Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259

RfC of interest

Administrators and other editors here may perhaps be interested in Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#RfC about listing discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Some WP:SPI constipation

(Probably not the best metaphor (admins are laxatives?)) There are currently 45 cases listed: 28 open, 11 curequest, 3 endorsed, 3 checked. Regards, vzaak 06:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A reminder that any open cases not requiring CU can be handled by any admin willing to review the evidence presented. There are only two cases that have been endorsed by the clerks for checkuser attention, and 11 awaiting (completely underrepresented, overworked and underpaid) clerk review. That leaves the majority of the requests (22 at last count) that require admin eyes.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who works on SPI - I've decided to double your pay in recognition! Aren't I nice? ;). Ironholds (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've gotten the message that this was a bad joke. Sorry, no disrespect/offense was intended. vzaak 15:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It was a good joke, and many admins have sprung into action and helped out with the problem. I do not have any jokes. People who helped are to be thanked. Your reminder was good and you are to be thanked. That is all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Lucia Black's editing restrictions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Lucia Black has been under editing restrictions for less than a month, including an interaction ban between herself and User:ChrisGualtieri, as imposed by the community. In this short span of time, she violated it (reverting Chris directly, requesting proxy editing, discussing the content of his edits), which led to a one-week block and an additional topic ban from Ghost in the Shell (manga); she admitted she didn't mind being blocked because she got her way. This was not the first time she disregards editing restrictions.

Today, I was contacted separately by three editors, including ChrisGualtieri, that get a strong feeling that since the expiration of her block, Lucia has been systematically involving herself in topics that were previously the subject of disputes between her and Chris; since he is obviously not allowed to engage with her at the time being, this could be an attempt to use the IBAN to her advantage in "having her way" with the subjects of these disputes. Examples: Ghost in the Shell, Sailor Moon.

The last discussion was aptly summarized by User:TParis who pointed out that "There is strong opinion that Lucia Black is wearing on the community's patience.", and the situation seems to have failed to get better, even with the imposition of editing restrictions intended to minimize disruption without having to further remove Lucia from the project.

I am not sure how to proceed with this; escalating blocks don't seem like a good idea to me, a wider topic ban seems like the restrictions would become just too much to be practical, and an indef-block would no doubt be contested and discussed (so I thought discussion might as well take place beforehand...). Something needs to be done, I think, but I can't make up my mind as to what exactly, and I trust the community's judgement in reviewing & handling these matters.

(Just to make it clear, the active restrictions include forbidding Lucia from starting a new thread on an administrative noticeboard, but she's obviously allowed to respond to this if she sees fit.) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

---

All I know is that it seems she's already violated her "last chance" set up twice now with these sorts of antics. How many last chances do we give? Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It depends. For established editors (more or less equal to "people whose names you recognize"), the answer is usually "a lot". For newer people, the answer is usually "one". (That might make an interesting research topic.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that - I recognise Lucia Black's name only too well. And given the reasons I recognise it, I'm of the opinion that the last 'last chance' she was given was at least one too many. She seems incapable of contributing without creating drama and conflict, and since she's demonstrated that she isn't going to comply with restrictions the community imposes, an indefinite block would seem entirely reasonable on the face of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on, you guys. You know this website just won't be the same without everyone constantly bickering with Lucy Black over the most petty shit imaginable. Whoever else will come with stuff like keep your personal opinions to yourself, or i will save it for a time to put in ANI. it's that simple in case she's gone? Lucia Black related drama is an essential part of the Wikipedia experience. --Niemti (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Although your statement is obviously dripping with sarcasm, I agree that it highlights an important issue, which is that Lucia seems to expect drama to be the result of her actions and does nothing to avoid or minimize conflict. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I came in, ready to levy a long block for IBAN violations, but then I re-read it and realised that you were linking to an old violation as an example. Has Lucia done anything that, by itself, warrants sanctions right now? Your point about the systemic involvement may be a good reason for further sanctions, but we definitely need discussion on it. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nyttend, unless there has been something recent that has not been addressed then I really do not see what the issue is here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

A couple of users addressed me with the concerns laid out above that she was using the IBAN as a tool in disputes, and after personally reviewing the issue I was unable to decide what (if anything) should be done, which is why I'm submitting this for review, in light of the other recent violations. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Knowledgekid misunderstands me. I'm acknowledging that the review you want may be grounds for sanctions, and I'm acknowledging that there might be something recent (I've not checked either way on that); my question was purely "has there been anything specific?" Long-term patterns are sometimes disruptive when nothing individual is; most arbitration cases, for example, deal with disruptive patterns that lack specific problematic edits. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

As for requesting closing of WP:GAR, that was consensus reached in the GAR. i'm only trying to get carried out. I personally would've preferred that it just get GA pass right then and there.

I don't know why Sailor Moon is an issue, if i had any dispute with Chris in the past regarding Sailor Moon, i would've remembered, or was too petty to discuss and in the end was resolved. But taking advantage of the interaction ban? I'm only bringing up an issue that had received consensus along time ago but didn't have the means to doing it because no one was interested in it (at that time).

This is ridiculous, I've been avidly interested in Sailor Moon for a long time. I was just about to contact User:Knowledgekid87 on the issue to see if he can make sense of this when i noticed something. ChrisGualtieri private messaged Knowledgekid87 asking he could make the article into GA. Here i thought "oh crud, how was i supposed to know he got involved before i did". But i noticed he removed it, and then i thought why he needed to remove it if this was evidence enough to get me blocked forever. so i took a closer look and noticed he asked 5 hours after I got involved in the discussion and i decided to help. i dont know if he's trying to "hide" this information, but i can see why he would. Now if this is the issue of "getting my way" and taking advantage of the interaction ban, the editor was asking for help publicly in WP:ANIME in which I accepted to help on my own. Anyone from WP:ANIME can tell you that I've had my own personal interest in Sailor Moon for a very long time, practically since the time i joined.

Gaming the system would be if i did the exact same thing Chris did just now. If Chris accepted to help another editor and getting involved, but suddenly i choose to go around the discussion by bringing it up in the talkpage. So basically, WP:BOOMERANG at its finest. i have a pretty clear idea on who these editors are.

HOWEVER, if i accidentally get involved in a public discussion that was brought up by the person i was banned from interacting with through private messaging, per WP:IBAN i would prefer if you mention either one of us in the discussion so that we don't accidentally get involved in a discussion that was brought prior to it being made public. Sounds like a quick and easy way to get banned. although from now on i suppose i could look into talkpages before to double-check.Lucia Black (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

For the record I did reply to Chris here addressing the issue with some ideas: [1] which was reverted on his talkpage as "No comment" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

And even more i'm in the dark. i wish this WP:AN didn't even started. Salvidrim, you should consider analysing the situation and actually discussing it with me BEFORE bringing it in WP:AN.Lucia Black (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this is why you're banned from starting discussions at AN/ANI. You have no idea when it is or is not appropriate to start a discussion here. This was a very sensible move by Salv, and you go and try to lecture him about it. Get a clue. Sergecross73 msg me 02:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Lucia has been a member of the anime/manga project though longer than Chris has and has made constructive edits on Sailor Moon, I do not see where the dispute between her and Chris was regarding Sailor Moon. As for the request for closure in Ghost in the Shell the edits made by Lucia were before the interaction ban between her and Chris. The latest edit for a request for closure seems warrented given that over two months had gone by, in addition another editor seemed to be in agreement with this: [2] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

There also appears to be a history between Lucia and User:Verso.Sciolto from the very start that raises more questions. [3] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: WP:CLUE is all about having the better reason to move discussions along. We should focus on the real issue. Chris intended to game the system here, and with 2 other editors tried to make it look like i was trying to do that when there's nothing suggesting it. that's a serious issue, regardless if you're irritated or lost patience with me. Now, we been down this road before...but should your view on me outweigh actions of these 3 editors?Lucia Black (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I have been following the edit histories of several contributors because I’m looking for indications on how to proceed with the improvement of the Nausicaa related articles. I’ve had a conflict with Lucia Black about the Nausicaa (manga) article in the past, do not know what her intentions are for those articles and have kept an eye on her edits for that reason. I was aware of ChrisGualtieri’s edit history as well because of his edits to Nausicaa related articles but also because of his interactions with Lucia Black. There was a marked difference between the way each of them approached me and that certainly has influenced how I evaluate each of them individually. It is for this reason that I’ve read previous discussions on these pages and have on previous occasions also voiced my own opinion about Lucia Black’s, in my opinion disruptive and unnecessarily confrontational behaviour.

Before the interaction ban was enacted between Lucia Black and Chris Gualtieri, but as the discussion to implement such measures was unfolding here earlier this month the discussion had already reached a point when it was clear that corrective measures would be applied. Lucia Black nevertheless reverted several of Chris Gualtieri's edits on Ghost in the Shell related articles. While this was before a ban was imposed it seemed hardly in the spirit of trying to resolve the issue or working towards consensus to do so while a discussion of this kind was in progress.

After the interaction ban was imposed Lucia Black indicated not caring about sanctions because her edits had been the last ones and would therefore be preserved as the status quo. After Lucia Black and ChrisGualtieri had both been blocked from editing one particular segment of the contested set of Ghost in the Shell articles. ChrisGualtieri has been advised to abandon the entire set of articles and I thought it unwise for Lucia Black to get involved in any Ghost in the Shell related topic at that point. Since the underlying dispute was for the Ghost in the Shell articles in their totality it was not a topic she should have addressed in any form within two days of returning from a general editing block. That was the opinion I expressed on the Ghost in the Shell reassessment page.

When I noticed that Lucia Black had also indicated a desire to work on Sailor Moon related articles again that too seemed an unwise decision because of a dispute she had been involved in with a different editor. (That dispute did not involve ChrisGualtieir directly but involved Malkinann who disappeared shortly after mediation was initiated. Malkinann had previously been involved in editing Nausicaa related topics.)

I thought it would have been wiser for Lucia Black to select topics with a less troubled past for her return to editing. I did not comment at this point. Lucia Black followed up her initial comments on Sailor Moon by using Dragon Ball Z as an example for her intentions. At this point I questioned her decision because it seemed unwise to invoke that particular example to make a point to demonstrate the supposed necessity of either splits or merges.

The choice of example seemed unwise to me because Lucia Black was well aware that ChrisGualtieri would want to comment on the applicability of Dragon Ball Z but was restricted from doing so as a result of their mutual interaction ban. Dragon Ball Z is another topic she is well aware has been the subject of heated confrontations over the split and merges of that article - with ChrisGualtieri being one of the primary voices of those who opposed Lucia Black’s own interpretations.

If avoiding rekindling conflict is the goal why not pick a less contentious example? That was my thought and that’s why I questioned Lucia Black’s choice of topics and examples. This is what caused a few exchanges on my talk page and I left a comment on those topics on Lucia Black’s talk page.

I had also noticed that ChrisGualtieri had indicated, on Knowledgekid87’s talk page, that he was interested in editing Sailor Moon related content and that too seemed an unwise move to me given the interaction ban and Lucia Black’s earlier indication that she would like to work on Sailor Moon related articles again.

Contrary to Lucia Black's assertion I did not single her out for revenge but contacted several other editor's to alert them that the situation between the two of them might require attention to avoid reigniting the drawn out conflicts related to Ghost in the Shell in particular but also mentioned the desire expressed by both of them to work on Sailor Moon related articles. I did so because of the contentious issue of splits and merges of other manga and anime articles and because Dragon Ball Z had been mentioned by Lucia Black.

It seemed to me that the continued efforts to edit in overlapping areas would cause further conflict. I did not say that there had already been violations but I indicated that a situation was brewing with the potential for reigniting the conflicts. The status quo is untenable, imo. There is no clarity on which articles or parts of series each individual can or can not address or edit and that is the reason why I posted my messages.

Because of my own prior conflict with Lucia Black I contacted 2 editor’s for their input and disclosed my own previous conflict with Lucia Black in those messages. Sometime later I also messaged an other editor, Salvidrim, particularly after the exchanges on my talk page. [edited 2x] Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

A)The edit was done prior to the ban, so gaming the system would be reverting my edits in any fashion (and no, it was not discussed in the talkpage at all) regardless of prior to or after. Which is why i couldn't discuss in any discussion Chris was already involved in even if i was already invovled (and the same for him). It's still violation of the interaction ban. And its not a win-win situation for me either. For example, i've been intending to heavily reduce the gameplay from Ghost in the Shell (video game) but the ones i want to remove involve Chris's edits. I've consciously avoided removing them as that would be violating WP:IBAN by removing the content "he" added. So per status quo, i can't touch that specific information.

B)Chris and I were topic banned Ghost in the Shell (manga) specifically not the topic as a whole. And were to avoid any topics that have had previous disputes with him. In Ghost in the Shell (video game) there are none that were left unresolved. Also note that we were not specifically advised to avoid the entire topic. I've been editing Stand Alone Complex for quite a while without worry because Chris does not make an large contributions there. if he ever planned, i wouldn't know, but i'm free to edit other articles that i have not disputed with him. Chris more or less involved in the Ghost in the Shell film articles which i've avoided for some time, i'm in Stand Alone Complex series articles aswell and he hardly makes any edits there. the main dispute with me and Chris would have to be the franchise article and the manga article relationship as it has been the longest dispute ever (mainly due to a specific edit liking to do edit wars when he doesn't get his way). and we should both be avoiding them (not out of rules, but out of etiquette to follow further disputes).

C) I was advised to avoid articles that have had issues with Chris in the past. That does not mean you should HOUND any discussion that has had any issues in general. I brought up Dragon Ball Z as an example of how Sailor Moon fit the situation of being able to split (an issue Chris shouldn't have to begin with as he's pro-split for big series such as these). the discussion was NOT to discuss Dragon Ball Z in any way other than using it as an example as to allow a Sailor Moon (anime) article. Which means, Dragon Ball Z was not in danger of being re-merged anytime soon or being a major topic. And trying to make it look like it was cringe worthy for Chris to avoid is only falsifying information. Even if he did, i only brought up the other example to further allow a split of another article. And for the record: this was a topic long before Chris even joined Wikipedia.

D) If you construed the information here, as much as you did when you informed the other editors, especially if there's only one unbias editor that made the email, then it only shows bad on your part. (which i don't doubt the third emailer was unbias isn't because the only editor willing to follow this e-mail campaign rather than straight out would have to have had an issue with me, or some form of bias already. So right now, if you, and Chris, are the 2 out of 3. You can see why the 3rd anonymous editor isn't so hard to pick out).

Salvidrim! should've known, why couldn't you all OPENLY have asked? you see, it only shows more on you and your intentions.Lucia Black (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I contacted 3 editors independently and although the comment above is more elaborate than the e-mails were, my message to them already contained each of the topics addressed. Each of the editors can identify themselves if they see reason to do so but ChrisGualtieri was not one of the editors I contacted.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

theres so much more to say on how you construed the information, but its best to end this now. because theres nothing here. Lucia Black (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I wrote my comment on the Ghost in the Shell reassessment openly, appended an example showing that Chris Gualtieri had been advised to avoid all Ghost in the Shell articles. It seems appropriate to suggest you do the same. I also asked you openly about your choice of topics and examples on the Manga and Anime talk page regarding Sailor Moon and Dragon Ball Z. I also openly addressed your responses on my talk page. The message I left on your talk page was also posted openly. I suggested that you remove the Dragon Ball Z reference for the same reason you removed my comment from your talk page. There was no revenge motive nor was there subterfuge nor was there any collusion but I would still like clarity on the topics addressed. The status quo is untenable and my decision to contact three other editors was supposed to be preemptive. [edit]Verso.Sciolto (talk) 08:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

No such advise was given to chris. and i have the link myself to prove he was not advised to avoid all Ghost in the Shell articles. and i was not advised either. [4] this shows that Chris (and I0 were warned to avoid discussing Ghost in the Shell (manga) not the topic as a whole.

