to act appropriately in the scenario outlined. Its for that reason that Lucia shouldn't even really want to be able to do that. It would almost certainly erupt into a discussion that would lead to her block. Sergecross73 msg me 00:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Gaming the restriction is more like displeasing the purpose who made it. You have to understand, that there is another form of gaming that can flourish by not allowing to even interfere in the discussion. that means, that if our vote is necessary (yes, necessary) to provide question on the topic. THat would mean.
    Of course i would want this, if the conditions were met that we can both edit and not be stumped by "oh she reverted me...what the heck do i do now? i dont want to get blocked. so i'll have to deal with it. but the next time i see an edit of hers, i'll do the same and she wouldn't be able to a thing about it" it can easily happen.


    i can interact with the same areas with Chris. So long as Chris doesn't flare up and makes ridiculous accusations, and just actually contribute to the discussion WITHOUT making comments on me. (which is why I've challenged everyone in the ANI to show where I've deserved this behavior after the ANI and even after i offered "peace"). But that's simply the problem. If you want to "dumb it down, so there's no leeway for you to hear a thing". the problem here is clearly shown....
    It still needs to be fleshed out. If you dont want me and Chris interacting at all, one or the other can still edit the articles we've had. And therefore we would have to ignore BRD rules, or just allow the Bold edit until someone does so. Unless another editor makes it in, and we just praying from then on. Or! lets say we're voting for split or merge, and its pretty tied down, and need probably one more vote to help either side. From then on, its whoever gets there first, gets to keep staying.
    THere is easily more animosity from this point on. and you're only making this proposal to never hear about it again. Which means, even if one manages to get break this rule, i'm not doubting that you will block both of us either way.Lucia Black (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Seems like the best option at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for Admin to open Mediation Request File for India Against Corruption

    (NAC) Mediation has started.--Rockfang (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    "India Against Corruption" (IAC) has been attempting to get corrected the text in this article - which disparages and libels IAC movement by confusing it with another movement "Team Anna" which had misused IAC's name briefly and/or inadvertently between Dec.2010 to Jan. 2011.

    On 30 November 2013 an editor BOLDLY "merged" Team Anna into India Against Corruption without prior discussion on either page. As a consequence, highly disparaging content about Team Anna (including by painting it as a communal rightwing group) has been brought into the IAC article to disparage the IAC which is a secular and socialist movement from its inception. Information about the IAC movement was also deleted during the merge.

    Extensive article Talk page discussion has reached a dead end as the editor who merged the articles is (a) calling upon IAC to state/prove that we are Team Anna - which we are not (b) refusing to acknowledge unimpeachable independent 3rd party proofs submitted by IAC to show that "India Against Corruption" and "Team Anna" are 2 distinct entities, (c) reverting edits by other editors who were trying to build the article.

    Accordingly, IAC requests for a Mediator to be appointed to bring about consenus for this article's content. IAC cannot open the Mediation file itself as IAC (as a conflicted party) has no intention of editing at Wikipedia or accepting any obligations connected with opening an account at Wikipedia which may compromise/diminish IAC's further remedies. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    are you speaking for yourself individually or are you speaking on behalf of IAC? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For those playing along at home, the editor obliquely referred to above is Sitush, whom the OP really should've notified. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If I'm reading correctly, the filing party wants to open a request for comment. Over a page merge? Epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (a)This is an official request from India Against Corruption. This is made clear on the Talk Page of the article (b) All editors (including Sitush) who have partcipated in this dispute have been previously asked on the Talk Page.to assist IAC in opening a Mediation Request (c) IAC is asking for an experienced Mediator (preferably from the WMF) (d) IAC is not asking for RFC. (e) Page merge is the cause of action. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, it's a mediation request. In that case, you can file it right now. No need for anyone from the WMF to get involved just yet—in fact, you can ask a regular administrator or a bureaucrat to comment (although some WMF staff are admins here). Other than that, I think the Mediation Committee can handle this from here. Epicgenius (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. We don't have a Wikipedia Account (for reasons explained above) so the RFM form doesn't work for us, and which is why we need somebody to open the mediation request. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Done at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/India Against Corruption. Please feel free to edit this. I will not involve myself and take sides there, however. Epicgenius (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I misunderstood, but what's the point of opening a mediation request? Per your comment above, it sounds like you don't want to participate in the mediation. Without your participation the mediation will be closed, and even if it isn't closed it would achieve nothing if only one person is participating as there would be nothing to mediate. If there is more than one other party besides you, they are free to request mediation if they want to, I don't see how you opening it for them, or rather asking others to open it, achieves anything particularly as they may not participate. BTW, do you understand the IAC could not open an account on wikipedia even if they wanted to? See WP:Role account. Any account opened would need to belong to one individual, regardless of whether they are representing the IAC or not. Nil Einne (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking more closely at the article talk page, although you said 'has no intention of editing at Wikipedia' here, it sounds like you are in fact quite willing to edit the article talk page so I assume you would be willing to take part in the mediation. If that's the case then opening the mediation may be fine but bear in mind the mediation requests will still need to meet the preconditions which in this case since Sitush is apparently the only other party (at least according to you) will include their consent to the mediation (so I wonder if just waiting for them to open it would have been easier). Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also look at th thread at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 December 18#Article "India Against Corruption etc. for more background on this. DES (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it looks like the mediation is proceeding so good luck. The only thing I would mention is that I hope you (IAC) understand how mediation works. As the page says, it's intended to help editors come to an agreement on the way forward. The mediators are not going to rule on the dispute or dictate changes to the article. Please understand that this means you should be willing to listen to the other side and accept that you may be wrong in some or even many areas. If you are unwilling to do so, it's unlikely mediation will achieve a useful outcome. Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion can probably be closed. Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    New attempt to whitewash Lavasa, with an unusual twist

    Semi'd by JohnCD. Blackmane (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Adityaa.sharmaa is one of several user accounts that along with multiple IPs have repeatedly tried to whitewash the article about Lavasa, removing the properly sourced controversies section. Attempts that have resulted in the article being semi-protected (a protection that expires today BTW). Today the user has made a new attempt at it, but with a for me at least completely new twist, by posting a message on both my talk page, their own user page and Talk:Lavasa, begging me or whoever to let the user remove the controversies section in the article, saying that they own property in Lavasa that they desperately need to sell to raise money for their daughter's wedding, and claiming that they can't sell the property because of the article on Wikipedia. I suggest you read the message, ladies and gentlemen in the admin corps, and make whatever you want of it, because all I can do is reporting it here. Thomas.W talk to me 13:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Although I'm not without some sympathy, AGF and all, for the user's plight, this raises a rather prickly ethical dilemma. Removing the material so that they can make their deal would place Wikipedia in some legal jeopardy as, in essence, we're removing verified information, which has real world influence, so that this user can make financial gain? Blackmane (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    When assuming good faith your observations are correct, but it's hard for me to AGF knowing the edit history of the article, and having seen the user's prior contributions, or rather deletions, on it. Thomas.W talk to me 13:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Even assuming good faith, we do not remove sourced information to help someone do a deal which requires concealing it. But I don't believe a word of it - would anyone seriously hoping to base a deal on hiding this information post "please help me hide it so I can do this deal" on the article talk page? JohnCD (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe a word of it either, but I wanted uninvolved eyes on it. Plus a new semi-protection for a month or more when the present one expires about two hours from now... Thomas.W talk to me 14:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protection extended for three months, as this seems to be an ongoing problem. JohnCD (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Cyberaz

    BAD-FAITH REPORT
    Tátótát failed to attempt to communicate with her/his "adversary" on this content disupute. It appears Tátótát does not intend to respond to the question asked of her/him below. As a result, Tátótát is strongly cautioned to engage others much more constructively, WP:AGF and otherwise change the demeanor of his/her editing. Tátótát may be blocked for further bad-faith actions. Toddst1 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User made edits to the Azad Ali article, censoring negative reporting on the subject. By user name, it may may possibly be Ali. It is a single purpose account as well.