Sailor Moon is an even more ridiculous because i had no prior dispute with Chris, and this only show more on your part. Sailor Moon has nothing to do with Chris and me, which means i'm free to discuss it and edit it. IN fact, it shows how he was willing to game the system by forcing his foot into a topic i already stated i was going to be involved in. And there's no reason for me to avoid those articles. You just mentioned how you knew Malkinann in the past through Nasicaa articles and how we had disputes about sailor moon, so you already show a strong sense of Bias here by admitting the connection to Sailor Moon could also be through Malkinann NOT ChrisGualtieri.

Keep in mind, you continuously chose to discuss ChrisGualtieri in my talkpage and in urs, something you know i can't discuss about and i've warned you several times and refused to discuss it with you. So knowing full-well i was banned from even "mentioning" his name, you continued to bring him up.

Seriously, can someone just close this. Verso.Sciolto have made serious accusations based on what he believes, but theres links to show how construed his basis is. And we should just close this now.Lucia Black (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Why would we close it now? Have any of the concerns been addressed? I feel like you've only added more fuel to the fire; as soon as you actively joined the discussion, the drama/rants/wall-of-text responses flared right up again. This is the sort of crap we're trying to cut down on. Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You know, you've been commenting a lot, but you haven't addressed any of the issues i brought up. SO i don't understand where you coming from when you say the concerns haven't been addressed. you're too focused on the reaction i get rather than what i'm actually saying.

And...Chris intended to game the system, and bringing up Sailor Moon and trying to make it look like "I'm " gaming the system is a big big BIG insult. I have been editing Sailor Moon articles for a long time without any dispute with ChrisGualtieri that i know of, and trying to get me from editing so another editor can push his way in, is an insult. it really is.Lucia Black (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

But this is why Salvidrim started up this discussion though: here you are, ranting and raving about the person you're supposed to have interaction ban with. All the proof you need to show that it's not working. It's only been a week and we're already dealing with this again. Sergecross73 msg me 21:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Whoa there Serge, I'm pretty certain that it's perfectly fine for her to discuss outside the IBAN on a thread at AN about the IBAN. Preventing anyone from doing so would be completely unfair. I consider this discussion to be exempt from the IBAN; I'm not saying she's right or that her attitude is perfect, but she's only here because this discussion was started. I, for one, am glad to hear her out. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If you say so. I'm all for her defending herself, but most of her responses are seems like they're centered around going on the offensive, not defending her own actions. (Like her last comment, for example.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Section break

Doesn't the interaction ban go both ways? This particular episode all started because Chris commented on one of Lucia's edits[5]. That would be a violation of the interaction ban between Chris and Lucia. Verso.Sciolto also is not clean in this as he has been stalking my edits and implying that I've been engaged in disruptive activity because I haven't been logging into my named account, which I've already requested that the baseless sockpuppet case s/he filed be oversighted (so I won't link it here). Apparently, Verso.Sciolto is engaging in similar behavior with Lucia. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

In his next comment, he says that he thought he was allowed to report someone else breaking the interaction band due to one of the clauses in WP:IBAN, which is either correct, or a good-faith misunderstanding. That strikes me as a lot different than Lucia, who recently got blocked for a week for purposely breaking her IBAN to get her way, something she openly admitted to. Sergecross73 msg me 21:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Chris's comment is still a violation of IBAN, and if Lucia was blocked for similar actions, then the same should be for Chris. As for Verso, it's clear that they have been WP:POKING at other editors in order to cause trouble. I wouldn't doubt that Verso's comments to Lucia was an attempt to provoke Lucia into violating the IBAN from her side by getting her to comment on Chris. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:IBAN - it does literally say that he's allowed to contact an Admin if he feels the other person is breaking it. Alternatively, that is not why Lucia was blocked, she was blocked because she literally reverted one of his edits and referred to him in one of her edit summaries. Sergecross73 msg me 22:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Be that as it may, Chris's continued comments about Lucia,[6] even after warned that doing so is a violation of IBAN[7] should be more then sufficient grounds for a block. But Verso's actions at provoking Lucia into an IBAN violating should also not be ignored either. If no action is taken on Chris's comments, then no action should be taken on Lucia's comments (which doesn't even mention Chris)[8][9] either do to the attempted provocation[10][11]. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am well-within WP:BANEX to report the a suspected violation to Salvidrim. This brand new IP's appearance (today) seems to be no coincidence to Verso's opening of a sockpuppet investigation and for my support after encountering the IP-hopping editor multiple times. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

IP hoping? Do you know what a dynamic IP is? It changes every once in a while or whenever there is a service outrage (like I had earlier this week do to the winter storms). Your comments, are impaling that some sort of nefarious activity is going on simply because I've not bothered to log into the named account. But there is no policy stating that I must have a named account or that I use one so long as I don't use both accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. Also WP:BANEX only permits one notice, however you made several comments on that talk page about Lucia.

I consider Chris' post on my talkpage not to be an violation of policy per WP:BANEX. He first posted something, I wrongly considered it an IBAN violation, he pointed out his BANEX justification, I accepted his concerns as potentially valid and posted at AN for community review. That's all. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

As a side note, I request a courtesy deletion of the SPI case as it was filed under punitive intent and is being used against me (as demonstrated by Chris) in order to unfairly color my contributions. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Request it somewhere else, it's off-topic here. If anything, you deserve to be admonished for being passive-aggressively being difficult and repeatedly using "Christ" instead of "Chris" despite being asked not to. Sergecross73 msg me 01:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Passive aggressive? How have I being passive aggressive. By pointing that Verso was provoking Lucia, who didn't take the bait while Chris took it hook, line, and sinker, and is part of a pattern of behavior to stir up trouble for other users? By questioning whether there is a double standard being applied on the IBAN? And where have I've been asked "repeatedly" to not use "Christ", which is a typo BTW which I've now fixed? 24.149.117.220 (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Do a control f. There's still one that you haven't stealth-edit changed yet. Couldn't help but notice the one you just removed was done right after he just asked you to stop, which was in response to the one you haven't changed yet. Sergecross73 msg me 01:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the other one as well, so thanks for bringing that to my attention. However, I do not see anything in Chris's previous comment above, where he basically accused me of bad faith because of the SPI, where he said anything about the typo. The only reason I fixed both was because you, Sergecross73, was the one who mentioned it. And it is not a "stealth-edit" when I stated in my comment that I was fixing it. But by calling it as a "stealth-edit", you are implying that I'm engaged in disruptive behavior. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Just calling it like I see it. You did it. He asked you to stop. You did it again right away. I called you on it. You stealthily changed one instance. I called you on it. Then you admit to your stealth changes. Not sure how that makes me the bad guy, but however you'd like to twist it I suppose... Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Then you must need glasses. Both mistakes occurred before Chris even commented on them. But to his credit, he quickly realizing that the mistakes were mistakes and that complaining about it would reflect poorly on him. When an editor strikes their comments like that, we are suppose to pretend those comments didn't occurred. Also, I stated that I was correcting the first mistake.[12] But by calling it a "stealth-edit" and continuing to beet on a comment that was struck before anyone replied, it shows that you have a very strong bias in favor of Chris and probably should not be recommending actions be taken against Lucia or anyone else involved in this matter. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Chris hadn't struck the comments the last time I had read it and commented. Your complaints are a mess - you complain about that I didn't see things in the right order, then you go and make accusations that involve you not seeing the correct order of things. And how in the world would using the word "stealth-edit" in reference to you somehow shows a bias against Lucia? If anyone should be blamed for being biased or twisting words, it should be you, for coming to ludicrous conclusions like that... Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like the editor using the IP address 24.149.117.220 to address the Sock Puppet investigation in the comment section for that request. I would further like to request that the editor who now uses this IP for his editing goes to one of the venues I suggested prior to filing a request for Sock Puppet investigation (The suggested venues are the talk page of the Manual of Style or the talk page for the Mangaka article since these seem to me the right places to discuss whether or not the term Mangaka should be changed throughout Wikipedia.). Neither my interactions with Lucia Black nor my interactions with the editor using the IP address above were to solicit punitive action. It was not my intent to harass but rather to get clarity on the activities of each of these editors, extent of the underlying guidelines, policy decisions and advise from administrators. In my interactions with both these editors I have sought to correct what I considered unwise or improper behaviour and approached what I consider the right people to seek guidance on these matters. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Verso, SPI is not the place to discuss disputes, policies, or guidelines. And filing one to "force" such discussion is an abuse of process. The only reason to file an SPI case is if multiple accounts are being used to disrupt Wikipedia. But since you did not provide any evidence for disruption and it is obvious that the SPI case is baseless, there is no need for me to comment further on the specifics of the case. To an outside editor, it would appear to them that the SPI case was opened out of spite. That same spite can be implied in your agitation of Lucia by repeatedly bring up Chris's name in a matter that Chris wasn't even involved in, knowing full well of Chris's and Lucia's IBAN.

As for starting the discussion on the use of foreign terms that are not in common use in English, that is up to you and should be brought up at WT:ANIME. If you have a question about the interpretation of a certain guideline or policy, then YOU need to bring the question up on their respective talk pages. Not skulking away to a remote talk page. It is irrelevant to mangaka as to what terminology is used in other articles. Also, it is not up to me to start a discussion on something that previously had a consensus, appears to still have a consensus, and conforms with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• I object the subheading title added by 24.149.117.220.[13] Can someone make it neutral. Or collapse this as offtopic? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this anonymous IP is TheFarix is about, but let me clarify that it the ban had passed and should move on from it. I dont care who didn't got banned, who should've got banned, its over, and i just want to stop this to be closed so i can feel secure on the discussions that i'm already involved in. I've warned Verso.Sciolto that i could not discuss anything related to Chris (without even trying to make him a subject) and he brought him up again. So with that also as a factor in all this, i do find it to be a valid reason of WP:POKING, although i personally see it more as WP:HOUND. Right now though, just accusations of attempt to game the system using the IBAN, which is a stretch. I really don't see a case anymore, all i see is that more smaller points being discussed left and right, and in the end there's nothing here saying I've done anything since the 1-week block. What other points do i have to address?Lucia Black (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Since this topic involves several other editors besides myself I hereby request that the header is edited again to include their names.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Verso.Sciolto (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Lucia Black, I do not know if this anonymous IP is the Farix either. It could be but since I can't be certain I've requested that the editor using that IP places his comments on that topic in the comment section of the Sock Puppet Investigation page and I have added a remark about this sub-thread and its original title in that page myself as well.

I've originally stated my opinions more forceful than I should have and although it looks to me like I'm only one out of perhaps several dozen editors who keep an eye on your contributions, some of whom have already commented in this thread, I nevertheless want to apologise and will obviously abide by any measures deemed appropriate for any transgressions (for Poking or Hounding or any other applicable category). Since you ask, however, what other points you can address? I wonder if you could answer my original question? I don't think you have yet. Why did you choose specifically Dragon Ball Z as the example to illustrate the point you were making? It still seems to me that you could have picked from a thousand other articles to illustrate your point. I could have ignored it but I do wonder, did you not expect that someone would question you on that point given the history of that particular article? As indicated above that was one of the things which rekindled the situation for me this time.

Editor using the IP 24.149.117.220 please use the suggested venues for further comments on those topics. The Mangaka talk page is here and the Sock Puppet Investigation page is here.

General comment. I still think the Ghost in the Shell topic as a whole is in a state of limbo because it seems to me that no editor can comfortably edit across all related articles. I noted that ChrisGualtieri was advised to stay away from that entire topic and the link I provided on the Ghost in the Shell reassessment page shows that two administrators involved with settling the aftermath offered that advise to him. I would like them to acknowledge that here in due course. In that same discussion a different administrator suggested a narrower restriction. Which ChrisGualtieri acknowledged. If my use of this example was misleading I apologise for that as well and will take the consequences. I also still think there is not enough clarity on the boundaries of the overlapping spheres in which Lucia Black and ChrisGualtieri can or can not edit. I hope that gets clarified soon. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC) a typo and two links.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

In reply to comments left below in the proposal section: I did not only ask questions: My comment on the Ghost in the Shell reassessment page is here It shows that in that comment I made several suggestions as well. a. That it is closed as failed because the current situation can't be considered stability for any article related to any Ghost in the Shell topic. b. That Lucia Black recuse herself from further editing in that area. (noting that ChrisGualtieri had been advised to do the same. c. That the articles needed to be evaluated by an editor who can edit without conflict or the appearance of meat puppetry (which I stated would be hard to find). I did not write that on behalf of ChrisGualtieri nor do my suggestions there favour his position. My suggestions indicate that he too should not edit in any of those articles but that a neutral editor reassess the Ghost in the Shell topics and make changes as required since I consider the topic as a whole in limbo as a result of previous splits and merges. Some of those articles are essentially frozen because the suggestion of meat puppetry has been raised in the previous discussions, in the statements clarifying the ban enactments and in the reactions to my comments.

I asked Lucia Black a question on the Anime and Manga topic regarding her expressed intent for participating in editing Sailor Moon related topics and her choice of example to illustrate her intentions for splits or merges. When Lucia Black responded to me she did not indicate that she had been a party to the previous conflict with Malkinann over Sailor Moon requiring mediation. She noted only that an other editor [Malkinann] had been causing problems. I replied on her talk page to write that she had been one of the parties involved because in my opinion Lucia Black has the tendency to see only the activities of other editors as problematic. She did not see fault with her end of the dispute with Malkinann. An editor who disappeared shortly after a mediation attempt was initiated and has not edited since.

In the same comment I once again questioned her choice of the example - Dragon Ball Z. Lucia Black has still not responded why she did not choose a less contentious example to illustrate that point. Above in the present discussion Lucia Black did not answer why she had not picked a different example but noted, quote:
"I brought up Dragon Ball Z as an example of how Sailor Moon fit the situation of being able to split (an issue Chris shouldn't have to begin with as he's pro-split for big series such as these). the discussion was NOT to discuss Dragon Ball Z in any way other than using it as an example as to allow a Sailor Moon (anime) article. Which means, Dragon Ball Z was not in danger of being re-merged anytime soon or being a major topic. And trying to make it look like it was cringe worthy for Chris to avoid is only falsifying information. Even if he did, i only brought up the other example to further allow a split of another article. And for the record: this was a topic long before Chris even joined Wikipedia."

A reply like that is exactly why I questioned Lucia Black's choice of example. Because of their mutual interaction ban, ChrisGualtieri can neither express disagreement nor agreement with Lucia Black's interpretation of the Dragon Ball Z situation. I did not say that ChrisGualtieri had been involved in earlier disputes over Sailor Moon but have already noted that, in my opinion Lucia Black should have avoided Sailor Moon because of the situation between her and Malkinann. I suggested that it would have been wiser to avoid any article with a troubled past and choose an entirely clean topic to return to editing.

I also wrote those comments to suggest that both ChrisGualtieri and Lucia Black should be more judicious in their choice of topics. I wrote that because I had noticed that ChrisGualtieri had expressed an interest in editing Sailor Moon as well - which I thought was an unwise decision. As indicated above I made note of all these points and my own prior disputes with Lucia Black in my e-mail to two editors. I later followed up with an other e-mail to a different editor, Salvidrim!. None of these people I contacted was ChrisGualtieri or Sergecross73. [signing] Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[formatting]Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[Malkinann's name inserted]Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The flaws in your reason #1: Trying to make look like helpful advice, as a general rule Although Chris has been advised to avoid Ghost in the Shell articles, it was just normal "advice" and does not mean if he ever made an edit there, (depending on if it affects interaction ban) he will not be reprimanded for it. Same for. With that said, Ghost in the Shell (video game) is an area where neither of us have any disputes on whatsoever for me or Chris to consider WP:IBAN violations. I have been editing that article in the past without Chris asking an editor to review my edits. And thats merely because theres no controversy to Ghost in the Shell (video game).

Unlike Ghost in the Shell (manga) and Ghost in the Shell. those articles are articles that me and Chris both have issues with.

The flaws in your reason #2: Speaking for the other editors: This also goes along with the advice given, but mentioning Dragon Ball Z as an example, was merely an example. Dragon Ball Z is in no part the main discussion of wanting to split Sailor Moon (anime). and no, there's no other example that i could've thought of that allowed an adaptation to be split other than perhaps Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters although reasons why i didn't bring it up is because there was never really much of a consensus to have them split, unlike Dragon Ball Z. Which meant it could cause another discussion. But with Dragon Ball Z, the consensus was reached and it leaves less room for deviating from the main discussion.

Regardless if i referenced it in, the idea was to use Dragon Ball Z's history, not article-status. Dragon Ball Z was an anime that grabbed a lot of attention back when anime hit the mainstream, however manga did not, which is why Dragon Ball Z the anime was able to be more independent than its manga counterpart. I was only comparing the example of the too so that Sailor Moon could get its own anime article. So let me make it clear, Dragon Ball Z is not the main topic. Chris Gualtieri is free to edit that article without me getting in the way.

With that said, you trying to say that Chris was tempted to be part of the discussion doesn't matter. If he was or he wasn't, trying to make it look like Dragon Ball Z was a bait for Chris is ludicrous because it was only for one example. ANd again, Chris should have no issue with another split, and just because it was mentioned, it does not mean that i'm interfering the areas that Chris needs to be involved in. With that said, if Chris did the exact same thing. I guarantee you, you're not going to say a word. so put things in perspective.

The flaws in your reason #3: Bad-faith there's no meat-puppet here, and there's no evidence of it. and we've been warned before hand to not even try it because they will know. So why even risk it? Also, where's the meat puppet coming from? whether i asked in GAR for a close, the GAR consensus was already for closing. and WP:VG have mentioend how fed up with the GAR they are in the first place. You're entire basis is still in bad-faith. and when we question you, you revert to "i simply wanting to ask about the situation". but you weren't "just asking" you were trying to inform the other editor on the situation and you tried to do it WITH bad-faith. me on the other hand, i came in here knowing nothing on the issue at hand, until i had to do my own investigation.Lucia Black (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Since this leaves Ghost in the Shell as a whole topic in limbo I didn't think it appropriate for you to comment even on the reassessment of one part and I noted in the comment that I suggested you recuse yourself from further edits. Several editors keep an eye on Ghost in the Shell topics and would have dealt with the processes without your further input. In my opinion you should have avoided the topic altogether and picked a clean topic for your return. I did not then nor do I now solicit sanctions for your decision to edit there but will note that ChrisGualtieri could not express either agreement or disagreement with your interpretation at that point in time.

2. Thank you for answering this question. I disagree with your assertion that a less contentious alternative example could not have been found. In your response you suggested that etiquette was optional and when I asked you to change your example after informing you that ChrisGualtieri could not comment on your interpretation you didn't do so but asserted bad faith on my part and accused me of baiting you into commenting. I asked you because they seemed like bad choices to me and I explained why. It was not done to bait you or to solicit sanctions. The topic of Dragon Ball Z is intricately linked to the disputes on merges and splits involving you, ChrisGualtieri, Ryulong and a whole host of other editors. Why not avoid that altogether? Because merges and split discussions are among the most contentious topics - in my opinion - you should have picked a cleaner topic for your return and you could have picked a different example if avoiding conflict was your goal.

3. The conditions of the ban stipulate proxy editing - reverts of previous edits have been contested on those grounds and leave the topics as virtually unapproachable, imo - and as noted above several people, including yourself have now accused me of proxy editing on behalf of ChrisGualtieri. I did not choose the topics you selected for your return and I did not choose the topics ChrisGualtieri has been asking administrators and other editors about either. I could have ignored these things but I did choose to question your decisions and approached administrators as well.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

again, you're speaking for ChrisGualtieri and even if he did have issues with my edits, the IBAN is there. But keep in mind, that Ghost in the Shell (video game) is still an article that we can both edit without problem so long as i don't remove the content he's added, and vice versa. Not only that, but all my edits were in favor of the GAR. Which was only grammar issues. Like i said, I've been editing that article without problem, and even prior to the IBAN, i never received a single revert from Chris regarding that article other than one dispute that was handled quickly. Keep in mind, advice isn't enforced. Which is why we've been topic banned from Ghost in the Shell (manga) alone. not any other topic. if we do edit, we edit with discretion of the other editor like i have with Ghost in the Shell (video game).

For example: Sergecross said that so long as the other doesn't remove content that the other provided, there is no action to be done. (then again, when i stated if the other editor removed the content, he said to let it go. so it shows some fault on his part for taking such a bias approach)

I don't need to clarify Dragon Ball Z any further with you. its not the main subject, Sailor Moon is. and you're pushing your own personal ideas. this is not gaming anything. the discussing for splitting it was done years ago, before chris was involved. i only "enforced" the idea more with Dragon Ball Z as time passed since that time.

You're actually being accused of harassment more than proxy editing. and that's because of how you approached this. Rather than asking an admin "neutrally" you've done a lot of accusations, and it shows throughout this entire discussion. And in the end, Chris tried to game the system. and i wonder if you care at all. I know you don't. you've admitted in the past you have a great interest in "my" edits.Lucia Black (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't restrict my comments to you to issues involving only you and ChrisGualtieri. My comment to you regarding Sailor Moon was because of the previous disputes between you and Malkinann.

I'm being accused of harassing and also of editing on behalf of ChrisGualtieri. I've been addressing both those topics.

I have never hidden my interest in your edits. I've stated that my own comments to you this time were were voiced too strongly and have apologised for doing so but disagree that my interest in your edits is unhealthy given our shared interest in the Nausicaa articles. When I approached the administrators I disclosed my previous conflicts with you as well as the other topics mentioned above.

I did not speak on behalf of ChrisGualtieri but find it impossible to talk about these topics without mentioning him or being confronted with the previous conflicts. That has been one of the primary points. Boundaries. I've stated that I didn't edit on behalf of ChrisGualtieri and stand by that statement. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[edited - sentences added]Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is Malkinann an issue here? the editor vanished years ago, and was the only editor out there that was against the merger/split. Right now, you've extended this discussion over Sailor Moon over just using an example of Dragon Ball Z, but now you're saying that its because i've disputed with Malkinann in the past. why does that matter?

How is this relevant at all? are you just mad that i brought up the discussion and just want to make a case out of it?Lucia Black (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Malkininann vanished shortly after disputes between the two of you. I've stated my reason from the very start. I thought you made unwise choices in your selection of articles to edit and the examples you picked to illustrate a point. I questioned if it wouldn't be possible to select completely clean topics where you had not encountered any previous conflicts at all. I think I made that clear in my comment you deleted from your talk page and in my replies to you on my talk page right from the start of this. Particularly this sentence: "Are there really no other subject you can both choose to edit which don't cause potential overlap in editing spaces, discussions and commentary?" excerpted from our exchanges on my talk page.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

thats not your call, and you're only harassing me at this point.Lucia Black (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

New proposals? New blocks/bans?

And once again, these discussions have devolved into pure chaos. When will the community have enough of this? I really don't think it'll stop until something major is done. Anything short of that just leads us back to these ridiculous time-sink arguments.

I think the problem right now is the interaction ban alone seems to lend itself to "playing games". There's too much "claiming of territory" and mind games going on, where one seems to start working on something purely to keep the other away from it.

I think its been established that Lucia cannot "play nice with others". Should she be topic banned from any article that falls under the scope of WP:ANIME? This is where every single one of there spats have occurred.

I'm open to other ideas as well, but I think we need something more objectively hard-lined than this constantly changing interaction ban. Otherwise I think we're just leading down the path of either infinite bickering, or both editors getting an indef block, which would be a shame, because I don't feel they both deserve that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

There really is nothing here, other than a few editors chose to harass me. If you had enough of this, then by all means, don't get involved anymore. Not saying to kick you out, but if you don't like it, other more neutral admins can get involved. The fact that you get involved and are fed up with discussing shows just how compromised your opinion or will to listen is. and its easy to see throughout the discussion. You have not addressed a single point other than the ones the anonymous IP has brought in which weren't completely relevant. Most points were ignored because you've had a problem on how i approached it. which you're going to have to get used to if someone makes me the subject of a discussion, and quite frankly, i dont act any more different than you Serge.

Salvidrim claimed i'm trying to game the system of the IBAN by using "Sailor Moon" article, which I still find a difficult to even consider a valid point. The only thing that the anonymous IP did make a point was that this editor was harassing me by WP:HOUNDING and as much as Verso.Sciolto says that he just wanted to get an answer, i highly doubt it considering he went through the email, and he continued to bait me into talking about Chris.

look at this for what it really is. One editor misinforming others, in which somehow all made simultaneous reports to Salvidrim (doesn't that sound not even a bit suspicious if Verso.Sciolto just wanted to get some advice on the situation, yet everyone manage to find the exact same admin?) And here we are...there's no gaming the system (at least on my part considering i provided enough info that it was indeed Chris who was trying to do that, Serge, are you really going to ignore this bit of info for the 6th time?) My edits are completely of my own decision and i don't have Chris in mind except for information that he alone has added so that i don't violate the IBAN.

more restrictions, would be because other people gamed the admins for knowing how fed up they are, and how quick and easy they want the discussion to be over. and really...lets look at this objectively. What have i really done after the 1-week ban? nothing really. SO take a breather and lets look at this for what it really is.Lucia Black (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

None of that is right. The problem is that people keep coming to Admin like myself and Salvidrim, to complain about you...and most of the time their complaints are very valid. We can't just go and ignore that. The fact of the matter is, almost directly after we went through a huge discussion that lead to your interaction ban, you violated on purpose to get your way, something you admitted to yourself. Now, there are reports of you gaming the system. I'm sure you'd love it we just dropped everything and let you do whatever you want, as you've suggested above, but we can't just delude ourselves into thinking that nothing is wrong here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You haven't addressed any of the point I've made....i provided info on how Chris indeed attempted to Game the system and again. I'll just bring that up to a more neutral admin, because that is a violation, and it is clear. Keep in mind, none of what these editors have emailed Salvidrim, none of it is being made public. So i don't know what they've said specifically, i don't know what other issues are being brought up. The only think i do know is what Salvidrim himself brought up, which is the example of A) Ghost int he Shell (video game) GAR closure request (by consensus of WP:VG) and B) My involvement of Sailor Moon articles (which the fact that Chris attempted to game the system with Sailor Moon himself, shows so much more on the other editors that came up to Salvidrim and trying to make it look like i was gaming the system).

So keeping account that these editors emailed Salvidrim about Sailor Moon and presumably knowing full-well Chris was actually the one trying to game the system (not me), I'm willing to think there are editors out there playing some form of meat puppet or gang/tagteam. and this is not ludicrous idea as Verso.Sciolto admitted to emailing these editors rather than needing the only 1 admin and discussing it publicly. And saying their complaints are valid doesn't really provide much when nothing specific is being brought up, and these editors (right now its just 1 or 2) being kept anonymously. I'm willing to bet, that if they came out publicly, a form of history and bias realted to me will be obvious.Lucia Black (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

And how convenient to bother you and Salvidrim, rather any other admin out there. Yes there's something wrong, and its not me trying to game the system, but I've addressed all the accusations that came to light. And other editors have further cleared my name throughout this discussion. only one making a fuss is Verso.Sciolto (in which switches from accusations, to just wanting to get advice on the situation). At this point, you're going to have to address everything I've stated.Lucia Black (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Great, another winding, 2,000+ byte response to a question no one asked, further bogging down any real discussion. Someone alert me if a proposal is made. I'm looking for inputs from others, not arguing circles infinitely with Lucia. Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You know what...i'm going to ask another editor on the situation. because its clear you're only focused on me, despite so much proof here that there is a bigger issue than just me. does it relate to me? sure. but is it me that's being disruptive? i'll be asking another admin.Lucia Black (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Feel free...but you do realize we're currently already talking on the Administrator's Noticeboard, right? If you really want more input, then stop bogging down the discussion with these massive comments that that make it such an effort for someone catch up enough to give their input. Sergecross73 msg me 02:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No. that's not going to happen. every point i make is relevant. if you admins don't want the trouble to listen, then don't listen, but if you're not going to listen at all you might aswell not make a vote.Lucia Black (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't you see that's exactly what happens though? I mean, don't get me wrong, I believe you're typically in the wrong. But anyone who would just maybe be interested in hearing you out, probably sees all of your text, says "no thanks", and doesn't !vote. It happens all over the project. You seem to forgot that we're all volunteers, and have no obligation to read these long, winding, rehashed bickering. Sergecross73 msg me 02:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to volunteer, live up to the responsibility. if not, then don't. that means you Serge, because you've chosen to ignore a great deal of information. not just from me, but from the anonymous IP and from Knowledgekid.

Here's what you've been ignoring: Chris attempted to Game the system with Sailor Moon. How? i'll tell you how.

Knowledgekid publicly asked for help, and i have agreed to help him along with another editor Sjones23 in WP:ANIME. However, Chris about 5 hours later tries to bypass WP:ANIME discussion on sailor moon and asks Knowledgekid directly onto his talkpage. Now if any admin caught me doing something like that, they would've banned me on the spot for violating WP:IBAN.

But it gets worst. other editors made it come to light by making it look like "I'm" the one trying to game the system with that article. And it doesn't add up with Sailor Moon...because ChrisGualtieri had no involvement prior to the discussion that i came in. It really looks like a variation of WP:GANG and WP:MEAT. Verso.Sciolto for example has attempted to make me break the IBAN by discussing ChrisGualtieri more than once. And i refused to even mention that he was a topic at all and refused to discuss such an issue at all with him.

Now lets say you call all this accusations on my part WP:CONSPIRACY, but you can't ignore that there are holes on these editor's accusations. whether they intended to or not, they tried to make it look like i'm gaming the system over an article that didn't affect the IBAN at all.Lucia Black (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable. That's your response? That's your mentality? That approach has already gotten you 2 (or 3?) blocks, an interaction ban, and a ban from starting discussions at AN/ANI. Its only a matter of time before you get yourself indefinitely blocked. I only hope that ChrisG can keep himself from getting pulled into one as well. Sergecross73 msg me 03:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Am i wrong though? Did Chris bypass public discussion of Sailor Moon by to a certain editors talkpage? Did Verso.Sciolto immediately get involved after discovering that i was part of Sailor Moon discussion and tried to make it look like "I'm gaming the system" when Chris was not part of the article? Did Verso.Sciolto emailed several editors rather than asking just one specific admin? Did Verso.Sciolto attempted several times to discuss ChrisGualtieri even though i've warned him that i'm not going to discuss it with him further?