    Can this page be protected as well? Tátótát (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) No, I don't think so. It's only one user, they are much more likely to be blocked. Epicgenius (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is pathetic. Tátótát, why haven't you posted something constructive, coaching or otherwise useful on User talk:Cyberaz besides the ANI notice? There is no indication that anyone needs to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mr Hall of England

    User has been blocked for 72 hours; wait and see if/how he responds during that span or if actions continue post-block. only (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Could someone please explain to User:Mr Hall of England why cut and paste moves are undesirable? I've told him three times and he's just done it again[142][143]. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Done. How much it it will do remains to be seen. I also reverted the edits. That talk page is a huge mess, and I asked them to do something about it. (My note on their talk page is still trying to be saved.) Drmies (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Holy shit, I see what's happening. They're using their talk page and archives (92 of them) as sandboxes for templates and scores and results and tons and tons of flagicons. Ordinarily that stuff ought to be sandboxed and much of it could probably be deleted (via MfD, STALE ARTICLE, etc). I wonder how much server space they're taking up this way. I was on the verge of creating a talk page archive for them when I saw what they were doing, and now I'm not so sure how to proceed. It's possible that the proper thing to do is to move all non-talk page content to sandboxes, re-created the talk page archives if need be, and then start chopping, as J Mascis might say. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have encountered this editor previously, he does not listen and he does not communicate. e.g. here which received no response. GiantSnowman 19:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've just checked his talk page history. I'll ask him to respond here, if he doesn't and continues to edit, I am likely to block him. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any way we can remove all this sandbox stuff from the talk page, any guidelines that can be used there? It's obviously causing severe issues when someone wishes to use it as, you know, a talk page. He also has 90+ pages of archived info he's copied from other places. Dear knows how large his talk page collections are in total, most of which are 4+ years old and aren't talk pages. Canterbury Tail talk 20:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I'd lose no sleep if the whole lot was to get wiped - though I'm sure others would kick up a stink. GiantSnowman 21:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Couldn't all the archives simply be moved, except for the ones that actually are archives? Epicgenius (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that was fun. Talk page is cleaned up. I found two messages by GiantSnowman pointing out this talk page as sandbox stuff. I won't stand in the way of a block for uncommunicative and uncollaborative editing. But in all fairness, I'll ping The Rambling Man, who has come to Mr Hall's defense before, and who may break a lance for them. In the meantime I nominated a couple of talk pages for deletion, pages that were clearly nothing but drafts and had no function as a talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I warned him, he ignored the ANI message and my warning about lack of communication, so he's received his 2nd block for disruptive editing, this time for 72 hours, and a comment that if he continues to ignore other editors he might warrant an indefinite block. Dougweller (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good block - today he has created articles like this and this - unreferenced stubs of questionable notability, not good enough, especially from an editor who has been around as long as he has. WP:CIR applies here. GiantSnowman 19:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    ::*Who's up for creating MfDs for the rest of his talk page archives? Drmies nominated six already. Epicgenius (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • This seems a little bit heavy-handed. I've left a message myself on Mr H of E's user talk page in the past regarding his use of talk pages as sandboxes (in the days when an edit there didn't take about 20 minutes to be saved), but in his defence I have found him willing to communicate sometimes, and he is someone who has put a lot of work into articles on the subjects he is interested in - I'd say some of it can be misguided but I feel he genuinely likes to contribute and make articles as good as he can. He maybe just needs the right kind of encouragement and help rather than the threat of an indefinite block? --Bcp67 (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a matter of balance. I'm all for barnstarring contributors--it's just that I probably couldn't without exploding the internet, due to the size of that talk page. "Sometimes" communicating is great, but communicating when it's pertinent is better. This talk page business, it's just not acceptable. Blocking someone for not talking is a bit draconian, I will grant you that, but in this case I think it's warranted. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. If he enters into constructive discussion on his talk page during the block period (and acknowledges the problems with his use of talk pages) and another Admin wants to unblock, I won't object. I will expect him to discuss in the future. Dougweller (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK can see your points and that's fair enough. I'll try a message on his talk page myself later today to see if I can get him to engage a bit. --Bcp67 (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:The Rambling Man - continued

    The users involved have been advised to file RFCs to address behavior problems, and to stop archiving/unarchiving threads in which they are participants. No further AN/I threads should be opened about this issue. --Laser brain (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Despite the close in the previous discussion, TRM continues to edit-war at the ref desk talk page. His actions now amount to nothing more than trolling, to try to keep his battle going. Can someone TRM respects, please talk to him and tell him to stop it? Or at least similarly archive that section, so he can't gripe that we're trying to "censor" him? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    A thread in which multiple editors criticise the behaviour of both Baseball Bugs and Medeis should not be closed by either Baseball Bugs or Medeis. Please, someone remind this comedy duo that they need to stop editing contra to COI and allow others to decide whether they think the matter is closed. There's no "trolling" or "edit warring", just a continual request for someone neutral to look at the thread that both BB and Medeis are so keen to censor. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't really blame the admins here for not stepping in and doing anything, as it's not clear what they ought to do -- much less to whom. Nor does anyone else on the RD talk page seem to care much, either. This is basically a three-way shouting match between Baseball Bugs, Medeis, and The Rambling Man -- with no one listening. I'll try making this point at WT:RD, too, and see if (if!) everyone can agree to drop it for now. It's clear it's not going to go anywhere. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Fuck, stop it. I've told all three of you to pursue an RFC if you have a problem with others' behavior. This is not for AN/I now, nor was it ever really. Please go about your business or file an RFC. --Laser brain (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, I just want the flippant behaviour of the comedy duo to cease, and for them to stop censoring pages at their own liberty. I never posted anything to AN/I, unlike these guys. I'll file an RFC in due course. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    70.53.97.28

    Originally blocked for one week (again); block extended to six months after evasion attempts. (NAC) Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 09:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:70.53.97.28 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been duplicating articles on their talk pages. The user was previously blocked for a week for doing this, and I guess the block just ended. Trivialist (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked for another week. This should be adequate, as school resumes on Monday in that town. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Please restore my deleted article in my user namespace

    Done. This was not the best place for the request, but it didn't cause any problems. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    My article List of quadratic irrational numbers set in a systematic order was deleted 16 December 2013, associated with these discussions:

    Please restore it in my user namespace for further external clarification with it. Thank you --MathLine (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Offline harassment

    ArbCom contacted per procedure; IP says the harassment will stop. Not much else we can do here. only (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Is there a typical procedure or some good advice for an editor who is being harassed offline by another editor e.g., contacting my employer? ElKevbo (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:HARASS -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Those pages recommend e-mailing ArbCom so I've done so. ElKevbo (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)}}[reply]

    I've unarchived to ask if someone could kindly let my friend know that I didn't block him (I'm not even an administrator!). He is continuing to harass me with e-mail messages and phone calls to my employer (!) but I won't engage with him. Maybe if he realizes that his actions are widely viewed as unacceptable he'll move on or at least stop harassing me. ElKevbo (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Is he emailing you via Wikipedia's mail interface, or directly?
    We can't do anything about the phone calls other than advise you to advise your employer to disregard them, but if he is emailling through the site we can block him from using the email function while he's blocked, and extend the block to indefinite if he keeps harassing you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I just turned off their email for the duration of the block, presuming the answer to my own question. They can still edit Their talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! He just copied me on more e-mails, one to Jimmy Wales and one to the Attorney General of Delaware (because I work at a public university in that state). Sigh... ElKevbo (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Go to the police, they will be able to deal with cases of RL harassment - the limits of what Wikipedians or the WMF can do is restricted to actions on this site :) but sounds like you've got a clear case for harassment. --Errant (chat!) 09:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the editor COULD be site-banned - I think we had more than once case like that if I remember correctly ES&L 12:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't really heard of any IP addresses that have been site-banned. But extreme cases like this may require indefinite IP blocks and even legal action. Epicgenius (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not add the sites he's spamming to the global blacklist? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 21:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The other editor sent me another e-mail early this morning stating that he is "no longer pursuing this issue." Assuming there is no further contact from him and no further attempts to add this link without prior discussion and consensus, I consider this matter closed. EatsShootsAndLeaves, this IP address does not have a history of editing beyond this recent activity so a block seems unnecessary right now. Balph, the site is not currently being linked to from any articles in main space so it seems unnecessary to add it to the blacklist right now. ElKevbo (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Minor incident (but warning all the same)

    FRIVOLOUS REPORT
    Editor ceased disruption after first contact by Doktorbuk (talk · contribs) Toddst1 (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:76.193.170.115 has added, twice, unconstructive material to List of MPs for English constituencies 2010–, once with a fake/misleading edit summary. I have warned them that further such vandalism might lead to their editing rights being restricted or stopped. As they seem to be eager to revert my reversions, I am flagging this up now so we don't end up with a 3RR incident (or worse) doktorb wordsdeeds 00:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Jennifer Lyon

    UNDER DISCUSSION
    Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jennifer_Lyon_(3rd_nomination) NE Ent 13:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Two editors have worked together to delete this article by blanking the page and replacing it with a redirect. The talk page, which recorded it surviving a speedy delete in 2010, was also replaced with a redirect. I have restored the article and left an edit summary saying it should be put through normal CSD or AFD processes, but the page was blanked a second time. --Greenmaven (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we hold the dramatics for a second? Holy smokes, in the time it took for us to begin threads in discussing the situation, you've already begun an ANI thread. There is nothing here causing administrative attention as we've already started discussing it instead of any kind of continued reverting or edit warring. Breathe, my friend. Gloss • talk 02:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Without discussion you reverted my attempts to preserve the article twice. You began discussing it only after that. --Greenmaven (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There was (or is) a misunderstanding about why it was blanked/redirected. None of this is a conversation for ANI. The page is currently back to its original state (unchanged) and discussion has begun. Gloss • talk 02:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Greenmaven: Just so you'll know, you're acting like we engaged in an edit war. We didn't perform enough reverts for that, so there don't seem to be any violations on our part here. Also, you violated a policy by not even informing us on our talk pages that this discussion was going on. So who's guilty? Survivorfan1995 (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    All these events occurred in close succession. I found you were on my talk page immediately after I started this ANI thread. So by then you were notified, but it was on my talk page rather than on yours. I find your statement, Gloss, "Can we hold the dramatics for a second?" offensive and condescending. Now, I will continue the discussion on my talk page, not here. --Greenmaven (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol! Do you have a temper problem or a mood disorder, my buddy? You're very outspoken. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gloss and @Survivorfan, please acquaint yourselves with the civility code of conduct. I could also invoke the bullying and various other policies and guidelines you are violating. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I fail to see how I was in any way being uncivil. The claim that I was even remotely violating a policy or guideline is outrageous. My apologies Jack, that you found my initial comment offensive. That wasn't my intention. I simply feel you were coming charging out of the gate and seeking administrative attention before even attempting discussing anything with me. Gloss • talk 03:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @Iryna Harpy: could you be more specific about which policies we're both violating? I'm not exactly seeing it on the conduct thing. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How about I be more specific for you. Your exact statement was "Do you have a temper problem or a mood disorder, my buddy". First, since I assume you're not friends in real life, "my buddy" was condescending, contrary to one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Second, accusing someone of having a "mood disorder" or other mental issue is very much a personal attack. Not a bright thing to do that in front of hundreds of administrators ES&L 12:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gloss, I suggest that you read your missives to Jack Greenmaven on his user talk page and here again with care. You may find it to be illuminating. @Survivorfan, I am happy to provide you with a list of related policies. If you persist in continuing to address me with statements such as, "I'm not exactly seeing it on the conduct thing." (sic), the list is merely going to continue to grow. Please remember that this is an AN/I into your behaviour. Continuing to be disparaging towards anyone who makes a comment is not going to reflect well on your attitude towards the community. EDIT Policies and guidelines already applying here: no personal attacks; be bold... but be careful as per, "Please boldly add information to Wikipedia, either by creating new articles or adding to existing articles, and exercise particular caution when considering removing information." I'll add more if needed, but this page is currently undergoing heavy traffic problems (that is ec's). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No need to escalate this any further. We had a revert war on an article because an editor didn't understand how to format an AfD nomination. I nominated the article for him/her and I'm not going to say anything more lest I be accused of canvassing. If the issue is that this article was being improperly blanked, then the AfD nomination should solve that. Altamel (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Long-term issues at Simon Baron-Cohen

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

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

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

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

    Yesterday I rewrote the entire article almost from scratch, incorporating all sources brought forward on talk to date, thinking that Minsk now understood sourcing;[149] same continued today even after multiple warnings and discussions and attempts at getting Minsk to understand Wikipedia's sourcing and content guidelines and policies.[150]

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

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

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

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

    Blocked editor commits identical offence after block expires

    Blocked for 72 hours for disruptive editing by User:Spartaz only (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive824#Uncommunicative editor User2001 and Jook-sing article.

    The editor has just done exactly the same thing. Still no Edit summary. Still no discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) I suggest an indef-block per WP:NOTHERE. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 09:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Damiens.rf, incivility and Wikihounding

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

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

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

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

    • Support. Support topic ban for Puerto Rico-related articles and images. This has been going on and off for years. Wikihounding and uncivility should not be allowed to fester as the offender will simply keep pushing the limits as it is ahappening here. Before this was posted (on 13:47, 3 January 2014), I had responded to Damiens HERE (on 22:40, 2 January 2014‎) and clearly he does not want to follow policy. Mercy11 (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, but since the case dates back five years, this is as short as I could post it while keeping it concise. Telling people to browse his edit history would take them a while, since he nominates at least 25+ items for deletion at once with regularity. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In a very abbreviated summary, the text above describes how a user that has been blocked for Wikihounding in the past is back on the prowl. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. My "something isn't quite right here" detector is going off. Apart from the first diff presented above (which is between damiens.rf and Mercy11), every other one is more than a year old. What issue is happening now between Tony and damiens.rf that requires a topic ban? Black Kite (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding your "detector", I'm afraid you're behind the times. According to this thread the intuitions of veteran editors that "Something is rotten in Denmark" are of no value. Apparently, only evidence suitable for a court of law is now considered worthy of consideration by the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first diff shows him taking a potshot personal attack at Tony, besides the fact that the conflict is taking place in the talk page of Tony Santiago. The other diffs are there to prove that this has been happening for a while. That when combined with their history, makes it hard to dismiss it. Not only that, but he was tailing Tony just last week, coincidentally, a few hours before posting that. To what purpouse? Why has he been doing it for years? - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Black Kite. Old diffs. The complaint at the beginning of this section, about hatting of a conversation, seems well-warranted. Coretheapple (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other diffs are there to display damiens'rf's personal "interest" in the subject, not as complaints. I can't say that someone is Wikihouning a user without going back and showing that he has been tailing him for a while. What about the fact that he was tailing Tony just last week? - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What was tendentious about those edits? Coretheapple (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any sanctions for Damiens.rf, cleaning up fair-use violations is frequently a thankless task with fightback from the uploader & his friends/wikiproject buddies. It appears that they have not forgiven Damiens.rf for his part in the deletion of the first incarnation of Tony Santiago's hagiography, and are resisting further cleanup/verification work on the recreated version 194.150.177.10 (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know Tony, but I never edited his biography or was involved in either AfD (the first took place before my arrival and the third during a period of inactivity) I only knew damiens.rf from the one time that he flooded the project with IfDs and just learned that he opposed the third AfD after he was already tailing Tony. This has little to do with the biography. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • With that said, I don't think that anyone in WP:PUR (including Tony himself), would oppose the cleanup of the article by a neutral party. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • Perhaps we should ask him. I have notified him of this discussion, since you didn't. Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I notified damiens.rf out of etiquette since he is the one being discussed. The notification system should have notified Tony when his username was linked. - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for now, or at least until we hear from Damiens.rf. I think highly of Tony so I'm likely if anything to be biased in his favor. But I'm concerned we're not hearing the full story here. You present a lot of evidence here, so I picked one of the more serious sounding charges, that Daminens was "claiming that Tony forged an OTRS ticket". But when I went to look at the linked discussion, I saw no accusation of forgery, but instead a reasonable-sounding question regarding the status of the ticket and the appropriateness of the PD label for these images. So I wonder what else in this complaint is not represented accurately. Gamaliel (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point granted. Perhaps it is difficult to asume that the 'question' was done in good faith knowing his stance regarding the contributions of Tony. - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this about the fair-use violations or Damiens.rf's wikihounding of Tony? Epicgenius (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its about the fact that he continues to tail him even after the fair use issues were taken care of. - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I went to the "little jewel" cited at the very top of this section, and what I found was a sliver of this conversation in which Damiens.rf was upset about a user closing a discussion he was a part of. Carribean H.Q. says "Mercy tried to discuss with him (as seen in the diff) and he lashed back." But that is not an especially full or complete recounting of the conversation. If you look at the conversation in full, you can see that Damiens was initially quite civil and received a less than satisfactory response. While there was subsequent incivility, the concern itself seems well warranted and I have an uneasy feeling about this. Coretheapple (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Backtracking we find this from Mercy11. That an insult is couched in snark, attacking another contributor's intelligence and/or education ("dark ages") and motivation, instead of sexually referenced profanity doesn't make it less of an insult, and Mercy11 should not have closed a discussion she was a participant in. (I'd revert the close right now if it wasn't 5 days stale.) I urge both Mercy11 & Damiens.rf to refrain from commenting about the other. NE Ent 01:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Receiving a snarky, "less than satisfactory" response is now enough to randomly tell someone to "go fuck [himself] with a chainsaw"? - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, and I admit that I haven't gone through all your diffs. However, if anyone had hatted a discussion in, say Talk:BP or any actively edited article there would be an unholy row. Are you sure there aren't WP:OWN issues here as well as COI concerns? Coretheapple (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I have taken WP:BLP enforcement action on the article Tony Santiago, removing the poorly-sourced BLP statement against whose sourcing Damiens.rf was rightly objecting. The discussion that led to Damiens' outburst clearly shows that some people, including Mercy11, were evidently not understanding what "reliable sources" and "self-published sources" mean. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good. This thread is about the user's conduct, not his enforcement of policy or perpetuating a particular revision of the article. - Caribbean~H.Q.
    • Strong support. It doesn't matter if he is "right", his way of going about things is wrong. Contribution history shows Damiens.rf targets Puerto Rico articles in order to troll Tony. Furthermore, Damiens.rf is not here to build an encyclopedia. He is only here to rules-lawyer over the existence of articles and images and to upset content editors until they leave the site in frustration. Not only do I support the proposed topic ban, I also recommend that the community take a longer look at editors like Damiens.rf who seem to focus only on deleting the work of other editors, not in contributing work of their own to this project. Some might argue that contributing content and deleting are two equally valid aspects of the project, but I do not agree with that assessment. It takes far more energy and work to research, create, and contribute than to tear down and destroy. Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    comment The removal/deletion of copyright/fair-use violating and/or non-notable content is an essential component of improving the wiki. 194.150.177.9 (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Bengali people

    User:Amitabho, is repeatedly inserting a copy vio image in the article despite being properly explained about the copyright problems of the image in the talk page. DIFFS of inserting the image: [151],[152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157]

    The image has been nominated for deletion in the commons. Moreover, the user has also uploaded some non-free images with missing info like this one, using wrong licenses falsely claiming that they are in public domain per FOP just to use those images as a source in the collage. Since the user continues with his disruptive editing, I thought to report him here.--Zayeem (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have notified User:Amitabho. NativeForeigner Talk 17:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kmzayeem: I probably missed it but have you communicated with him? I didn't see it on his talk page or on the article talk page but I sure could have missed it. A diff please? JodyB talk 23:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have taken every reasonable step in regard to the aforementioned image. There should be no infringing material remaining. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you! JodyB talk 11:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You as well. May I ask that both this incident and the deletion request at Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bengali_collage.png both be closed, considering the resolution of this dispute's circumstances? Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    JodyB, take a look at this thread on the article talk page, I've tried my best to explain the problems, some other editors have also raised their concerns about the image.--Zayeem (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Archiving