You can say "Lucia Black is unbelievable" but that makes these points WRONG? Didn't this all occur? You haven't brought up a single point Serge for why i'm wrong. all you have been doing is simply stating it. I haven't gamed the system, and theres little to no evidence here at all. All you have been saying is "editors e-mailed us, they have a valid point" but none of those points are present in this discussion. I can guarantee you if i report this to a neutral editor on what just happened (unaware of the WP:AN), some form of block WILL occur to ChrisG.

So go ahead and trivialize this. But what i've said is true, Chris indeed tried to bypass public discussion of Sailor Moon. And whats worst is editors tried to make it look like the other way around, and i'm not so sure you got these e-mails either. I'm sure Salvidrim has them, but you've been referencing them, but don't provide the backbone (their "valid points") of what they've said.

Lets be honest...i have alot to say because i'm involved. you dont have much to say at all, and there's a reason why.Lucia Black (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to add a proposal

Apart from some discussion on the last ANI (gawd how many does that make) concerning Lucia, where I supported an IBAN, I've had no other interaction in any other space with her. Given the state of things here, I can see that many editors are loath to propose the obvious choices, obvious to me any way. So, the way I see it, though I'm sure some may disagree (and I'm sure I'll get a long reply from Lucia on this, but it is what it is)

1. Taking this whole fiasco to ARBCOM OR
2. An indefinite topic ban from all articles under WP:ANIME, violations of which will incur and immediate indefinite block OR
3. an indefinite block right off the bat

Of course, these are just my views at the moment, which I may have further thoughts about, once I've had breakfast. Blackmane (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

actually this will be a short one. Can anyone here properly explain how i even "gamed the system"? Only Verso.Sciolto has provided (a very poor) discussion on it. There's no gaming the system within the IBAN. Honestly....this particular AN report perplexes me the most. And quite frankly, the reason why this hasn't been quick and simple, is because i continue to ask this. What exactly am i doing?

Nyttend didn't see anything in particular, neither did Knowledgekid, and anonymous IP has suspected foul play from Verso.Sciolto (and i agree considering how the discussion has shifted from violating IBAN to discussing a problematic article due to a retired editor). The only editors here active are Sergecross (who again, has trivialized every comment i made so far, but continues to not add reason behind it), Verso.Sciolto (who tries to reason, but does a poor job at it) and then Chrisgualtieri...(who as you see in his final comments, made every shot he could by discussing about the irrelevant past).

I know as i continue to talk (regardless if i'm right or wrong) my view weakens, but the further it gets ignored, the more i feel like it has to be addressed. so i ask again "what exactly am i doing thats gaming the IBAN?

look down in the summary of all the points provided.Lucia Black (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The comments I made, on this page, on the Anime and Manga Page, on your talk page and on my talk page, always contained references to Sailor Moon and the previous conflicts between you and Malkinann. It was among the initial reasons which prompted me to suggest that you should have chosen different topics and examples for your return to editing. The discussion here didn't shift in that direction, as far as I'm concerned that previous situation involving yourself and Malkinann was always part of this. I think my explanations here are born out by my original comments and my comment on the Ghost in the Shell reassessment page comment as I consider them to have been unwise in their choice of topics than that will hopefully be evaluated properly. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)as well. I hope my comments will be considered in the light of my own explanations and not merely from the perspective of bad faith explanations as offered by a few editors above. I don't think the anonymous IP editor gave an accurate summary of the situation, starting with an erroneous description of the timeline of events. I did not pick the topics selected by Lucia Black or ChrisGualtieri but I did elect to comment on their choices. If I was as unwise in that decision to

Orginal comment appended A subsequent edit appears to have resulted in a change of this message: "The comments I made, on this page, on the Anime and Manga Page, on your talk page and on my talk page, always contained references to Sailor Moon and the previous conflicts between you and Malkinann. It was among the initial reasons which prompted me to suggest that you should have chosen different topics and examples for your return to editing. The discussion here didn't shift in that direction, as far as I'm concerned that previous situation involving yourself and Malkinann was always part of this. I think my explanations here are born out by my original comments and my comment on the Ghost in the Shell reassessment page as well. I hope my comments will be considered in the light of my own explanations and not merely from the perspective of bad faith explanations as offered by a few editors above. I don't think the anonymous IP editor gave an accurate summary of the situation, starting with an erroneous description of the timeline of events. I did not pick the topics selected by Lucia Black or ChrisGualtieri but I did elect to comment on their choices. If I was as unwise in that decision to comment as I consider them to have been unwise in their choice of topics than that will hopefully be evaluated properly. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC) " Verso.Sciolto (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me clarify that you baited me twice to discuss Chrisgualtieri both on my talkpage and yours. Malkinann was barely a topic (on your page, not mine). And even then, I'm not breaking any rules with bringing back an old discussion (which had consensus to do). Right now, Everyone (and even Chrisgualtieri) is taking advantage of that particular article and claiming that i'm gaming the IBAN. It was very UNWISE. So you must clarify to everyone in this discussion that Sailor Moon specifically was not a subject of gaming the IBAN as others believed it to be.

As for ghost in the shell (video game), neither is that, only that Chris has been "advised" (not warned) to avoid the Ghost in the Shell topic as a whole. I have not touched Chris's contributions in that article nor have i brought up a discussion to it to tempt Chris. And that's because that specific article was never an issue between us. and i get that you want to act like it could, but in the end you're going to have to let Chrisgualtieri make his own comments. He's allowed to here, and he has not mentioned anything wrong with the actions I've done in Ghost in the Shell (video game) YET. But even so, no disputes have been done, no large-scale potentially controversial edits have been done to Ghost in the Shell (video game). And ignoring a precaution isn't gaming the IBAN. that article has always been my safe-haven at least when it comes to editing Ghost in the Shell articles (the other is Stand Alone Complex).Lucia Black (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I questioned why you picked the Dragon Ball Z example because it would - in my opinion- inevitably necessitate someone mentioning ChrisGualtieri and that example would almost inevitably prompt ChrisGualtieri's own interest in commenting on that topic. My comments on that topic were not meant to bait you but rather to question you about your choices and to persuade you to choose different topics. The conflicts between you and Malkinann required mediation which was unresolved because Malkinann disappeared. I already indicated above in a previous comment that there was no connection with ChrisGualtieri and the conflicts between you and Malkinann. My comments were not restricted to the interaction between you and ChrisGualtieri but your decisions as a whole.

I consider the Ghost in the Shell topics unwise to revisit in any form because they require an editor independent of the conflicts. Advise is given to avoid restarting conflicts. Since ChrisGualtieri had been advised to recuse himself by two administrators it seemed proper to suggest you to do the same in order for other editors to clean the aftermath. My comments were meant to be pre-emptive not bait and were not designed to solicit sanctions. You have amply clarified your position and I have attempted to clarify mine several times as well. Maybe time to give potential readers time to catch up. [indent]Verso.Sciolto (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I have not broken a single rule here. And i have no idea what the word "recuse" means. But all i will say is that i didn't break a rule here. and you shouldn't be causing trouble where it doesn't matter to. If no one is fighting, no one should. but Sailor Moon is something Chris si using as you can see in his final comments. and right now, you have to clarify to everyone that. I dont want explanations, i want you to fix the problem you caused.Lucia Black (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Recuse, the way I meant it in that comment was for you to halt all involvement in Ghost in the Shell related topics. To step down and walk away. I did not choose the topics you selected and will let others decide if I was unwise for commenting the way I did. My suggestions and question were written to prevent rekindling not cause it. (edit to add: I will repeat that I did not write any of my comments to solicit punitive sanctions.)Verso.Sciolto (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Verso.Sciolto (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You should know yourself. Because you did bring up 3 anonymous editors, and in the end your reason. And theres no reason why i should stop editing those articles, or at least the ones that Chris doesn't contribute (so long as i dont make any big controversial edits). again, i'm not going to step down, especially in articles that Chris has had no prior issue with me in. And you should advise them anyways. Because no one is listening to me. and you dont have to say its "unwise" but clarifying the issue. No one here is touching the topic. only you.Lucia Black (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Because my own motives for getting involved in this situation have become topics of the discussion I can no longer do that. Only two of the editors I contacted yesterday have not commented yet. For one of them it may be a long time, if at all, before that editor can address this. I'm sorry to be cryptic but that editor is unable to comment at the moment but I can assure you it isn't ChrisGualtieri. One other editor has not responded. Salvidrim!, as you are aware, has opened the topic on this page.

A reason for you to stop editing any of the topics mentioned would be to make a fresh start. Free from pervious histories and any and all previous conflicts. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Some fresh start, you're the cause of this. And you've caused more problems by your approach too. And no, i dont need to stop editing Ghost inthe Shell-related articles to stop. and as much as you claim you had good intentions, i cannot see it that way, when you change your reasoning left and right.Lucia Black (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• :::: What happened with my previous comment? Did something go wrong when comments were added afterwards? The signature is now in the middle of a sentence and the last sentence appears to have been scrambled. How can that be fixed? I've appended the original comment above. Can someone have a look that? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Final comment by Chris

Lucia Black is the editor who famously yelled "GIVE ME WHAT I DESERVE OR YOULL SEE ME MAKE A BIGGER SCENE OR GET OUT!!!" and "youre not going to make both sides happy. Because the only way to make one side happy is to make the other recognize their faults and apologize for them. I hate (ChrisGualtieri), and I hate (ChrisGualtieri) with a passion. I see (ChrisGualtieri)s name on my talkpage and I see red. We've all been down the WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDHT and other routes. This misdirection and bad-faith here is the same as always. There at least 5 are simultaneous discussions with past disputes that have all been started or involving Lucia since the Iban. Sailormoon and Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist/GA2 which lead to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Fullmetal Alchemist/1 were directly related to the MOSAM matter. In particular, the anime split was on our mutual suggestion and stance and the RFC filed a mere 4 days after the IBan by Lucia Black. The effect: Forced silence. Yes, I saw Knowledgekid's post, I believed it to be a response to the issues raised, but who knew that time-sensitivity with real life would result in conspiracy theories! I'm happy to stall or throw away my drafted work, it's no secret I've been holding content ready to drop an GAN since before Sven's lengthy RFC. The core issue is that Lucia is using the Iban as a shield and a weapon to force a preemptive or flawed consensus over article splitting. I am the person who committed to work and improve those examples, but am unable to interact. The choice of examples like Dragon Ball Z harken back to the very circumstances which lead to Lucia Black's first topic-ban and a one-way interaction ban. Forget your crazy conspiracies - anyone who frequents ANI will recall all the discussions related to these disputes.

Right now, this is sucking more than throwing away 40 hours worth of work. No sane individual would wade into this mess willingly, its why getting 3rd opinions, RFCs, and several Dispute Resolutions and even mediation failed. Every response begets another response from Lucia, its the WP:LASTWORD which counts, like being "right". For Lucia, conflict is a way to make other editors see it her way or are just plain "biased". The very same term Lucia used upon our first meeting just over a year ago to describe my GA review - which touched off this whole mess. I've grown a lot in the last year, enough to stick to work and my beliefs, yet not enough to overcome the misery this matter has spawned. If anything, Wikipedia is not therapy and for Lucia, the bad-faith and battleground and circular arguing over nothing serves only to wear down opposition. I've rambled on enough, myself. We may be volunteers, but we should not be expected to be gluttons for punishment. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

irrelevant, and just mid-slinging. but not that any editor cares, because to them, i deserve it.Lucia Black (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Chris, this has nothing to do with last word....this has to do with clarifying what needs to be clarified. in WP:ANI, theres no "last word". i'm only clarifying what needs to be clarified.Lucia Black (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Reasons why we should close this (for those who don't want to read walls of text, allow me to summarize)

There's a lot of accusations here, but nothing to prove action-worthy (which means the accusations are based on bad-faith and not facts). And as much as Sergecross is so dead-set into believing i'm wrong and these editors provided valid reasons, the editors he's talking about are still anonymous editors that all simultaneously e-mailed Salvidrim!. And he refuses to elaborate. Whenever i do bring up points, he acts like i provided nothing and over trivializes the points i brought up. However, not once has he denied them to be false.

Now, claiming i'm trying to "game the system" with the IBAN, is a very VERY big stretch. there are two "evidence" these editors have brought up: Sailor Moon in which Chris had no prior involvement yet he chose to force his show in even after discovering i was involved by bringing it up to the talkpage. I still at this moment cannot understand why Sailor Moon is such an issue when it comes to gaming the IBAN. And i still don't understand why these editors choose to ignore that specific situation. i'm sure you all know that is a cear attempt to game the IBAN.

The only supposed reason is by Verso.Sciolto when i provided Dragon Ball Z as an example to allow a Sailor Moon (anime). Now, although i had prior connection to Dragon Ball Z discussion (and no, i was not topic-blocked because of it. so don't believe that), I did not make the focus on Dragon Ball Z (such as i would not want to bring up Dragon Ball Z as a main discussion and try to game the system by keeping Chris uninvolved).

the next is Ghost in the Shell (video game) which i have had no real disputes with Chris in the past. The GAR consensus was to close as not GA listed. in which I've decided to help it move forward. Verso.Sciolto about previous topic-ban from Ghost in the Shell (manga) and were only advised to avoid the topic overall. But that's simply because Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell (manga) is a serious dispute that never reached consensus. Ghost in the Shell (video game) is of no concern to Chris when it comes to my edits, so long as i don't remove any content he provided (and lets face it, 80-70% of the content was provided by me).

Now i dont know what these "5" other disputes. the only one i can think of is Fullmetal Alchemist (anime) RfC, which existed prior to the IBAN. regardless this is more about how two irrelevant TV series are merged together due to previous GAR stating that the animes were two large. NOW if i'm banned from discussing it, so be it. but i just came back from my 1-week ban and haven't provided a comment since. Either way, Chris showed no interest in it prior to the IBAN (and the RfC was there for a really long time). Why he brings it up now? Probably sour grapes.

Right now i'm deeply insulted by this AN report. mostly because this allowed Chris to interact with me and just promote past discussions (keep in mind all those discussions brought up by Chris, i did in fact offered the editor a peace offering which didn't work because he still chooses to allow our perspective in editing PERSONAL. and i have the links to prove it. all you have to do is ask if relevant) but also because admins refuse to listen. and when they do listen, they over-trivialize without reason. Only a few editors actually questioned the AN report.

The only two editors that defended me was anonymous IP claiming to TheFarix, but despite being disruptive by claiming to be him (if he's not), he still provided clear points. and i don't think they should be ignored (the only time Serge decided to use reasoning) and the points i'm mainly talking about is how Verso.Sciolto attempted to harass me and intended bait me to discuss ChrisGualtieri despite being banned from having any interaction with him.

These are all just baseless discussions....i just came back from my 1-week block. I've been careful on editing or editing the contributions of the other editor. And all they have are links, but they don't provide the connection of how its Gaming the system, and when they try its a big stretch.Lucia Black (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarification of IBAN

• I think the IBAN must be clarified, otherwise we are going to have here kilobytes of irrelevant text every second week, similar to what we have now. Possible options:

1. LB and CG may not mention each other (including each other's actions) on any English Wikipedia page;
2. LB and CG may only mention each other at ANI in relation of specific incidents and may not address each other, only third parties.

Otherwise we are likely to have repetitions of the situations like above, when LB discusses CG at large, but the first reply of CG would get him blocked because of IBAN.

An alternative is to community ban both of them, but I am generally not a supporter of community bans, and will not support it here.

I request that involved parties do not edit this subsections to avoid flooding.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

What you are describing in points 1 and 2 are already what is in effect. Salvidrim just allowed to Lucia to comment this time to defend herself, but outside this discusion, we're already there. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, then may be next time restricting any defences to 500 words, like ArbCom enforcement, would be a good idea. Right now we have shit all over the place.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. Also, I think another discussion, one with the interaction in place, should occur, so Admin/others can actually discuss what to do. That was the intention from the beginning, not to open up another avenue for all this mudslinging. Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Serge don't you think that the same multiple editors that have had problems with Lucia in the past coming forward again to pin her down is a bit strange? Im not saying Lucia is innocent but I believe there is like she said more to the picture than just her. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Also seeing that some of the admin are WP:INVOLVED if this does goto WP:ARBCOM Lucia would need to be looked at by non involved admin. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing strange at all, she has a poor grasp on many policies and is terrible with working with others. It makes perfect sense really. Also, it's the opinion of uninvolved admin that enacted her various topic bans, interaction bans, etcetera, so I welcome it. Sergecross73 msg me 02:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Outside Proposal

For repeatedly wasting many volunteers precious time, for deliberately creating battlegrounds, for deliberately violating Interaction bans, the editor Lucia Black is indefinitely blocked until such time that they present an acceptable plan for how to avoid creating non-collegial editing environments/hounding/harassment that is accepted by a broad consensus of editors at the Administrators Noticeboard in a discussion to last no less than 48 hours. Should the indefinite block be successfully appealed, Lucia Black is to be under a community imposed 1-strike parole with a default back to the indefinite block or strengthening to a community ban.

1. Support as proposer I'm tired of the semi-weekly "Lucia Black disruption" threads. The Anime topic space has made it's mark at AN* multiple times in conjunction with other editors. The other disputants have put away the deadly weapons, but it appears we have one editor who needs to be firmly sanctioned. Temporary blocks have not worked in the past (as Lucia was under a block in October), interaction bans have not worked, I doubt that topic bans would work because Lucia has demonstrated that they're willing to wait for an editor to make a mistake and spring a "And here's a bunch of policy violations they've also committed" therefore it is time to block untill the level of clue improves. Hasteur (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Lucia only commented here because she was invited to defend her-self, other than that there is no proof that she has done any wrongdoing since the last time she got unblocked. Not saying she has a clean record but I do not think she needs to be sanctioned anymore for things she has already done in the past pre-recent block. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Knowledgekid87's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Support, Oppose and Neutral (Bear with me...) -- Support: because far too much time has been wasted in shitstorms surrounding this user and an indef-block, although draconian, would be a definitive solution. Oppose: because I remain unconvinced the current situation demonstrated the failure of the IBAN remedy and the user has undeniable content contributions which benefit the readers. Neutral: because I personally would rather apply an indef-block and be rid of this issue entirely, but it would be irreponsible for me to indef-block while believing the block could be justifiably overturned by another admin. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Support - Look at one of her latest post. She gives a response "for people who don't want to read a wall of text, and then proceeds to write a 4,000+ wall of text rant, once again recycling all of her WP:IDHT thoughts. I think that best encapsulates her lack of awareness and inability to stop. These weekly Lucia threads are going to continue until we stop it, because she just can't. Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Closing comments

The massive size of this whole thread makes it thoroughly useless: we've had tangent after tangent and wall of text after wall of text. We can't work with this; it's just going to go on and on and on without resolution. Either Lucia needs to be sanctioned quickly, or she needs to be told "no sanctions" quickly — letting this hang over her head isn't fair either way. As I said up above, I saw nothing instantly warranting sanctions, but I wasn't commenting on whether I thought long-term patterns of editing were good or problematic; I haven't investigated any of the claims, and I couldn't care less about how this ends up, except of course that I want to see people treated fairly and an encyclopedia being improved. With this in mind, and after getting emailed input from Salvidrim (who started this thread), I'm closing this procedurally, since just about none of it can end up in any kind of resolution. The sole exception is the outside proposal. I'm going to copy/paste the proposal and everyone's responses into a new section, where it can be discussed in reference to this long discussion but without being tied to it. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Devanampriya keeps reverting at Yoga Page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A specific version of the page was clearly agreed to on the talk page by multiple people, including well respected Joshua Jonathan. Devanampriyakeeps reverting these edits. HathaYogin (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I see two reversions over three days by Devanampriya, same as HathaYogin. I also see no attempt to discuss the matter with Devanampriya (and no notification of this thread as CLEARLY stated is required). Instead of running to tattle on someone when they do something you don't like please first try to work things out by talking with them. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It is up to Devanampriya to discuss things on the talk page. There is not a single comment by Devanampriya on the entire talk page! He is not a regular editor on the Yoga page. How can we force someone else to engage in dialogue? HathaYogin (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

And it is up to you to make an effort to resolve conflicts before seeking intervention... A friendly note on someone's talk page works wonders; talking about "forcing" people do things does not. It is quite possible that Devanampriya is not even aware of the discussion on the talk page. Please try to assume good faith about other editors. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, ThaddeusB. It's surprising that a two day old user has the sophistication to go to ANI at the drop of a hat and is suddenly supporting a "respected and senior editor" (with whom I'm in DRN for another issue as we speak). The timing is even more fortuitous considering I just asked an admin to tell said "respected and senior editor" to stop stealth editing during DRN...I suppose that's why I always preferred sandals to sox...Anyhow, I know admins are very busy, so I don't want to waste any more of your time. Good day, sir. Devanampriya (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You're out of line here, Devanampriya, with the term "stealth editing". I removed info I'd added myself, in response to Bladesmulti, with a clear edit-summary. Which can't be said of you, twice removing a {{dubious}}-tag diff diff without mentioning this in his edit-summary, and changing "Vishnu, the Vedic god of preservation" to "Vishnu, the Hindu god of preservation" diff, also without mentioning this in his edit-summary. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It's just dawning on me, that you seem to be accusing me of sock-puppetry. Now you're really out of line. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Wow Joshua, that quarter dropped slowly! :) Devanampriya, you better put your money where your mouth is. You're accusing a named account of having another registered sock--you either file an SPI, or you take it back and apologize. Or you do nothing at all and lose a bunch of respect. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I usually don't support when people make changes to main page(especially lead) and then challenge others to prove them wrong, especially when information is already established for weeks/months, and/or has sources/obviousness. Neither I support any changes made by 3 days old account for such huge articles. It is only one page, and somewhat not really controversial edit either. Don't know what is this fuss about. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• Based on the report at WP:AN3, I blocked both editors. I took a narrow view of the matter. Otherwise, I would have gotten bogged down in incredible content/conduct sniping. The report filed at SPI consists of walls of text by both "sides".--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Any reason why Devanampriya and JJ are blocked for different amounts of time? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 20:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Devanampriya was blocked before for edit warring, whereas Joshua had a clean block log. BTW, another editor (now blocked independently) brought up the issue of staleness on my talk page. I would normally not have blocked for a battle that occurred a few days ago, but both editors were making such a big deal out of their respective positions in so many forums. The report at SPI alone is enough to make you dizzy. So, I made an exception to my usual practice.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:AXiS CreepyPastas

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please check history, why other user created userpage to other user ?--Musamies (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it, the named user hasn't edited for 5 months. Probably a throwaway alt account. Ansh666 20:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, and that account is now blocked (not here to build an encyclopedia). I deleted that user page: we're not a dating site. Let's close this--all is well. Thanks Musamies, and can I just say that your user name is almost as cool as mine? Drmies (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You broke the rules! Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How To Stop Stalker Admin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just wondering how do users prevent Admins from stalking them? In particular ones with possible multiple admin accounts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 19:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, you could stop editing in a disruptive fashion requiring your account to be blocked. You could also not make unfounded and obviously frivolous accusations of socking when multiple editors and admins have informed you that your edits are disruptive. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes. admin abuse. Killiondude (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

mass csd-u1 delete request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone please csd-u1 the pages currently listed in User:NE_Ent/sandbox? (Somehow I've ended up staying longer than I expected, and have rearranged my user talk page archives into yearly). NE Ent 20:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

They're all done. This is hilarious - user popped in to make a few edits in 2006, and never left. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out if I like this place or not .... I see it was a multi admin effort; thanks to all who participated. NE Ent 22:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of image on MediaWiki:Bad image list

Hi Guys,

There's an image that's on the so-called "Bad Image List" that I want to nominate to be a featured image. The image in question (Anal_bleaching.jpg) exhibit female genitalia which some people may find objectionable, but it is a professional quality addition to wikipedia and meets the featured image criteria. As I argue on my nomination, I think this image stands head and shoulders above similarly categorized images on wikipedia. Can we allow this image to be displayed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates until the matter is properly adjudicated?

Thanks,

Greg Comlish (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's a great picture of a beautiful asshole, but it's not going on the front page if I can help it. Anyway, this is not a matter for admins, but for the FP project--though if you posted here for more exposure you were probably successful. Whether you get the response you want is a different matter. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Drmies. My intention is to go through the normal Featured Picture channel. Unfortunately my nomination is being prevented from being shown there because the image is on the "Bad Image List". The Bad Image talk page suggests that people with legitimate uses of images should first post a request to the talk page (done) and after a reasonable amount of time should follow up here at the Administrator's noticeboard. That's what I'm doing now. Lastly, I just want to clarify that not all featured pictures are displayed on the front page. Featured picture, as currently instituted, is simply a designation for professional quality images relevant to their subject matter. I don't think the image belongs on the front page, but I do think the author deserves recognition for a job well done. Greg Comlish (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• As a regular FPC editor, I'd suggest linking the image as you did here instead of having it thumbnailed (to keep the page work safe and avoid complaints). That would also bypass the bad image filter, so you don't need admin help. Yes, this picture would go nowhere near the MP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ok thanks, I'll give that a shot. I originally used a thumbnail because I was just using the template provided. I am happy to change my entry to refer to the image by link. Greg Comlish (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Range block needed again for disruptive IP

Please see WP:NPOVN#Marian Dawkins biased editors removing criticism from RS and WP:NPOVN#Marian Dawkins. An IP hopper has been editing disruptively and using edit summaries to attack other editors for some time at Pain in animals, Animal welfare and their associated talk pages as well as earlier posts to NPOVN and here[14] where a 48 hour rangeblock was imposed. See also [15]. Thanks. Um, sorry, I should learn how to do this myself but ranges scare me. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm hoping User:Kww will do this. Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It's too large of a range, and will require a filter to perform. Those take a little while to create, test, and maintain, so I'd like to see a bit more of a consensus that it's required.—Kww(talk) 16:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• All in favor: aye. I'll get my sockfarm to agree as well, Kevin. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• I also support a range block. The same person has caused disruption on animal-rights related articles too, going back many months, and has been spamming someone's PhD thesis into various articles, including articles unrelated to the topic of the thesis. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Under test.—Kww(talk) 04:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Kww, maybe you'll find some stylistic fingerprints in this rant. I'm not sure if you can capture their many grammatical errors and typos, but the numbering of Really Important Points is a giveaway. Maybe they'll change that now--that wouldn't be a bad thing. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Lucia Black proposal

Up above, there's a massive thread regarding User:Lucia Black and User:ChrisGualtieri, which has degenerated to the point that nothing can come of it. The sole exception is the "Outside proposal" section, which looks like something that might get consensus, either "yes" or "no". With this in mind, I've closed the whole thread and copy/pasted the "Outside proposal" section here, so it can be continue to be discussed without all the baggage of the existing section. Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

[begin copied comments]

For repeatedly wasting many volunteers precious time, for deliberately creating battlegrounds, for deliberately violating Interaction bans, the editor Lucia Black is indefinitely blocked until such time that they present an acceptable plan for how to avoid creating non-collegial editing environments/hounding/harassment that is accepted by a broad consensus of editors at the Administrators Noticeboard in a discussion to last no less than 48 hours. Should the indefinite block be successfully appealed, Lucia Black is to be under a community imposed 1-strike parole with a default back to the indefinite block or strengthening to a community ban.

• Support as proposer I'm tired of the semi-weekly "Lucia Black disruption" threads. The Anime topic space has made it's mark at AN* multiple times in conjunction with other editors. The other disputants have put away the deadly weapons, but it appears we have one editor who needs to be firmly sanctioned. Temporary blocks have not worked in the past (as Lucia was under a block in October), interaction bans have not worked, I doubt that topic bans would work because Lucia has demonstrated that they're willing to wait for an editor to make a mistake and spring a "And here's a bunch of policy violations they've also committed" therefore it is time to block untill the level of clue improves. Hasteur (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Lucia only commented here because she was invited to defend her-self, other than that there is no proof that she has done any wrongdoing since the last time she got unblocked. Not saying she has a clean record but I do not think she needs to be sanctioned anymore for things she has already done in the past pre-recent block. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Knowledgekid87's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support, Oppose and Neutral (Bear with me...) -- Support: because far too much time has been wasted in shitstorms surrounding this user and an indef-block, although draconian, would be a definitive solution. Oppose: because I remain unconvinced the current situation demonstrated the failure of the IBAN remedy and the user has undeniable content contributions which benefit the readers. Neutral: because I personally would rather apply an indef-block and be rid of this issue entirely, but it would be irreponsible for me to indef-block while believing the block could be justifiably overturned by another admin. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Look at one of her latest post. She gives a response "for people who don't want to read a wall of text, and then proceeds to write a 4,000+ wall of text rant, once again recycling all of her WP:IDHT thoughts. I think that best encapsulates her lack of awareness and inability to stop. These weekly Lucia threads are going to continue until we stop it, because she just can't. Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

[end copied comments]