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

    You'll probably need to put a "Bump" and sign with datestamp in each, or else they'll just be archived again in a few hours ES&L 17:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The archive configuration had been set to 24, I've just set it back to 36 (hours). Note the visible "36" that appears on top of the page is actually in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader and not the functional number, which is in non-visible text at the very top of this page. NE Ent 16:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Problematic editor who doesn't enter into discussions

    Since even after the copyvio warnings and the notification of this ANI discussion they made a similar edit to Tarkhan Tribe I have blocked Garminder13 (talk · contribs) indefinitely. Primarily they have been blocked for because the have repeatedly introduced copyright violations showing that they are unable to understand what is required to contribute constructively and collaboratively and build an encyclopedia. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Garminder13 (talk · contribs) has been edit-warring, creating dubious articles and adding copyvio, copypaste from unreliable sources, and undiscussed and incorrect page moving. He/she has been warned by myself, User:Sikh-history, User:Sitush and User:Diannaa but has not responded. The only non-article edit by this editor has been to RPP rquesting 3 months semi-protection for vandalism, which I can only assume is to do with his being reverted by myself and Sikh-history. I'm too involved to block although I probably would on the copyvio and non-communication issues. Dougweller (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I missed an earlier request for "Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism" for Tarkhan People, a duplicate article he created and filled with copyvio. There had been no vandalism but he had received a bot warning for copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block per WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. KonveyorBelt 18:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef-block. Frankly, I'm surprised s/he hasn't been blocked before, given the history. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 21:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've just reverted again. The article is a compilation of copy/pastes from unreliable websites and Raj-era books that are known to be equally unreliable. Some of those websites do not carry a copyright notice - eg: this one - but mass copy/pastes even of possibly public domain material is dodgy, and especially so when the language being used is so obviously unencyclopaedic. For example, this has been pasted and allegedly comes from a 1902 family history, which in the Indian context means "puffery". - Sitush (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block and possibly a concurrent sanction on creating new articles, should the block be removed. Epicgenius (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment After being informed of this discussion, List of Tarkhan People was created. Some of the sources are Wikipedia (including the one that appears to be sourced to the BBC but it just the BBC copying our article). I've started a cleanup as most of the ones I've looked at have no source or mention in their article stating they are/were Tarkhan, but it needs more work. Some dreadful sources, eg one called shahjewelry.com Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    URGENT: potential serious copyright policy violation

    NO ADMIN ACTION REQUIRED
    Copyvio being addressed NE Ent 21:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Re: article Allard J2X-C.

    I hope this is the right place for this - I found the address on this page: Wikipedia:Copyright_violations.

    More than 4 hours ago I flagged an external link in the above article as potentially containing copyright violation material. The external link is to http://www.mulsannescorner.com/AllardJ2XRCE.pdf which is a pdf of scanned pages from the July 2005 issue of the Racecar Engineering magazine. The linked pdf page does not give copyright information, but on the homepage of the website it states: "All content ©Copyright, Michael J. Fuller 1998-2013 unless otherwise noted". The Racecar Enginering magazine is published by The Chelsea Magazine Company (http://chelseamagazines.com/) and I cannot find any indication that their permission has been given to mulsannescorner to publish scans of pages of their magazine, either on Wikipedia or on the www.mulsannescorner.com website.

    When I just looked again at the article, the warning flag I added had been removed, with no indication that the permission of the copyright owner had been granted, and with the terse and insulting remark "Reverted 1 edit by Jaggee (talk): Unconstructive and unhelpful."

    The Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Copyvio makes it very clear that "Copyright infringing material should also not be linked to."

    Please pay urgent attention to this likely serious infringement. Jaggee (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) So you're saying an off-wiki site has posted a copyvio of another off-wiki site? Unless you can actually prove that, it's really out of our hands, I think. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 20:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. There's no evidence that the secondary website has permission to host copyrighted material, and therefore it should be removed (as I have just done) until that evidence is there. I don't see why the material can't simply be referenced to the original magazine. Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Did Wikipedia plagiarize the external website, or did the external website plagiarize Wikipedia? If it's either, then there is a problem. However, if one external website plagiarizes another external website, it is not our problem. Also, without a copyright from the external website, there is not much to argue. Epicgenius (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The copyright violation itself isn't our problem, but our policy is very clear that such copyvios - or possible copyvios - must not be linked to. We would need to see evidence that the second website has permission to host the material (as I said above though, I don't see the issue here as we can simply reference the article to the original magazine). Black Kite (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)WP:COPYLINK is the appropriate policy - linking to a website that is believed to violating copyright may be "considered a form of contributory infringement".Nigel Ish (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't the http://www.mulsannescorner.com website just be referenced directly? (I'm assuming that that's the original source.) Epicgenius (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea why Black Kite removed the Race Car Engineering cite in its entirety (which a helpful bot has partially restored anyway) since simply removing the link would have sufficed. The remainder of the citation is perfectly valid and properly credited the original source. Using mulscannescorner.com for the other cite I'm not actually sure of any more based on Nigel Ish's comment. Resolute 21:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Neither. Our article used a scanned copy of a magazine article as a source. There was never an actual copyvio on Wikipedia. (Which, having literally just done the GA review, I checked for.) I didn't check that the external site had permission to host that copy, however simply removing the link from our article does not defeat its useability as a source since it appeared to be a true copy of the original source material. Resolute 21:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless the website has permission to host those scans, they can't be linked to though. However, the references can simply be replaced with cites to the original magazine. Tell you what, give me half an hour and I'll do that. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I've alerted Lukeno94 to this thread as he might be aware of a replacement cite for the other link. Resolute 21:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've already sorted this; if someone had actually bothered to ask me properly, instead of dropping a useless tag, or blanket removals, I'd have happily done it. Instead we have a needless run to the dramaboard. With no-one attempting to discuss things with me. Outstanding. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • My original action was very polite, very clear, and correct: "It isn't clear on the mulsannescorner.com website that Chelsea Magazines (www.chelseamagazines.com) sanctioned the use of scans from their magazine, Racecar Engineering, there. Please verify the permission."
    • Your response was very rude: "Reverted 1 edit by Jaggee (talk): Unconstructive and unhelpful." Jaggee (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pure, unadulterated rubbish. You, with your very first edit under this account, added in a frivolous tag, making no attempt to discuss things with me. It was unconstructive and unhelpful. Then, failing once again to discuss things with me, you ran here with your second edit under this account. Out-fucking-standing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do apologise. I thought the scans were directly linked in the references. Now I see that they weren't. The pages that are being used as cites do link themselves to the possible copyvio, but unless the mulsannescorner pages that are linked to directly plagiarise the original magazine (which I haven't checked for), then there's no problem. Black Kite (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, no; they were linking directly, but Luke fixed it before I went back to do so myself. Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I'd like to know who Jaggee is? Their first edit was to drop a "copyvio" tag on the article (which is ludicrous; all that needed doing was the removal of the url), and this is their second edit right here. I'm not remotely amused. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing in question was a scan in full of a magazine that was printed in 2005. It was essentially an archive, exactly the same as any archiving websites work. I'm not sure what the issue is, much less do I think it is as urgent or serious as whoever Jaggee is has proclaimed - if I'm wrong, please correct me. Other things on that website are perfectly fine, and they attribute all of their sources as well to boot. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's hugely urgent either, but unless they've got permission to host the copyrighted material from the other magazine then it is a copyright violation and we shouldn't be linking to it, in exactly the same way as we don't link to (say), a Youtube video that contains copyrighted material. Black Kite (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, and noted for future reference. I'm not seeing the difference between how Google Books/Scholar works, how website archivers work, and how this happened though; could you tell me why those forms of archiving are acceptable, and this isn't, please? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • My understanding - and I hope that someone will correct me if I am wrong - but I believe that Google's book scanning project has been held in US courts to be fair use, even if they copy most of the work. In this particular case, I don't know if the scan of the Race Car Engineering story could be considered fair use as well since it is only a scan of part of a magazine, or if it would be viewed as a copyvio since it is a scan of the entire story. Fortunately, the citation itself is valid even without the link either way! Resolute 21:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, at the moment, Google Books is held - in the US, which is the important one for Wikipedia - to be fair use. See Authors Guild v. Google. The situation in the rest of the world is somewhat contentious. I presume Scholar falls under the same purview. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You Lukeno94 are wrong, copyright violations are serious, and should be dealt with promptly - and I commend Black Kite for doing just that. Jaggee (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kindly go away. You've made your point, you've got your reward, and I'm getting more infuriated with you with every single piece of over-the-top rubbish you write. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User making legal threats

    H+L Bagels blocked by Someguy1221 Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I attempted to contact User:H+L Bagels to clarify whether or not their username was promotional. In response, they vandalized my user page and posted "Stop harrassing me ive told my father and hes ready to take to higher level if you dont stop harassing mee" [158]. He then vandalizes my user page again and I post an attempt to reconcile on his user page [159]. He ignores it and threatens to sue me [160]. He also said the same thing to User:Mean as custard on his talk page. Jns4eva ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    imma wikilawyer and i vandilizeses — Preceding unsigned comment added by H+L Bagels (talk • contribs) 00:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    H+L is clearly a troll and has been blocked indefinitely. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, H+L Bagels is a Seinfeld reference. Kramer was on strike from them for 12 years. Rgrds. --64.85.216.64 (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal attacks and possible sock puppetry by anon IP

    Blocked for one week by TParis. (WP:NAC) Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 09:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    86.161.205.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Every single post by this anon IP includes unacceptable personal attacks on one article's talk page. There is also a strong possibility of sock puppetry, due to the very narrow focus of this IP user's posts.Spylab (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I see you provided a warning and they continued. Would recommend blocking as a troll, but it appears to be a dynamic IP. You should request semi-protection for the page. TFD (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Gave the IP a week.--v/r - TP 03:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    MAJOR problem with Today's Featured Article on the Front Page

    TFA is back to normal, nothing to see here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The Today's Featured Article section on the front page is nothing more than a picture. It previously was about the South Park episode Weight Gain 4000. Not quite sure what happened. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm only seeing the standard front page right now, not the issue you're describing. Is it still appearing on your end? What happens if you bypass your cache? only (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I refreshed a few times before posting. After posting, I checked again and it was back to normal. The accompaning picture was changed, so that might have caused a glitch. Who knows?...but it is back to normal. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The page history looks to show what happened there. only (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies for that. I accidentally copied a <noinclude> tag from Template:TFAIMAGE (and this, of course, had no effect on the edit preview).
    You must have loaded the page in the seconds before I self-reverted (and refreshing the page doesn't always clear a user's cached transclusions).
    Sorry again. —David Levy 04:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Levy: Good timing, I guess, but no worries, mistakes happen. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't an account that got compromised or something bad (ie: technical glitch). Obviously, not the case in this situation. Again, no worries. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