Again there is no evidence that Lucia has done any wrongdoing since her last block. When you assume good faith it turns out as she wanted to see a GAN closed as it was it's time and her wanting to make a new start on Sailor Moon by helping to fix things up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support -- Just to think that we had finally come up with a workable solution. At this point, Lucia is wreaking havoc almost everywhere she goes. She was blocked less than 2 weeks after the new IBAN was proposed and were here yet again less than a month after the new sanctions are imposed. Note that this doesn't mean infinite, but it means until Lucia not only understands the problem with her editing, but also how she will change and what needs to happen. This is ridiculous and editors shouldn't have to put up with it. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 04:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I've converted the # characters into *, replacing numbered entries with bullets. Given the responses, the indentations, and the [copied comments] bit by me, the numbering simply wasn't working in its current format, and I'm completely unaware of any way to get it to work as desired. Nyttend (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support + Comment -- As long as this isn't a proposal for a permanent block. Comment: I would like a discussion to focus on Lucia Black's choice of topics and recommend a fresh start. A fresh start that initially, for a fixed and mutually agreed period, allows Lucia editing only articles that have no prior history of trouble involving Lucia whatsoever. If the trial period of editing unrelated topics ends successfully without new conflict [or if conflict, should one arise, is demonstrably not caused by Lucia] the scope of restrictions is narrowed to once again allow editing in some areas that saw previous conflict. To be narrowed again further as time passes. The trial period will also allow other involved editors to disengage - with either voluntary cessation of mutual interaction or enforced interaction bans, and the temporary avoidance of previously problematic topics and articles by involved editors. Right now the restrictions are too narrow, imo.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[formatting per previous and following comment]Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose + Comment I've done nothing wrong. none of the articles were problematic not controversial at this point in time, and i have not made any controversial edits. Nor have i interrupted any progress from ChrisGualtieri. I still don't understand how involving myself in Sailor Moon is gaming the IBAN if he wasn't even involved in those articles. Ghost in the Shell (video game) either because all my edits were in favor of what the GAR was asking. As much as Verso.Sciolto claims these are problematic articles, they are not. I've asked time and time again from these editors, and each one who voted support has not provided reasoning, just accusations (some completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand). And i'm not the only editor who sees this. Nyttend can't understand the problem, and neither can Knowledgekid87 and Sjones23.Lucia Black (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment -- I have changed my vote and have struck trough support, leaving only the comment portion. After re-reading the wording of the proposal I've come to the conclusion that it indicates deliberate action from Lucia Black in the present instance. I will assume good faith and since I have apparently been unable to clarify my own objection to her choice of topics and examples to her satisfaction I can not support a block. I think there are unresolved issues but possible solutions for that are addressed in my initial comment which remains in this section. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Late edit to include: and examples. I will refrain from elaborating here and at this time, but as noted before, I would like, at the very least, a -moderated- opportunity to explain my own actions. I will note that I do not support a ban for Lucia Black now. Neither did I support nor did I solicit, a ban of Lucia Black when I approached Lucia Black first and followed up by contacting three administrators.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. How disappointing to see these editors embroiled again in more drama. I'm beginning to think that the only way to solve this would be a broad topic ban plus a strict interaction ban. This has gotten silly. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ultraexactzz: The problem here is their accusations is part bad faith and part "blind" faith. they don't really know what their arguing about. And if you look carefully, you'll see Sergecross himself trying to use mostly the AN report itself more than what i'm being accused of in the first place (a constant pattern in previous AN reports). The editors and even ChrisGualtieri have used Sailor Moon as evidence of gaming the IBAN regardless of him ever being involved in such an article to even consider "gaming the IBAN".Lucia Black (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• I'd oppose' the straight out indef block off the bat but would support an indefinite topic ban on all articles related to Anime and Manga. I'd like to see at least one more try at sorting this shit out before dropping the blockhammer. Blackmane (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose No indefinitely bans, blocks, or any other sanctions should be given simply because Lucia was being baited by a third editor (Verso.Sciolto). Salvidrim! should have told Verso.Sciolto to back off and drop the subject. If that had happen, this drama wouldn't have occurred. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I object to the characterisation of my questions and suggestions to Lucia Black, posted by the editor using the IP address 24.149.117.220. Although I will refrain from elaborating here and at this time I would like, at the very least, a -moderated- opportunity to explain my actions. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per the IP's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Strikeout multiple opinion vote, you already commented above Sj - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose a ban on the circumstances presented. bd2412 T 16:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment -- At some point I would like to address a comment written in the Counter Proposal section below by Knowledgekid87. That proposal section has now been closed by the proposer, Sergecross73. I will refrain from elaborating here and at this time, but as noted before, I would like, at the very least, a -moderated- opportunity to explain my own actions. I will note that I do not support a ban for Lucia Black now. Neither did I support nor did I solicit, a ban of Lucia Black when I approached Lucia Black first and followed up by contacting three administrators.}} Verso.Sciolto (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• • I apologize I did not mean you, I meant the long running dispute between Lucia and Chris, I believe there is a way for both to occupy the same project but work on different pages. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • No need to apologise. Thank you for clarifying. I consider this settled and have struck through my comment. I agree with you. I would like to see clearly marked boundaries for each to work within. Not bans.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is that Lucia does not respect the restrictions placed on her. The obvious solution is escalating blocks, starting at 2 weeks for the next incident. This should be done without drama, because the IBAN is entirely unambiguous. Requests for unblocking should be rejected robustly. That puts the entire resolution where it should be: in Lucia's hands. If Lucia wants to edit, she can do it on the community's terms. If not, well, too bad. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @JzG: My restriction is to avoid interacting with ChrisGualtieri. since my 1-week block, i haven't done anything of the sort. However editors here are "claiming" that i'm gaming the IBAN. which is only presented by bad-faith.Lucia Black (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - You've got clear evidence that FMA was split by Baffle gab1978 on a (my) suggestion at the GAR and she knew this and made an RFC on the article within 8 hours of the IBan being enacted. Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist (anime) shows this. IBan means I cannot even post my edits or comment. Sounds like gaming to keep me out despite having a draft to drop and GAN. Yes, I was part of the SM GAR, but if Lucia wants - she can fix it - I don't want to deal with her. I already have a few other Good Article-ready pages to drop and nominate. I didn't want this to go to AN because the evidence isn't absolute and concise, but a year's worth of misery shows this won't be the "end". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• The discussion on Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist (anime) is a weak one to make, the discussion about splitting anime or keeping them into one article has been ongoing for months now. Your evidence is supported by assumptions of bad faith and nothing more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've been editing Sailor moon far before that GAR. And even then that was closed for a while. My response to another editor asking for help shouldn't justify "Gaming the IBAN".
• And whatever years of misery he claim, ChrisGualtieri has brought it on himself.Lucia Black (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Counter proposal - Lucia Topic Ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So far, it seems that consensus is that the interaction ban is not enough, but an indef block is too strong. Lets meet in the middle then, as others have suggested as well. Almost all of Lucia's prior blocks and interaction bans stem from her problems in working under the scope of WP:ANIME. I propose that she be indefinitely topic banned by anything that falls under that Wikiprojects scope, broadly construed. It will be much more concretely defined than the IBAN (which would still be in place as well), but will still allow her to contribute to the project elsewhere. (She does a lot of work on video games, for instance.)

• Support - as nominator. 14:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The majority of Lucia's contributions are related to anime, and manga. So an effectively topic band on anime and manga related topics would effectively be an indefinite ban. The only problems she had with articles under the scope of WP:ANIME has been with Chris. So a solution that minimizes the negative impact on the contributions of both should be sought. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

She is also heavily involved with WP:VG and WP:SE. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per the IP's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, an editor should not have to give up editing in a broad subject because of interaction issues over a small number of articles in that subject. bd2412 T 16:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Again I fail to see what Lucia is guilty of since her last block, so some editors came forward with what looks like something, that is bad faith right there with no concrete proof. I hope Lucia helps out on the Sailor Moon articles as she has made good edits to Wikipedia. One editor should not have to bring this all down. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel closed

An arbitration case about the behaviour of Kafziel (talk · contribs) with regards to the Articles for Creation process, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. For conduct unbecoming an administrator by failing to respond appropriately, respectfully and civilly to good faith enquiries about his administrative actions, Kafziel (talk · contribs) is desysopped and may regain the tools via a request for adminship. The user may not seek advanced positions in an alternative account unless he links such account to his Kafziel account.
2. For his battlefield mentality in areas relating to Articles for Creation, Hasteur (talk · contribs) is admonished.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 20:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Proposed community ban of accounts with an MO that suggests they are paid socks, even without proof of master

• Wiki-PR and several other paid editing groups have been community banned for quite some time. However, the SPI most relevant to Wiki-PR has been essentially shut down due to concerns of the conflation of different groups of paid editors (which has no doubt happened to some extent.) I agree that concerns about conflating different groups of paid editors are valid, and that we've certainly conflated quite a few. (Some recent discussion about particular conflation concerns can be found here.) However, when it comes down to it - I don't think it matters what sockpuppeting paid editor posted what article, it's not stuff we want. When conflation concerns are meaning that accounts that are pretty much universally agreed to be those of *some* sockpuppeting paid editor are not being addressed, it's an issue.

I want to be clear: I am not proposing a ban on paid editing, I am only proposing a mechanism to more effectively enforce community bans (such as the Wiki-PR and Alex Konankyhin bans) that are already in place, as well as deal with other undisclosed sockpuppeting paid editors who we may not have detected. Because these editing groups often share behavioral patterns no one else does I believe we can block them with a high degree of accuracy, even if we don't know who they are. I realize that theoretically this might be within admin discretion anyway, but would like to get community approval of the idea, so that it is more widely adopted. I realize the extreme unusualness of putting in to place a formal ban against an unnamed group of entities, but believe it's a worthwhile approach, especially because it addresses valid concerns about conflation. I propose the following community ban be formally adopted:

In any situation where an administrator is alerted to a user and, after analyzing their behavior, determines that in the administrator's judgment the account is operating using a pattern of behavior that makes the account very likely to be operated by someone operating multiple undisclosed accounts for financial gain, they may be indefinitely blocked. This applies whether or not the account can be directly linked to an entity covered by an existing community ban. If such a block is placed, the account shall explicitly *not* be labelled as controlled by any particular organization, but shall be treated as if under a community ban unless the block is successfully appealed. If such a block is placed, it may be appealed through any of the ordinary methods of appeal, and if, after review, it appears the user is not in fact affiliated with such a group, the account shall be unblocked and no shadow shall be held over them.

• I don't want to formally limit what modus operandi this applies to - since we know paid socking groups change tactics, it would be less effective if we codified it. However, for purposes of demonstration, summed up from the Morning277 LTA, here is one MO that I would consider blockable: a user who has a one to two sentence userpage, who, after a series of ten edits to existing articles that are marked as minor and lack edit summaries and after becoming autoconfirmed, creates a fully formed article in their sandbox that displays that the user is familiar with both Mediawiki syntax and ENWP policy. As an example account that I believe should reasonably be blocked: User:PetarrPoznic. (Please note that besides for displaying the described editing pattern, they have a behavioral link to CitizenNeutral, an account blocked by User:Dcoetzee under Wiki-PR's ban.) Is PetarrPoznic an account run by someone under an existing community ban? I can't say that with any surety. But their behavioral pattern indicates strongly that they are an experienced user running a sockpuppet to promote commercial interests, and thus, they (and similar accounts) should be blocked, even if we cannot fully untangle the web of paid editors running them - they aren't here to constructively build an encyclopedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• No. Whatever the correct response to screwing up the Morning277 SPI should be, it shouldn't be to permit blocking accounts on a mere suspicion, using whatever criteria seems to fit. But if we are going to give admins wider discrecion to block on suspicion, that's an issue which needs wider engagement. - Bilby (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocking based on a pattern of behavioral evidence is standard practice in most SPI's, which can be patrolled by any admin, isn't it? (Which is exactly what I'm trying to suggest here, except that because behavioral evidence is driven by their shared motive, we can't link people to unique groups 100%.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The behavioral evidence we've used in the past has been to block because the behavior matches that of a known editor. What you are asking for is permission to block on the far more generic criteria that the behavior simply matches editing while using a sock. That would be a problem, but combined with the choice to use undefined criteria by which to determine if the account is a problem, I can only see this leading to a large increase in incorrect blocks. There are times when we should permit such blocks, but I feel that they should be the result of cautious application of IAR and deliberation, rather than just having blanket permission for the actions. - Bilby (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

There's literally dozens of unactioned on accounts in the archives of the Morning277 SPI, and there's another batch getting ready to be archived, of which at least a couple are sockpuppets of experienced paid editors. I previously had another 50 or 60 user accounts sitting in a word doc, which is now lost somewhere after I realized the difficulties of getting blocks through on the morning277 SPI. Wiki-PR's claim of 12k clients is credible, and NF mentions below finding at least four discrete groups of paid editors socking. We need an alternative to SPI's that effectively no longer block anyone despite the fact that no one involved in the SPI's really believes that most of the accounts in question aren't paid editors socking. I feel like most admins are not going to go ahead and be blocking people left and right based on this mandate - and really it's something arguably within blocking policy as it stands anyway, since socking is highlighted as an especially blockable offense.

I'm more than up for revising the wording or mechanism involved, but we need a way to deal with socking paid editors that everyone agrees are socking paid editors, and currently we don't have one. Morning277's SPI got effectively shut down due to conflation - which is fair enough - but an alternative pathway is needed. Any admin who started handing out incorrect blocks under this left and right would get up to arbcom rapidly enough given that blocks are reviewable. As this is currently written, legitimate users who just happen to exactly mimic the behavioral patterns of socking paid editors can appeal, and a second patrolling admin can look it over and decide. I'm more than up for adding additional controls to it, but unless we want to accept the presence of huge numbers of paid sockpuppets, a mechanism to get rid of them is required. Hell, we can require a no-master block to require the separate consent of two admins if needed. Or have an SPI set up for 'Nomaster'. But *something* is needed.

If necessary, tomorrow afternoon I'll put together a list of three or four dozen user accounts that are from behavioral evidence obviously paid socks, and which I'm pretty certain you'd agree are paid socks. (I have a bunch of GLAM and edu presentations in the morning.) I'd block them myself, but given my involvement in the Wiki-PR incident, I don't feel comfortable blocking socks (wp:involved) of paid editors even if they aren't provable as Wiki-PR socks, though I do think that doing so is already within the technical wording of our blocking policy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The SPI got shot down because the SPI wasn't effective. The accounts were either completely different editors, using unrelated IPs, in different countries, (which covers most of the Wiki-PR ones) or they were being used by someone well versed in how to keep from being detected with a checkuser. So they couldn't be handled by checkuser. Couple that with often very limited behavioural evidence (editing a page that was believed to be created by a suspect account), and the sheer number of accounts being listed that were flooding the process, and SPI wasn't a viable path. - Bilby (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It was quite effective at closing the accounts of paidsock editors using behavioral patterns - it just wasn't effective at figuring out paidmaster owned them. We have more than 400 Morning277 socks bagged and tagged, and correct me if I'm wrong, but there's been a grand total of one successful appeal of a morning277 block, right? I agree with you that not being able to ID the master means that it can't be handled in the context of the SPI for morning277 effectively, but we need some way to handle this. What would you suggest? Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The language is part of the problem - you refer to socks, but they aren't. They're often new editors being paid to copy an article across. That's why SPI didn't work. The reasoning behind the decision was explained here. I didn't keep track of all the names, but a few editors were blocked by mistake. My concern is that we made mistakes using the current framework - using an much broader one, which doesn't include criteria under which it operates, risks increasing the number of errors.

The problem comes from conflating the multiple separate groups. The behavioural evidence becomes overly broad because of the different behaviours being considered. It got particularly nasty when editors who did not fit the pattern were included because of a belief that Morning277 was watching the SPI and changing his behaviour to suit. - Bilby (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Er, I don't need a link to the reasoning. I read it in multiple channels and had quite a few discussions about it at the time. I thought that closing the SPI without working to establish an alternate route was an error at the time, and frankly, still think so. I remember precisely one editor who was blocked by mistake and unblocked, but I seem to remember that being a balance of probabilities unblock and not a 100% clearcut error. Discounting socks that were blocked without categorizing them (and there were quite a few,) there were more than 400 bagged and tagged in the SPI, so even if four were in error (and normally I associate 'a few' with less than four) that's still a 1% error rate.

Meatpuppetry is a subset of our sockpuppetry policy, and I don't believe it makes sense to say that meats can't go to SPI - moreover, they're accepted in most SPI's. Yes, many blocks were of meats. Yes, there was significant conflation in the SPI and yes, it probably makes sense to approach blocks without attributing paidsock-ownership. Yes, the investigation became difficult. More than 99% of the blocks made through the SPI blocked people who deserve to be blocked. An investigation becoming difficult isn't a good reason to throw your hands in the air. Although most of my contributions were through email because for a period of time I went to school with four Wiki-PR employees, it may be worth mentioning for clarity that I've been involved with pointing out paid sockchains related to this pretty much as long as anyone except Dennis, and have been active at every stage of the investigation.

I recognize as valid the concerns that multiple people have pointed out about my original proposal, but I'd like to reiterate my original question to you: we need some way to handle this. What would you suggest? Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I've also been involved in this from the outset with Morning277, and would like to see them stopped. But I honestly don't think we can do much more than we are doing - we will need to miss accounts that can't be clearly shown to be connected, but we block those that can. I think a number of those listed by Ansh will and should be blocked, in spite of my concerns about the process, and the last big list had most of the accounts blocked as well, so it isn't as if we aren't making some impact. (If it is true that Wiki-PR aren't editing here any more, then that would be real progress as well). I do wish we could separate the two groups, but it is way too late for that to be viable.