    • Support mutual interaction ban between myself and TRM assuming he also supports it. There's no justification for any other action against any of us, and none has been given. μηδείς (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1 - I concur with Medeis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem with not imposing item 1 is that it will give TRM license to continue to stalk and harass Medeis and me. He's been told multiple times to disengage, but he won't - and he ridicules those who so advise him.[161] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Any sanctions on The Rambling Man. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude should've dropped the matter and let another mop handle it. He edit warred and hounded the two other editors. If a non-admin had that string of edits, he'd be indeffed pbp 06:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am not going to withdraw my support for a mutual interaction ban if TRM supports it, but there is no way this admin is univolved. Not only has this administrator been recently involved with The Rambling Man (apparently at no fault of TRM's), he has also advised MilesMoney, on whose status I recently commented critically at ANI, that he would have unblocked him "I would have unblocked" for a recent block. This admin is obviously not an uninvolved party. μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    TRM did that removal for a bunch of admins that were "notified" if I recall right (someone should check his edit log), that was incidental and doesn't predispose me any way towards him. Note it was TRM's comment linked above (on Medeis' talk page) that NewYorkBrad went and warned him over that was the straw that broke the camel's back here, so I don't know whether you'd presume I'm biased for or against him. Regarding the MilesMoney side, having an extremely active community editor up for sanctions / banning and blocked at the same time is extremely unusual and I was trying to ensure we got the process as exactly correct as possible despite that. The unblock I was willing to do was for purposes of his discussing the ban proposal at ANI only, which is what the other admin unblocked him to do. Bishonen's block was appropriate.
    Administrators can't be noticeboard active without interacting with people. If you think I'm advocating for someone improperly please be specific. I have a long history of being somewhat pals with Baseball Bugs going approximately back to 2007 when he started editing, though less so in the last year because I've been busy elsewhere. I am treating him equally here, I think he's as much at fault as anyone (perhaps moreso). None of which matters for ones ability to file a community sanction case. Anyone, involved or uninvolved, can do that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]
    • Support 1 only Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1. Also 3 if others support it. Not convinced 2 is justified at the moment except perhaps for TRM as they only recently appeared on RD, and most of their contributions appear to be sniping at BB & μηδείς, but 1 should put an end to that. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nil, I oppose any non-mutual and unnecessary sanctions. I have found TRM's contributions to be useful for the most part. Any inspection of my edits in regard to his edits over the last year will show this. μηδείς (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, as I said in my statement I was only refering to TRM's contributions to the RD and WT:RD, and I stand by my comment. And prior to 13 December, they hadn't edited the RD or WT:RD since June except for this edit [162]. I don't recall what their editing on the RD/WT:RD was like in May and earlier when they seemed to have a few edits. Perhaps it was great. But most of their edits on RD/WT:RD in recent times that I've seen have been sniping at either you or BB. I dislike one sided bans as well, but if TRM isn't going to do anything better on the RD, such a ban may be a necessary evil whatever else they may do elsewhere (which I don't really know and don't really care). On the other hand, I don't think it's necessary since 1 should put an end to the behaviour. If they want to then start contributing productively to the RD and WT:RD, great. If not, that's up to them but doesn't really matter. BTW, the only reason I mentioned this at all is I wanted to explain why I opposed 2. In the case of BB and you, I opposed it because I don't think it's deserved or needed yet (which is not to say either of your behaviour has been perfect). The case of TRM is a little different as it may be deserved, but I don't think it's needed if we pass 1. Nil Einne (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inquiry? can we have it specified that any interaction ban should not prevent TRM, BB, or myself from posting or the same page, so long as we don't directly address each other (i.e., TRM to myself or Bugs), or indirectly criticize each other? The reason I ask is that all three editors have a long history of contributions. For example, see TRM's very helpful history at WP:ITN, with only occasional and usually civil disagreement between him and me there. I ask this because I am unfamiliar with interacion bans, and don't think too broad a one is necessary. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The interaction ban would follow the terms of Wikipedia:Interaction ban, so you can participate in the same discussion, let alone the same page provided you avoid replying to, referring to or otherwise involving the other editor. On the other hand, referring to the other editor in any way anywhere on wikipedia would be a problem (doesn't matter if it's criticism or not). This could include stuff like the now deleted content on TRM's user page [163] as well as the comment you made to Jayron32 [164]. Nil Einne (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1 and 3 2 I can't really fathom, but TRM interacting with Bugs is causing nothing but trouble. Likewise, Bugs whining about TRM is causing nothing but trouble pbp 06:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - IBANS are indicative of deeper problems with disruption issues. But maybe this group just needs to calm down and stop sniping at each other. Baseball Bugs is a character, and he's aware of that. Why does this have to come to an IBAN? Walk the hell away from each other. It's really easy. Doc talk 06:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This was advised by just about everyone. It does not seem to have worked. Advice is not enforcable; a community sanction is. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the interaction bans. I previously suggested a partial topic ban for Bugs and Medeis regarding the ref desks - that they be banned from posting anything but direct answers to the initial question asked - with a cited source or Wikilink. I still think that this might work - and if it doesn't, a full ban on ref desks will still be an option. Regardless of any other issues, at the core of this dispute is the behaviour of these two individuals on the ref desks, where both regularly treat questions as an excuse for political soapboxing, sniping at each other and the like. If they can demonstrate their usefulness on the ref desks, fine. If they can't do so without treating them as a forum cum bearpit, I'm sure we will manage without them... AndyTheGrump (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are three individuals up for sanctions here, not two. Is the third editor not an issue when the others are? Doc talk 07:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've personally only noticed it as involving Bugs and Medeis - at least as a long-term problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but all three sanctions mention TRM equally if I'm reading it right. So it's apparently not just Bugs and Medeis that need some sort of yoke on them. In other words: no one side is actually "right" over the other. Sometimes it takes three to tango? Doc talk 07:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's my take on it AndyTheGrump is correct that BB and μηδείς are the bigger long term problems on the RD albeit in different ways.
    μηδείς's biggest problem has been their desire to close (hat) every single question or subdiscussion they feel is inappropriate. Many of their closures are contentious and even worse, despite their hatting and frequent strongly criticism of these discussions, they've been far from perfect themselves. However μηδείς does seem to have gotten better and I think is making fewer closures recently. μηδείς does make plenty of useful contributions.
    BB is BB. Many of their contributions are useful although sometimes in typical BB fashion they don't come across few well. Many of their responses are jokes and other stuff people find somewhat disruptive.
    There are other issues with both but I don't want this to be too long.
    TRM isn't a long term problem on the RD. They can't be since as I mentioned above, between 26th June and 13th December, they only had one comment on the RD or WT:RD. I consider myself a regular at the RD for several years now (except for maths, language & entertainment), think of that what you will, but don't really associate TRM as someone I recall seeing much of at the RD.
    That's in itself is fine, I'm not saying outsiders have no right to comment, criticise or recommend stuff. The problem is since TRM started to show up again in 13th December, most of their comments, primarily WT:RD but also at WP:RD have been sniping at BB and μηδείς.
    As I said, I'm fine with people criticising the RD or its contributors and recommending how to improve it. But most of TRM's contributions don't really seem to be constructive criticism instead simple sniping and I would say it's gotten worse as time has gone on.
    Okay to be fair some of their replies on the RD itself have contained useful information which is great. Except even in those cases these replies have been to BB or perhaps μηδείς and have contained some degree of apparent sniping. It's normal and accepted to fairly criticise answers you feel are unhelpful, particularly if you offer clarification. I've done it a fair amount, and of course it's more likely to happen with someone who makes more poor answers. But it just seems to me TRM is frequently going to far particularly when combined with the fact they don't seem to be doing much else on RD/WT:RD, hence my comment above about feeling TRM is the clearer problem at the moment. Even some of the older comments from May/June (to the RD/WT:RD) appeared to be similar although I did see quite a few better contributions then.
    And to be clear, BB being BB has frequently given back as good as they have received to TRM. μηδείς much less so which is fairly normal. But BB has continued to make their, sometimes helpful sometimes less so, contributions to the RD.
    I don't know much about what's going on outside the RD, it does seem μηδείς and TRM have some problems on ITN/C which I don't check out much any more. And I understand why TRM is pissed off at μηδείς's comment on Jayron32's talk page. Ultimately it does seem an interaction ban would help.
    Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Borderline TL;dr, but I get the point. I have sniped at Baseball Bug and Medeis (mea culpa) but based on their current edit patterns, they do not serve their audience correctly. They happily joke around and piss-take. It's not what I believe a "reference desk" editor should be doing, and many, many others have stated similarly. A real pity that it's got this far, that these two "editors" have been able to get away with it for so long. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support IBAN, Neutral on the others for now. If an IBAN prompts these three to get back to positive content work rather than wasting their time and energy sniping at each other, that's a good thing. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support 1. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 09:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all. I don't think the situation has risen to the level where this sort of action is necessary. See Doc9871's comment above. This generally strikes me as being like trying to accomplish toenailing with a sledgehammer: it could accomplish the task, but it's not the right tool, and the outcome would probably be sloppy and serves to make the community look like poor craftspeople generally. Specifically, I think that if the parties agree to not interact, or at least not interact disruptively, we can all get back to work. Even if an interaction ban is imposed, I think it should be much shorter and self-expiring. Bans, like blocks, are a preventive tool, and leaving something in place until someone appeals it isn't usually preventive unless it's clear—crystal clear—that the parties are incapable of working within community standards. Before us, we have three prolific contributors who have been around for a good long while. I think that in and of itself counsels against making any kind of restrictions indefinite, at least not without a substantial record of evidence that this has changed. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all Too soon, too harsh, and would shift, not solve the problem; ambiguous references will be made and argued about. No evidence has been presenting that these editors are disrupting the encyclopedia (mainspace). NE Ent 10:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the interaction ban - which TRM seems happy with anyway, and will therefore stick to. The others on the other hand are wind-up merchants, and I would also support them two to be banned from the ref desk. GiantSnowman 10:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all although 2 has merit. I have no inclination to interact with these two editors ever again, but don't see any requirement for any formal sanctions. More troubling seems to be the fact that any formal sanction like this would prevent me filing an RFC on the undesirable behaviour of those two editors at the reference desk, which has been noted variously at WT:RD and above, thus giving them carte blanche to carry on regardless. (Incidentally, the posting admin seems a little trigger-happy and keen to punish me, having blocked me, albeit erroneously, at a moment's notice this morning.) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all as disproportionate and too soon etc. -- KTC (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all Draconian solutions rarely work, and this one consists of a whole slew of separate "solutions" none of which is likely to help as much as hinder the project. I greatly respect the proposer, but suggest that a much simpler proposal would suffice -- such as maybe a one month "do not respond to each other in any derogatory fashion whatsoever" sanction. Collect (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all overkill Agathoclea (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I believe it is unwise to invoke any sanctions (such as Proposal 2.) that would shift BB's energies to editing the Article space. What few edits he has made there lately seem to be externally linked rubbish that has to be cleaned up/reverted by others. 54.224.53.210 (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The above is the latest in a series of harassment-only IP's based in the DC area (obviously the same guy, IP-hopping):
    54.224.35.46 (talk · contribs)
    54.224.206.154 (talk · contribs)
    54.242.221.254 (talk · contribs)
    54.224.53.210 (talk · contribs)
    ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point of order sanction 3 states "Standard Discretionary Sanctions" without linking to what is meant by the phrase; common wiki usage for the phrase is WP:AC/DS which this forum cannot impose. NE Ent 15:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be novel, but the community has inherent authority, and cribbing arbcom's language for a sanction package doesn't change the underlying authority. It would just establish DS as a common remedy for both community and Arbcom. That said, lack of support here evident for 2, 3. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    2 is a great idea, and I'm all up for that, as it's the basis of this issue. The sooner the other "editors" stop using the RD as they personal sandbox, the better. A break from that, and maybe a focus for them on improving the mainspace, would be perfect. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The general term for community based sanctions has been "general sanctions"; I don't believe there's a standard wording like AC/DS but the wording of a previous sanction could be copy pasted. NE Ent 21:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1. Support 2 for Baseball Bugs only, and only if length of time lessened. -- Let's not lose sight of the fact that this bad blood is at least in part a symptom of chronically problematic refdesk edits/answers -- which really should be the greater concern. I've not seen TRM provide the kind of frequently unhelpful and/or insulting kinds of answers I've seen out of the other two -- and then it only seems to be Bugs who shows absolutely no indication of knowing/caring he's done anything wrong or showing any inclination he'll stop (how many times are people going to say "Baseball Bugs is Baseball Bugs" as an excuse to look the other way a la "boys will be boys?"). That being said, an indef refdesk ban is overkill. All three of these users, Bugs included, do seem genuine in their dedication to Wikipedia and to the refdesk, but at the same time there needs to be proof of consequences for using it inappropriately despite countless requests/warnings not to. --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait for the RFC I would like to see a proper discussion of B and M's conduct at the reference desks and would be sorry if that doesn't not take place because T, who has said he is working on it, can't mention their names. 184.147.128.82 (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a good point, as it would likewise prevent us from creating an RFC about TRM and his stalking and harassment of other editors (which is by no means limited to just Medeis and me). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • So do you or do you not support the interaction ban? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do support it (Option 1), as I already said. It just has to be both directions. It would be unfair to allow you to continue stalking and harassing us while depriving us of the capability to defend ourselves. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't recall suggesting it should be a one-way interaction ban. In fact, the only suggestion of that nature has been the polar opposite. The fundamental issue here is that I've been the only person bold enough to engage with you both to ask you to stop using the Reference Desks as your own personal play areas. And it appears, from the notes above and elsewhere, that I'm far from alone in that. So, is it option 1 (interaction ban all round) or not option 1 (no interaction ban all round)? It's a simple question. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In contrast to TRM, who frequently uses the edit summaries as a forum to air his opinions, ranging from the snippy and condescending to the vulgar and childish. What do you intend to do about that? Or does he get a free pass because he's an admin? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know he was an admin until you pointed that out, and why would I care if he is an admin? I have no love for bureaucratic immunity. Noformation Talk 17:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So, what can be done about it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming that what I support passes, if the problem were to continue I would support the same sanction for him. Noformation Talk 17:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It wouldn't stop him from doing it to other editors, as he does now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be profitable to this process if you notified these "other editors" about this particular discussion. After all, why would you wish for them not to know about the opportunity to discuss my behaviour? Please let us and them know as soon as practicable about the current situation, before the possible impending sanctions limit your ability to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The infantile feuding involving these three editors has got to stop. Not only has it disrupted the reference desks and their talkpages, but in December the rampant bickering between The Rambling Man and Medeis became a huge distraction on WP:ITN, an important process for maintaining the main page, as well. (To their credit, that page has been quieter recently.) I would like to think that this thread would serve as a wakeup call for all three of these editors but unfortunately I doubt it. I dare them to prove me wrong. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - While I'm not happy with how TRM has handled this, I think that BB and Medeis are the primary instigators. I'm not convinced that characterising this as a problem with their interactions, as such, is productive. It is the way they interact with users generally, and treat RD (and to a lesser extent ITNC) as their personal playground. Wikipedia needs to stop being so enabling of smug rule-gaming trolls. BB's behaviour was censured in the Chelsea Manning ArbCom findings, but that was just a particularly gross outcropping of a general pattern of poor conduct which has gone on for years. Let's have a proposal which addresses the underlying actions, not the dysfunctional way TRM has tried to confront them. Action against TRM for that could follow if appropriate. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, Alex is another editor to point out the playground behaviour of the other two "editors" here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it would be an excellent idea for editors and admins who aren't TRM to keep scrutiny on this and work constructively to end any underlying behavior concerns. Alex, are you willing to help? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • That would be nice. Also it would be nice if you, GWH, could formulate ANI reports that are viable (see NE Ent above) and not go trigger-happy blocking. You may be keen to get me off the project, even Medeis has noted that you seem to have a conflict here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted elsewhere, I'm not too well at present, and have limited resources for WP activity. I also have prior history with both BB and Medeis, and so I'm not sure there's any hope of either of them responding to my attempts to 'work constructively'. What I want to see is the general pattern of their behaviours to be addressed through administrative action, not a labour-intensive support programme for smart people who clearly ought to know better. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I just hope that the very existence of this discussion is enough for all concerned to sit up and take notice that their behaviour is too often too disruptive. Nobody is perfect, and probably most of us veer from the strict pathway from time to time, and it's a judgement call as to how far is too far, and how often is too often. Well, the judgement of the three named editors is once again, and far from the first time, being called into serious question. Only an editor who is addicted to being the centre of attention at all costs, even at the cost of their reputation, would be happy with this state of affairs. If that were true in any case, the professional help they need is beyond our powers here. Do I believe this discussion will improve matters in any significant way? Sadly, no. Which is why I am formally abstaining from supporting or opposing any of the proposals. But there is always hope. Oh no, they can't take that away from me. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, some editors spend their lives in the talk pages, making comedy remarks etc. Others spend them on articles, improving the Wikipedia. Problem is, the "existence of this discussion" will never be enough for some of those "former" "editors". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've got an alternate proposal. TRM alleges that I have never made a worthwhile edit.[165] Since he's stalking us anyway, let's put that to good use. I challenge TRM to watch every edit I make henceforth, and report (on my talk page) what is factually incorrect about each given edit when it appears. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs, you've been here long enough to know that factual accuracy is not the only measure of usefulness. You proposal is obviously obstructive, and I find it hard to take it seriously. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you take seriously his claim that I have never made a useful edit??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's get something straight here: I HATE THIS PAGE. I've pretty much stopped editing articles because I got tired of fighting vandals. And I pretty much stopped coming here because nothing ever changes. The one area that I thought I could usefully contribute is the question-and-answer section. Now the stalker TRM wants to boot me off there too. But until someone starts looking at TRM's behavior also, this kind of problem is going to come up again and again until someone finally gets wise and sends him packing. The good thing about this scenario is that I'll be gone while y'all will be stuck with him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not interested in your diversionary tactic of talking about TRM's claim. You're proposing something pointless and unworkable, and asking useless questions of me. Your behaviour elsewhere on the site has been justly censured. Stop boring on about TRM and take a decent look at your own conduct. You've wilfully ignored my point about 'factual accuracy' being a red herring. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I had already resolved to reign in my sense of humor and try to stick to low-key, factual answers. I had already put myself on an interaction ban with TRM. I had gotten past his vile behavior and hoped that I would never have to see or hear from him again. Then my old pal GWH resurrects this already-tired debate. If you look at TRM's recent edits, you will see that he has been told repeatedly to disengage, but he won't do it. I'm trying to adhere to what he wants me to do, in terms of edits, but he keeps harping on the same theme. What am I supposed to do? How can I please him to the point where he won't stalk me anymore? And supposing he succeeds in his campaign to kill me off here, how do you intend to address that kind of problem with TRM in the future? Because I can guaran-damn-tee you his behavior is not going to improve. He'll just find other targets. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The mature way to deal with these things is for each participant to acknowledge and take responsibility for their own behaviour, and then STOP talking. Absolutely NO finger pointing, no matter how justified you may feel it is. (Children use that sort of approach, but they eventually grow out of it.) I'm not saying it's easy. But it is essential. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    The 33 Strategies of War

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

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

    Vandalism: nude images

    Blocked indefinitely. Commons will have to handle the images themselves. only (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    this new user uploaded nude images and linked them to Neha Mehta and Munmun Dutta. I am bypassing vandal warnings and directly reporting here. Abhi (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Nude images uploaded on Commons are not of Neha Mehta or Munmun Dutta. Those are respected TV Actresses. It is sheer vandalism. Abhi (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mount Damavand

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

    Editor asked for comments I answered but they still don't understand simple COI

    Content dispute not related to editor's COI. Please try other methods of dispute resolution first, including discussion. ANI is not the appropriate venue to determine content.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Editor asked for comments I answered but they still don't understand simple COI

    This is a pretty clear example of a conflict of interest. Editor Dbrodbeck blanked a section and then refused to allow that names of notorious alumni be added to an article about his Alma-mater, (the COI is that the editor's name and a relative of the editor are both listed as "Notable Alumni" in the article.) The editor also asked for comments on the article talk page.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:London_South_Collegiate_Institute. Sorry if I am not posting this right, but here is a link to where the editor 1st blanked the section, (I agree to blanking the section but not to leaving the names out of article where the editor has his own name listed in notable alumni):http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_South_Collegiate_Institute&diff=prev&oldid=563369632 Another editor came by and added name of alum to Notable alumni:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_South_Collegiate_Institute&diff=575599742&oldid=563369632 Dbrodbeck came by and removed gas plant terrorists names from Notable alumni http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_South_Collegiate_Institute&diff=next&oldid=575599930 and requested to take it to talk please. This has been bothering me because it looks like the very definition of COI but Dbrodbeck insists that they do not understand. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been extremely careful at that article as I did go to school there. I do not think the material belongs per WP:NOTNEWS and frankly, because what high school these two idiots went to is immaterial. I am pretty sure I understand the COI rules quite well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only "alumni" who should be added to any institution page are those that are notable - notability being easily defined as "having a Wikipedia article about them" ES&L 16:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Having an article is a good way to determine notability but should an editor who is an alumni-(and listed as "Notable alumni" in the article with other relative who is also listed)-be deciding what is deleted from an article? 24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have never edited anything about my brother or myself, well except for adding a reference for where Dan Brodbeck went to high school. I did create the Dan Brodbeck page, but as can be seen quite clearly, Dan is notable, perhaps unlike his older brother..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see having attended the school, or being listed in notable alums, to be a COI except as reagards that listing. If the school is prominently listesd in source accounts abut the terrorisat (i haven't checked them yet), for example if it were stated that they planned the terrorist acts at the school, it should perhaps be mentioned on the school's page. But if the only connection is that the accused terrorists attended the school, and perhaps met each other there, and said accused are not yet notable enough to have separate biographical articles, I see no reason why they should be mentoned, as has been said on the article talk page by another editor. I see no issue for ANI here. DES (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Robert Lewandowski article issue

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

    Toddst1 and 70.53.97.28

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

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

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

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

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

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

    That appears to be in response to this and when read in context I don't see anything problematic. And considering that Toddst1 specifically used the term "differently abled," it indicates to me that he was attempting not to act like an abelist by characterizing the person as "disabled." Additionally—and perhaps it's the cynic in me—I just don't buy it; it seems more like case of WP:BROTHER than a legitimately disgruntled parent. None the less, it's irrelevant—having a disability does not give one license to edit WP outside of behavioral norms. Noformation Talk 18:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed your comments from the IP's page. They should go to Toddst1's page rather than be on the IP's page. I agree with Noformation...this is a case of WP:BROTHER and Toddst1's comment was a pretty tongue-in-cheek response to a pretty implausible excuse by the IP who is vandalizing. only (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If I posted them on Toddst1's page he would block me using whatever WP suits him at the time. What good can come on posting such a comment on a blocking-happy admin? Especially when there are thinly veiled people on WP:ANI who rally round such admin behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badanagram (talk • contribs) 22:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read Toddst1's comments. They are to the point, and very tactful. He/she has acted entirely appropriately, given the circumstances. There is no need for editors commenting on this complaint to cast aspersions on the veracity of the parent's claim about his/her son.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Toddy1 about Toddst1's actions—the block was appropriate, due to the disruption that the editor was causing. Epicgenius (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am glad that users with names not dissimilar to the blocking admin agree. *Awaits polemic why this isn't important* Badanagram (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see why you have to make such comments in bad faith. Epicgenius (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The simple answer would be that Wikipedia is not here to provide the support for people with special needs. There are in fact quite a number of autistic contributors on Wikipedia and they understand that they will be treated no differently to editors who do not have autism. It's one thing to be considerate of those who have special requirements but one must keep in mind that singling them out for special treatment is a form of condescending discrimination in itself. Blackmane (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur. NE Ent 19:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In WP:NOTTHERAPY there is a sentence "It is never appropriate to use the phrase "Wikipedia is not therapy" to imply that editors with mental disorders should be banned from Wikipedia because of their disabilities.". This, along with discussing patiently have not happened.
    The excuses about 'tongue-in-cheek?' I find astounding that admins think that it is appropriate to make tongue in cheek comments to a user if there is a hint of autistic behaviour who would respond negatively to it.
    I know that it is up to the admins whether to follow the letter of policy WP:WHATEVER (when defending themselves and it backs up their positions) rather than the spirit of WP:WHATEVER (when it doesn't suit them). I guess the admins and their puppets have chosen the former rather than the latter today. Give yourselves a pat on the back and bray over your 'win' Badanagram (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No patting is being done at all. The actions of Toddst1 are completely appropriate considering how children's show articles are one of the most regular test/vandalism targets and how we have several users community banned for using their disorder (or falsifying one) as a carte blanche to vandalize further. We have to be careful not to offend anyone, but not at the cost of damage to articles. Nate • (chatter) 23:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For some reason I don't see it. The admin named above decided to impose a long-term block and silence the talk page discussion. The user doesn't appear to be vandalising pages (although I accept that copy-pasting pages to the talk isn't appropriate either). If you read the comments in conjunction with the edits, do you actually believe the user is deliberately vandalising Wikipedia and using a developmental disorder as an excuse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badanagram (talk • contribs) 23:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I do; the IP was disrupting the talk page and a block was placed to avert further damage. That's standard operating procedure, and the user received plenty of warnings about it before the block was applied. Also, this edit asking for a block of Dianna suggests that the user under the 'mother' guise has been around enough to use that as a chilling threat; a new user (or one who doesn't know our procedures) wouldn't rashly ask for a block that quick. Nate • (chatter) 00:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'mother' guise is quick to ask for a block of someone who is easily identifiable as an admin 'has been around enough to use that as a chilling threat' Are you sure of this? Badanagram (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Badanagram: If the parents don't want to keep the kid off of Wikipedia, there's not really anything Wikipedia can do. By the way, Special:EmailUser doesn't work for anons, unlike what you said on the talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I found the comment extremely offensive, especially considering that we should be focusing on the content and not the personal problems of the individual. I don't blame the mother of this child for reporting Toddst1. And all this from an admin who should know better. I think that Toddst1 could have chosen his words better.--JOJ Hutton 00:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to make it clear. I am not the mother of this IP user. I am a male and would have to have fathered such a child at 15 if the users talk page is to be believed. I am just concerned how admins treat people on the autistic spectrum - especially the admins above. If there is any doubt as to whether a contributor is on the spectrum then perhaps care should be exercised instead of trying to vindicate the admin. I guess the same group of people toss motor scooter users with Hypermobility/ehlers-danlos out of their chairs when "It's obvious they can walk, why should they be treated any different" Badanagram (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for letting me know that the e-mail function doesn't work for anon IP's. I was hoping to open up a channel outside of wikipedia for the user to discuss concerns but I understand that it is the wishes of the community that this should not happen. I am forever grateful to the admins for their continued patience and 'acceptance' of those within the autistic spectrum. Badanagram (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, this function is, according to WP:EMAIL, a safety feature. "Emailing users through Wikipedia is a privacy feature that protects your email address from spam." Epicgenius (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we were to accept that the copy paste was not vandalism and just a mistake, it is certainly disruptive. That alone would be ground for a block, autism or no. Noone "wins" or "loses", by allowing disruption only WP loses. Should you be interested to see the levels of vandalism arising from a single user, I recommend some reading in WP:LOBU and look for Bambifan101.
    The other thing could be, and very likely is, that the editor behind the IP is not actually autistic but a mere troll out to get a rise. Badanagram, accusing everyone here of rallying behind the admins is not going to further your argument. As for your quote from WP:NOTTHERAPY, the IP was not blocked based on this. The IP was blocked for vandalism, which on the surface that is the case. At the very least, the block should be for disruption. Blackmane (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What kind of deliberate troll goes around copy/pasting articles? Why is the talk page being suppressed? Ostriches is my guess Badanagram (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    MascotGuy would be a better example, no? Epicgenius (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually none of the above are better examples because you are simply quoting extreme cases to justify extreme actions on a single user. Badanagram (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Addition of second RfC to Talk:Pamela Geller