Fundamentally, my feeling is just that your proposal is too broad - it lacks the checks needed to make it work. Personally, I just feel the we give up too much if we move to institutionalising blocking based on suspicion, especially where the criteria can't be defined. The example you gave was a valid one, might well warrant blocking, and probably will be blocked. But this risks moving to blocking accounts because they edited a suspect page, or blocking because they looked too experienced when they started editing (both reasons raised in the current list of suspected accounts). In one sense I'd like to do this too, but I don't feel comfortable with how broad it is. - Bilby (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Acting in an administrative capacity, blocking purely PR-for-money-motivated shills that create groups of socks, does not make you "involved". You can keep blocking them. The proposal language is too vague and needs streamlining. Doc talk 07:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doc - in this case I'm considering myself involved not because of purely administrative actions, but because of the fact that I've basically called a prominent person involved in a particular sockfarm nasty names in the media, and have had significant email interactions with them. I'm not sure everyone would consider me too involved to block the account I named in my initial post, but I suspect that many would. I'm totally fine with streamlining, but we need something now that the relevant SPI's are primarily shutdown. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I would argue in your case with WikiPR that since the editor is banned, "involved" does not apply to that particular case/group. "In straightforward cases (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." Screw that banned guy. Doc talk 08:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• We need to be somewhat cautious here. I will say that when running checks for various SPIs I've uncovered at least 4 discrete groups of paid editing socks. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I want to highlight the potential scariness of this comment: a sitting arbcom member and longstanding checkuser just said that he knows of at least four discrete groups of paid editing sockpuppets. And currently, we've more or less stopped blocking most of them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's time to drop the idea that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That idea was useful in the first decade, for the purpose of quickly building the encyclopedia. Now that the project has matured, it's time to require a real life identity linked to the user account. Yes, I know that very few people here will agree with me, but the problem of PR editors would be solved by such a change, so here is where I must suggest it again. Binksternet (talk) 08:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit the edit not the editor. If the edit follows rules and policies it doesn't matter who is paying for what. If it doesn't, it still doesn't matter. Britmax (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That approach is based on the assumption that good editors are a dime-a-dozen, when in fact POV pushers and promotional exploiters vastly outnumber good editors. Also, the dice are loaded against good editors—a paid PR flack can quickly add fluff with dubious refs, while a good editor might have to work for two hours to replace the gumph with something neutral and encyclopedic, only to be reverted next day. PR flacks don't care about edit warring or being blocked—they have no long-term commitment to the project and can create another account to get their next pay check on another article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm - unfortunately - agreeing with JohnUniq on this one. AGF works only when a good chunk of people are actually acting in good faith. When a huge chunk of people are not only acting in bad faith, but are motivated by $2,000 a pop to keep their edit in place any way they can, it's critically difficult to deal with them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this is quite reasonable. I think it would be good to use a specific block notice and make a streamlined appeal process available. But yes, behavioral evidence is and always has been enough for a block. That we don't know for certain who the paymaster is isn't a good reason to not block. We do want to watch for getting too many false positives. 1%, in my mind, is acceptable here. Hobit (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a specific block notice would be a good idea that lays out what I outlined in my OP without being accusatory - basically, that their behavior matches that of many banned paidsock masters, that because of the potential for damage to the encyclopedia, we've decided to air on the side of caution and block accounts that display such a pattern, and that politely requests that if they are here for different reasons, they briefly explain why. What did you have in mind for a streamlined appeal process? Since blocked users cannot post anywhere but their own talk pages, I was thinking the standard unblock template would be okay. An alternative unblock template that automatically categorizes them and transcludes their unblock requests to a centralized location or something like that might be a good idea though (but I haven't thought through alternatives, and am genuinely curious to hear what you were thinking of.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• So, I started the most recent SPI after the CitizenNeutral thing, looking at the history of pages that were listed by Dcotetzee in his block reasoning and listing out any suspicious editors. I apologize for not doing enough research on the batch; it was late and I shouldn't have been doing it at that time. The reason that I filed them under Morning277 is that there is literally no other place to go with them. I did see several that clearly fit the Wiki-PR mold (PetarrPoznic, Princessoftides, possibly others I don't remember) and assumed the rest that I'd spotted were similar; the editors that have commented do seem to agree that most are promotional accounts, but nobody can say whether they're part of a large company like Wiki-PR or individual editors or something else. I think this in general is a reasonable proposal, though it does need to be fleshed out - I'd suggest, in addition to what Hobit says above, a specialized page, whether standalone or on SPI, where they can be reported but not tied to a certain "sockmaster". Ansh666 20:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem was not that you included some genuinely likely and possible accounts - the problem was that you also included editors which didn't show anything to suggest that they were Wiki-PR accounts, and one case definitely wasn't one. - Bilby (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

@Bilby: That is exactly what I was trying to say, and what I apologized for. Thanks for putting it in simpler terms!... Ansh666 01:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as written A pattern is not sufficient proof for a ban. Banning on mere suspicion is bad for the encyclopedia and against policy (not to mention all that Wikipedia stands for). There needs to be a centralized page where possible PR socks can be reported, but this proposal is not the answer. Not every PR editor fits into a mold, and not every good faith editor fails to fit into this mold either. KonveyorBelt 20:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Streamlining the process is a simple application of WP:NOTHERE coupled with the common sense admission that the community cannot take two days to debate every throw-away account that just happens to start adding promotional gumph. Johnuniq (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Which is why we need to have a streamlined area similar to AIV. Report PR editors, get 'em blocked. KonveyorBelt 22:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If you're opposing as written but agree that something needs to be done, please propose an alternative in slightly more detail as a subsection of this section. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Alternate Proposal: A separate and Dedicated noticeboard for reporting suspected PR socks

My initial idea is an AIV type place where suspected PR socks could be reported. There would be no requirement for anything, but a example of what constistutes a PR soc is described above as

a user who has a one to two sentence userpage, who, after a series of ten edits to existing articles that are marked as minor and lack edit summaries and after becoming autoconfirmed, creates a fully formed article in their sandbox that displays that the user is familiar with both Mediawiki syntax and ENWP policy.

But there would be a certain protocol for is and isn't allowed. By PR socks I mean accounts obviously working as part of a network of socks, sometimes with no one sockmaster because there is no main account. This would not include editors that are not throwaway accounts, even if they have a COI. That would have to be discussed at ANI.

This noticeboard is being proposed so that at least multiple sets of eyes can assess it, which would lead to less wrongful blocks , as well as providing a centralized area to hold larger discussions about sets of socks, such as the WikiExperts block discussions. KonveyorBelt 00:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Herlyn Blanco and User:Annable Rubino and User:Annaliza Febrero

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Created with same format to person articles, please check--Musamies (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPI? ES&L 11:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

All blocked along with four other accounts and pages deleted. I'm not sure who this is, but there are numerous related accounts stretching back to mid-November at least. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:RfA reform (continued)

Hey guys, I don't know where else to talk about this since it's not a policy or guideline or anything major like that, but has the RFA reform project gone inactive yet, and should I tag it with the {{historical}} template? I was about to start a thread or RFC myself on setting some standards for adminship like minimum 1000 total edits or some such until I noticed that this page was listed at WP:PEREN on how to possibly reform the process. In light of this new information, my RFC would probably have failed as another attempt to restart a PEREN proposal. Sad face. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 10:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

RFA reform is perennial. I wouldn't tag anything as inactive, and please do not try and suggest minimums ES&L 10:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Any prospects for rational reform of the admin system has long been terminally dead. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)

As RfA/Adminship reform is permanently under discussion (most especially at WT:RfA), and as Wikipedia:RfA reform (continued) is the one single largest respository of research data on the topic, I do not think it would be appropriate to mark it as historical; it's made up of numerous sub pages which do occasionally still receive comments. Indeed, there are a great deal of facts in it than can be drawn upon when launching new RfCs. That said, minimum criteria for candidacy do not appear to be the major problem. if anything, although perhaps not in the majority, there is a significant number of commentators who suggest that the current criteria applied by !voters may be setting the bar too high. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I wasn't aware of any active subpages that still had incoming comments and were still gathering data. Guess I should have checked more thoroughly. Could you point some links to them by any chance? Some of the information there may prove enlightening yet about the current state of RFA. While it's true that some of the arbitrary requirements and criteria are due more to the voters' reasonings than to the candidates' eligibility, the purpose of the original proposal I would have planned out was that, despite my disagreements on whether there should be any minimums at all, the fact of the matter remains these arbitrary minimums do exist based on certain !voter standards. It's not our job to determine what should be current practice at RFA, but to document what is (prescriptivist vs descriptivist) and based on the activity of such voters at RFA I think it would be wise to advise potential RFA applicants what the arguments of some of their opposers are going to look like. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 11:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Those already are described - there's multiple "advice for potential candidates" pages ES&L 11:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

But not on Wikipedia:Administrators. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 11:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't belong on that page, based on the topic. It's about potential admins, not processes for current admins ES&L 11:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But there is at WP:RFAADVICE which has become, I believe, a major reference although it's 'only' an essay, but it's linked to from around 200 other places.. Efforts made by a few of us have seemed to successfully stemmed the tide of totally inappropriate candidacies, although on rare occasions nowadays, one or two slip through. They are generally nipped early in the bud however, to save the candidate too much embarrassment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe having this discussion in too many different places has kept it from coalescing. Maybe we should pick one place and refer everything to there. North8000 (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:RFAADVICE is the most comprehensive single source of information for prospective candidates. Perhaps it should be promoted to 'Guide'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. Where to put the proposal though? And it should probably be linked to Wikipedia:Administrators and vice versa, probably in the See Also section. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 07:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Article previously deleted?

Was this article previously deleted? It was recreated a few minutes ago, and as I can remember, I saw it being created a few hours ago. --BiH (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

yep as a G11 --Jnorton7558 (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPER

Hi all, WP:SPER has a backlog of close to 100 requests. If everyone here can do just 1 each, this should be gone in under 12 hours. Many of these are simple to answer; just use {{ESp}} to answer.

Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 15:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Crashsnake

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I am looking for input on what to do with User:Crashsnake. I have seen his name pop up a lot both on my watchlist, and in other places. A perusal of his talk page going back over three years, many editors have tried to reach out to him to get his attention and try to communicate with him. He does not respond on his talk page, and rarely leaves edit summaries. I am concerned that we have a basic competence issue with this user , who is apparently often described as disruptive and engages in edit warring.

I considered starting a user RFC to bring up these issues, but this user's particular non-communicativeness makes me concerned that such a thing would be pointless. Reviewing his contributions list on user talk pages (with none on his own page), article talk pages, Wikipedia pages and Wikipedia talk pages reveals fewer than 10 total edits between those spaces in over a 3 year span. While a user is not required to communicate in any of these venues, it is important to respond to people when they bring issues to your attention, and the fact that he has used these at all tells me that he does know how to use them, so the only conclusion I can come to is that he chooses not to communicate with other editors.

His block log reveals that he has been blocked twice by J Greb and once by Nightscream, both of whom made multiple efforts to reach out to him before blocking him. Spidey104 has also made quite a bit of effort to reach out to him, again with no response. What, if anything, can be done to get this user to communicate with other editors rather than shutting everyone else out and going back to the same behaviors to get his way? If there is nothing that can be done, should we consider a topic ban or more serious measures? BOZ (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Given that they're not responding in any way, a topic ban is largely meaningless. A wake up block might be necessary. Blackmane (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that he has had three "wake up blocks" already – one just two months ago – which failed to catch his attention. Since, as far as I can tell, his editing is limited to articles about comic book related topics (characters, movies based on comics, etc.), topic banning him from comic-related articles would definitely catch his attention. If and when he is able prove to the community that he is here to work collaboratively, the topic ban could be lifted. If he just decides to "become someone else's problem" by moving on to another subject area and exhibiting the same behavior there, then he would likely face an altogether ban. Please tell me if I am going about this all the wrong way. BOZ (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Topic bans are not a valid solution for anything. All they do is shift the problem from one group of editors to another. My feeling is, if an editor is causing problems on a persistent, ongoing basis, and refuses to acknowledge warnings, then he/she should be blocked, indefinitely, until he/she responds. Period. Nightscream (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Real nice suggestions. You guys make it sound like the "persistent, ongoing problems" I cause are edits that are completely irrelevant any said page that I've edited. I mean the way you all talk about me makes it sound like I make edits that are completely repetitive (or even inappropriate). Crashsnake 10:50, 21 January 2014

They are. Nightscream (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@Crashsnake: Communication is vital in any collaborative editing atmosphere. A quick glance at your talk page tells me perhaps wikis aren't a good fit for you. -- œ^™ 13:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, Crashsnake, although it is unfortunate that it took a ban discussion to get a response from you, but perhaps this can be a good starting-over point for you? While we have your attention, would you please explain why you usually do not respond to other editors when they bring up concerns on your talk page, and why you do not usually use edit summaries on your edits? BOZ (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

One of the main problems with your edits, Crashsnake, is that you make large changes in one edit without any explanation in the edit summary. Because you have a history of edit warring or making bad edits it is hard for other editors to assume good faith without an explanation of what you have done, especially when you remove large portions of articles. I will admit that some of your edits are helpful, but the unexplained changes, large removals, and no response to questions far outweighs those helpful edits. The point of this discussion is to stop all of the negatives and increase all of the positives of your editing. Do not take this as a personal attack, but as our last resort to help you so you do not have to be blocked. Spidey104 19:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Crashsnake made a two line comment three days ago and he has not done anything to change his behavior. Obviously he is aware of this discussion because he posted that comment, but clearly he doesn't care if he is doing nothing to change his behavior. I was hoping we could change his behavior without a block, but I think he's shown that he won't change his behavior without some sort of repercussion to show him he needs to change. Unfortunately I think we need to block him to get his attention and hopefully he will fix his behavior after the block expires. Spidey104 14:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping to address this today as well. Yes, Crashsnake's brief response above was more than we ever see from him, but it does nothing to address any of the criticisms laid out here and elsewhere, nor does it even attempt to suggest that he may be willing to implement any changes. I may assume good faith that an editor is willing to change if they at least make an attempt or promise to do so, but I see nothing like that here. He continues to not use edit summaries, and although I have not checked for any further edit warring, I see no reason to think that will simply change on its own either. I think it's clear from responses above that my earlier suggestion of a topic ban has no traction. The question I must pose, then, is do we think another block will do any good, or should we have a discussion on whether the community would place a ban on him? If a block is the solution, it should be more than just a few days, which will expire and then he can just go back to business as usual; I would suggest an indefinite block in that case, with the proviso that if he can demonstrate a willingness to collaborate with his fellow editors on an ongoing basis that he be unblocked at that point. BOZ (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm in support of an indef block. This kind of smug attitude of indifference to the community is simply rude and uncivil. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. -- œ^™ 16:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough - I think we have enough to move forward with such a proposal. I'm not sure if I should include something about mentorship as an option for a return. BOZ (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for indefinite block/ban