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

    Edit summaries of User:200.30.223.19

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

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

    See [166] where he accuses User:Fama Clamosa of 'vandalism - and then reports it at WP:AIV [167]. Given that the accusation was clearly false (as Mark Arsten states at WP:AIV), I restored Fama Clamosa's edits - at which point CEngelbrecht accused me of "edit-warring using alternate user accounts". [168] Given that CEngelbrecht is a SPA with previous blocks for "edit warring and disruption", and "persistant block evasion", and that CEngelbrecht has a history of accusing those he disagrees with of sockpuppetry, entirely without evidence (see e.g. [169]), I think that an indefinite block is probably the appropriate course of action here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    If I may, what I see your actions doing for an extended period, is blatant censorship against the topic in question. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia of human knowledge, and you can't simply censor all illustrations away just because of personal sociology-driven distaste. Carving away any and all illustrations from the entire article wouldn't be done on a page about the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot or the Bermuda Triangle, if this divisive hypothesis was in some way comparable. If you win on this one, you'd only be pushed to further decapitate the article, because you just don't want readers to understand what it's actually about.
    Unfortunately, I find that hecklers against this idea are often more versed in the well-intended standards of something like Wikipedia, and more willing to abuse them, aparently. If I'm being penalized again simply for pursuing proper informing of a complex and divisive topic, then Wikipedia is completely pointless. Then the bullies rule here, and you'd just as soon be overrun by creationists.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    False (and patently ridiculous) accusations of sockpuppetry have little to do with article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't help that User:Fama Clamosa tossed a uw-fringe4 last warning at CEngelbrecht for what seems to be a content dispute. But I agree, CEngelbrecht should retract that accusation. --NeilN talk to me 20:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    All I see is that two user accounts alternate through edit warring. Quite convenient to avoid getting penalized. What I also see is those two users censoring this article continously through the months. 'Cause it seems insulting to them, that it can't be both factual and neutral, while confirming their personal custom thinking, that the idea in question "of course" is completely ridiculous. Therefore he/they are waiting for any chance to pick the article to pieces under any and all false pretenses. There was no reason to remove all imagery from that article, other than censorship of the type, that creationists conduct on articles of evolution. 'Cause he/they don't want to be wrong in their ill-informed assumptions.
    Am I wrong? Are you not the same? "Fama", "Andy", who are you? Who are you guys?--CEngelbrecht (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting outright lies here isn't going to do your case much good - the article history is there for everyone to see. Prior to today's revert of your improper 'vandalism' accusation, [170] I made one revert on January 2nd - of an edit which removed a word from a sentence [171], and prior to that I've not edited the article since May of last year - which would make it rather difficult for me to be 'censoring' anything. And no, I'm not Fama Clamosa - as a sockpuppet investigation would of course confirm, though I note that the last time you posted such accusations, you failed to actually do as suggested, and ask for an investigation. But of course you won't do that, as you know darn well that your ridiculous accusations of sockpuppetry are based on nothing but your own fertile imagination. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know how to report such an incident then, it's a jungle of accidentally clicking into the right page (for me, anyway). If you are indeed two different people, I'm prepared to apologize. But I have to say, I've noticed that this particular topic brings out the worst in the opposition, not the support. It's the naysayers (here and in general), that are willing to abuse any and all well-intended systems to halt proper information about this hypothesis (so why not multiple accounts to over represent personal distaste?), and prepared to distort any and all presentation, e.g. claiming that the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis somehow argues for the existence of mermaids (which it doesn't, and Animal Planet doesn't exactly help on that one). What I see here and elsewhere is that this hypothesis gets good olfashioned persecuted, like Galileo got persecuted. Not for being blatantly wrong, but for being not blatantly wrong. It seems that a range of people have a psychological need to look up the article and get confirmed their custom thinking, that it has no grounds what so ever, and a balanced non-POV presentation just can't support that. So in some odd form of panic, these types simply resort to distortion and censorship, as if it were the Catholic church towards Copernicus and Galileo. For years now, I've observed the article in question being hacked to pieces again and again, because it seems an insult to a range of personalities, that it should dare to actually list what the hubbub is about. Which I have to say reminds me of how creationists are prepared to sabotage efforts to inform people about the concepts in evolution (here and otherwise). So yes, I get a tad paranoid, and I think I have proper cause to be so. Something is terribly wrong about this idea, and it ain't the idea. --CEngelbrecht (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There's allowed to be more than one other person than you interested in the article and I'm pretty certain they are different people. I wish they had discussed the removal of all the images since I'd been discussing the removal of one of them on the talk page but neither you nor they turned up. Dmcq (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. I didn't have anything to add in that argument, so I didn't post anything. And I wasn't the one smash cutting all pictures from the article due to negative bias, even the ones illustrating con-arguments in the debate. (But pictures say too many thousand words on this one, don't they?)--CEngelbrecht (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Engelbrecht has been pushing a POV on AAH for as long as I can remember. Googling on Aquatic ape hypothesis Engelbrecht clearly indicates that Wikipedia is neither the beginning nor the end of it. A single look at the talk page archives is more than enough to see who the tendentious "censor" is. AAH is fringe and should be described as such, nothing more nothing less. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and you've been pushing your negative POV just as much for just as long, so what's the difference? And if you note my edits, I have made every effort to present the counter-argumentation on equal grounds (which is very scarse and mostly humbug). Including the two images of red deer and a horse, which you also deleted without prior debate. Which of you and me are best capable of disregarding any personal opinions for the good of a balanced encyclopedic entry?
    You're pointing out my activity on this topic, as if that should somehow weaken my case. My activity means, that I'm well-informed about the many facets of this complex AAH-debate (or lack of it many times). I'm in a perfect position to add valid information to the article, having studied the topic for upwards of two decades now. After all that time, I have to say, that this idea of humans being ancient beach apes doesn't strike me the least bit unreasonable (when you read the damn sources, and not just watch Animal Planet!). But by pointing this out, you'd might as well say, "Can you all hear? He acknowledges, that he is a heretic. He refuses to reject this, which we all know is wrong, wrong, wrong. I rest my case." Have we really not evolved any since Copernicus? --CEngelbrecht (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    IP user violating policies and now harassing me

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

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

    Just today he made is edit warring at Snakebite:

    1. diff
    2. diff

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

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

    Blocked admin meatpuppeting to block account(s) here?

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

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

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

    I don't think that there's anything wrong with someone (in this case, Russavia) contacting admins on another project (in this case English Wikipedia) to say "Hey, just a heads up...something happened on this other wiki that might be of interest to your wiki." I've done that before. I don't think it's meatpuppetry in any way to let another project know that there is sockpuppetry going on on it. only (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Nick-D&offset=20131225071310&target=Nick-D
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=589221640"