I propose that, based on the discussion above, Crashsnake (talk · contribs) be indefinitely blocked (or alternately, banned) by the community until such a time that he can demonstrate a willingness to collaborate with his fellow editors on an ongoing basis. If you wish to oppose this measure, please suggest an alternative approach which you believe would be effective to encourage the user to improve his approach. BOZ (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite block, as proposer. BOZ (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite block per BOZ's reasonings. Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per BOZ's reasonings. An indefinite block seems to be the only way to start making progress, because as Nightscream said, a ban would only push this issue onto another group of editors, if he chose to edit elsewhere. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per above. Nightscream (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I am all for blocking him, but I think we are moving too quickly by jumping all of the way to an indefinite block. His previous blocks have only been for two weeks or less. I think we should take a larger step up from two weeks than a month, but I don't think we should jump to indefinite. I think blocks could fix his behavior. I recently went from this to this with another editor who seemed to have no intention of changing his behavior because of a block. Spidey104 03:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Spidey, you may have run into the exception that confirms the rule. The idea with an indefinite block like this is typically that at some point the editor kind of gets it and has to make an effort to get the block undone, not just wait it out. Indefinite is not infinite, that's the rationale. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Right, that is what I was thinking - it puts the onus on Crashsnake to decide that he wants to improve his approach, which is what I am saying in my proposal. I also thought about suggesting that accepting a mentorship would be a good way to demonstrate good faith on his part. Indefinite could mean that he thinks about it for a few days and bites, or he could say never mind and remain uncommunicative and stay blocked for however long. Indefinite just means that there is no specified duration - could be days, weeks, months, years, or continually. BOZ (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• Query What is this "willingness to collaborate" going to look like? Too often these blocks turn into a demands for groveling and penance. I'm not saying nothing should be done; I'm saying I'd like to see specific things we want from Crashsnake to allow them to continue to contribute to Wikipedia (that's the goal, right?) NE Ent 04:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I suppose that is entirely subjective... I imagine the answer you are looking for would have to be up to whatever admin would be unwilling to unblock him. BOZ (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef block per discussion above. -- œ^™ 07:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block - œ™ is absolutely correct in saying that "Communication is vital in any collaborative editing atmosphere." An editor who is perfect in every other way might just barely get by without communication but I can't imagine such a scenario. And as Drmies says, indefinite is not infinite. Dougweller (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Joefromrandb

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have been holding an editing discussion with User:Joefromrandb on the article Joe E. Ross. The entire discussion can be viewed on the article's talk page. When an established uninvolved editor came in and gave their opinion on the matter, Joefromrandb attacked the person, stating "I had little doubt someone would have the admin's back sooner or later. I guess I'll have to sort through this pile of shit piece-by-piece to find out how much, if any, of it is actually true. Congratulations, the both of you." [16] When the editor defended giving their opinion, Joefromrandb stated "I'm wrong? Perhaps you can show me just where the fuck I'm wrong." [17] When I told Joefromrandb to stop the personal attacks, he said "Do I need to stop beating my wife, too?" [18]

It turns out that Joefromrandb has already been blocked six times in recent months for disruptive editing and personal attacks. In addition, he had been the subject of a number of admin noticeboard discussions, including this one from earlier this month. Based on this history I would have immediately blocked Joefromrandb. However, as an admin involved in an editing discussion with him, I will not do so. I hope other uninvolved admins will examine this case and decide what to do.

I don't have an issue with edit disputes or even losing your cool once in a while. But attacking editors who are merely expressing their opinion is not something we should tolerate, especially when the user has a long history of doing this.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You could have just told the truth and said I've been blocked five times over the course of more than a year. The gist of your argument would have been the same. How, exactly, does fudging the numbers benefit anyone? Joefromrandb (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. I should have said you were blocked four times in the last few months, and 6 times in the last year. But adjusting the time frame doesn't change the pattern I'm seeing here.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

That would have also been untrue. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, how many more times will Joefromrandb have to be brought before AN/ANI before the community finally agrees on an indef block? GiantSnowman 14:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable. What an incredibly fallacious argument. Honestly, it's scary that you're an admin. You should be required to understand logical fallacies before being allowed to use your admin tools. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

But it's not. This an editor with well known problems. I've lost count of how many times his conduct has been raised at the drama boards, and there's of course his recent RFC. Oh, and if you think you can do a better job than me/us, WP:RFA is thataway... GiantSnowman 12:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Again with the same fallacies? I don't care how many times he's been brought here, as that has no bearing on his guilt or innocence. And having been the subject of a bogus RFC myself, that again has no bearing on this thread. Your entire "if there's smoke, there's fire" line of reasoning is fallacious, and editors who rely on it tend to misuse it, such as filing AN/ANI/RFC's against users who they don't like. You can have your precious RFA. You know what to do with it. I don't believe it is improving Wikipedia, and one doesn't need it to edit. Viriditas (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Not to comment about editor behavior, but that article obviously and currently has some weight and accuracy issues. I can already see a quote that's attributed to the subject in the article, that another source attributes to someone talking about the subject. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

And that's why we're holding an edit discussion. But when other editors join in the discussion, and are immediately attacked for their opinion, that has a chilling effect on the ability to reach editorial consensus.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's my general recommendation in cases that are about editor interaction rather than article content, misuse of tools, or an editor who simply has an uncontrolled combative personality (I'm not seeing any of these in the complaint above - the 5 blocks I can see are spaced far enough apart that "combative personality" probably doesn't apply): IF it's clear that the accusation is just AND the accused realized he did something he shouldn't have AND he apologizes, then nothing more needs to be done. If the accusation is just but the accused doesn't want to apologize or refused to admit there is a problem, a temporary "until you see the folly of your ways" interaction ban, page-ban, or broader ban (but no broader than necessary) may be in order. I would hope that "temporary" would be measured in hours or days not longer. Basically, I'm looking for reconciliation and restoration of good editor-editor relationships so that we all can get back to building the encyclopedia, together. Of course, if it's not clear that the accusation is just then none of the above apply. If the accusation is clearly malicious then the whole thing turns on its head. By the way, this is a general statement. I have not read the diffs so I do not know if it is specifically applicable to this situation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the linked discussion and at the merits of the allegations being made against the named editor. I see an editor understandably frustrated at having to wade through poorly sourced negative material while editors and admins who should know better attack the messenger. Eventually people like Joefromrandb will be run off while the encyclopedia is filled to the brim with civil POV pushers slapping each other on the back. As usual, the priorities are backwards. You can be civil all you want and it won't change the underlying problem. Joe's curt responses and impatience are the symptom of the problem, which is not being addressed. Bringing up the fact that he's been blocked before proves nothing. Viriditas (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Has anyone looked at Joefromrandb's recent edits to Joe E. Ross? Here is a sample:
  • Remove "Ross's personal life was as noisy and troubled as his screen characters." diff
  • Correct spelling of "Oo!" to "Ooh!". diff
  • Remove gossip attack section, sourced to a blog. diff

  Joefromrandb may be overly blunt, but at least he seems to understand what should be in an article. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

All those edits you mention are perfectly fine and should have been made. And as I mentioned, I have no problem with the edit discussion, or changes to the article, which are indeed being made and, it appears, consensus now being reached on the article. But Joefromrandb was not being too blunt--he attacked an editor who joined the discussion. This is a pattern which he seems to repeat over and over. This isn't POV pushing. This is about an editor attacking other editors and having a history of doing so.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I personally think Wikipedia would be better off if joe was less combative and less profane; I full listing of how I think WP could be better would be seriously tl;dr, so my opinion isn't terribly important. What is important if we remove all the imperfect there'd be no one left to, you know, write content. alf laylah wa laylah did not "defend themselves" so much as counterattacked with [19] snark "That must be a comfort to you." I'm not really interested in trying to sort out the relative merits of the slung mud.
What I'd like to see in the next AN / ANI / RFCU on Joe is examples where the other editors involved were being 100% compliant with with guidelines on content and conduct and Joe just teed off of them out of the blue. Until that happens, I encourage other editors just to ignore his snarky ad hominem and stay focused on the content discussion. NE Ent 14:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You're not likely to ever see that, because: A.) I've made it a point to apologize in the rare cases that I've been a dick without cause, and B.) Because the c-pushers of this site will never behave in the manner you described. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

But, um, joe ... you're never allowed to be (as you say) "a dick" either with or without cause. So, if you temper that, you'll never need to apologize. Besides, apologies after the fact are not "get out of jail free" cards. Discretion is the greater part of valour :-) ES&L 11:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Just couldn't resist, huh? "Never need to apologize"? So you think moral perfection should be required to edit Wikipedia? What if I told a user to "grow the fuck up"? Should I apologize, or simply edit from an alternate account? Or if enough users were pissed off at me to have a potential Arbcom case hanging over my head? Apologize, or switch accounts? Talk about a "get out of jail free card"! Joefromrandb (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, nice. If false and out-of-context statements is your response when someone comes to your aid as often as I have, and when my statement above is clearly an attempt to support you positively ... I'd hate to review your edits when you're in some kind of passionate editing dispute. Wow. ES&L 15:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If that was "an attempt to help me positively" then I misunderstood it. All I saw was a straw-man. I made a simple statement that I have apologized in the rare cases I have been a dick without cause. I think most reasonable people would agree that that is the right thing to do. Your response was that I'm "not allowed to be a dick" and "apology is not a 'get out of jail free card'". I never said any such thing; you were arguing against a position that I have never, ever held. By beginning your sentence with the word "but", you indicated that you were countering my statement, but my statement in no way supported the position you attacked. As far as my statements being "false and out-of-context", they were in no way whatsoever false, and I wish you would strike that. Out of context? Yes, quite. I was building my own straw-man to show you how yours looked to me. We apparently misunderstood each other. Not too hard to do in this environment, as your eponymous panda illustrates. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

FFS, can someone close this discussion? I'm the putatively attacked editor. I didn't feel attacked. Joefromrandb is combative, sure, but he's constructive and writes and debates content. That's what we're here for. We worked it all out on the talk page and what do you know, he was right and I was wrong and nothing got broken and the article's in better shape than it was.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Joefromrandb (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)شكر

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Issues with Derailing of Merger Discussion at Duke of Edinburgh's Award

Page at Issue: Talk: DofE Award Merger Proposal

Background: An editor, Murry1975, relocated my comments in a merger discussion ([[20]]). I moved them back. He then undid my move with the edit comment "where it fucking was in the first place." I again moved my comments back.

A second editor, Mabuska, then arrived and chastized the first editor - Murry1975 - for moving my comments. Exasperated that the merger discussion was being derailed, I thanked Murry1975 for his support but politely asked him to keep his comments to the topic of the thread and not "refight the last 800 years of Irish history" as the two editors appear to be on different sides of that dispute based on their userboxes and I could see where this was rapidly heading once Mabuska cautioned Murry1975 he "shouldn't have moved them."

Issues: At this point Mabuska essentially began "unloading" on me. He dug through the last week of my edits and began linking to a comment I made in a completely separate discussion on an unrelated high-profile article Talk that had become heated. He used the AGF tag on my talk page to post a "baiting" comment. When I made a firm, but polite, request he stop posting on my Talk page, he simply continued to post on it. In the Talk section of the original article he savaged me with "I feel like cursing at you too considering the absolute bullshit you are coming out with" ([[21]]) in reference to my position statement on the merger proposal. When I politely asked him to indent his comments so they were properly threaded he shot back with "oh wait is this better your Indentedness." ([[22]]) He teased me as "antagonizing" in response to my request he stop using four-letter words in a merger discussion. ([[23]])

Conclusion: A simple two-article merger proposal has essentially been derailed due to this editor's sudden and inexplicable rage. I want to AGF but, frankly, it's rather hard to do so in light of the above laundry list of foul language and sarcasm and the more serious issue that the entire merger discussion is now essentially void since it's been overrun with this extremely aberrant behavior that seemed to explode out of nowhere. Through it all I have been extremely firm but demure in my comments, never using foul language and never yelling at Mabuska and Murry1975, even as the situation spiraled out of control, as a review of the discussion will demonstrate. At this point I think the situation can only be resolved by Admin intervention. I take this action reluctantly as I have never requested an ANI on another editor in my 3 years on WP. I have posted it here instead of Incidents because I don't want to generally see Mabuska be sanctioned as I don't know if this is endemic behavior as I've never interacted with him before, I'm just hoping some temporary control (e.g. temporary topic block) on the Talk page can be applied until the merger discussion can conclude. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming you posted this as I said I would post an RFCC on me, you, and Murry1975 to see what they made of the behaviour? Regardless I will post a response seeing as you have started this for me:

• First of all in regards to the Duke of Edinburgh talk page, BlueSalix and Murry1975 got into a tizz with each other over the placement of comments and the forced moving of them.
• I came across the page when I noticed this warning given by BlueSalix to Murry1975 on Murry1975s talk page, which I am long term stalker of it as me and Murry collaborate a lot on Ireland related articles.
• I noticed this remark "You're creating an extreme amount of confusion in this Talk section, with the apparent intent of derailing the discussion to avoid this merger" directed by BlueSalix at Murry1975. I know Murry1975s edit style and never once can I say that this accusation stands to scrutiny and is a blatant personal attack because BlueSalix isn't getting their way.
• Thus I gave my view on the proposal and highlighted that BlueSalix's false claim against Murry1975 was not the first such false accusation they have made. This prior false accusation is this, and whilst I don't know whether it was aimed at me or User:Kahastok, it was uncalled for and unneeded and I took it as a personal slight.
• In response BlueSalix decides to once again start stirring drama by accusing me and Murry1975 of "to re-fight your differences as to the last 800 years of Irish history" despite the fact I agreed with Murry1975s position!
• In response I start getting annoyed and to a degree uncivil.
• Following this I decide to leave BlueSalix a WP:AGF warning on their [page] stating what I see as the facts. Crucially I propose that if BlueSalix apoligised for the false accusations then I would tone myself down.
• In response BlueSalix posts this, to which I respond.
• The last interaction is back at the DoEA article where BlueSalix responded to me to which my last response was this, which I then striked.

Yes throughout it all I could of been more civil, however BlueSalix continued to antagonise by their behaviour, tone of messaging, and their blatant refusal to acknowledge their false accusations (one at me, one at Murry1975, and one at both me and Murry) and apologise for it when I stated that an apology would help.

However I must now counter fresh false accusations:

• "He dug through the last week of my edits and began linking to a comment I made in a completely separate discussion on an unrelated high-profile article Talk that had become heated. He used the AGF tag on my talk page to post a "baiting" comment". - firstly I never dug through his edits, as stated Murry1975s talk page is on my watchlist and it was BlueSalix's warning dished out to Murry that got me curious in the article to see what was happening. Secondly I was involved in the discussion that BlueSalix made that comment so I hardly had to dig through his edit history to find it. It would also refute that that was baiting comment when what I essentially asking for was an apology.
• "In the Talk section of the original article he savaged me with "I feel like cursing at you too considering the absolute bullshit you are coming out with" ([[24]]) in reference to my position statement on the merger proposal." - actually it was in regards to your false accusation about me and Murry1975 reigniting 800 years of Irish issues, it had nothing to do with your position and you full well know that.
• ""oh wait is this better your Indentedness."" - I have no defence, I stated that as I was being a smart-ass as BlueSalix seems to have some issue with the indentation of comments.
• "He teased me as "antagonizing" in response to my request he stop using four-letter words in a merger discussion. ([[25]])" - I'm assuming you mean "four-letter words", you are referring to curse words like f&$k? Where did I use a curse word other than "bullshit"? Where did you request I stop using four-letter words?

Yes this is a mountain made out of a mole-hill, however it is a mountain that was made worse by BlueSalix's antagonising behaviour and refusal to acknowledge and apologise for his uncalled for off-topic false accusations. This from an editor who kept going on about keeping on-topic and wanting "restrained and professional manner" discourse.

BlueSalix had a simple solution, a few words. They don't want to utter them and thus accept their guilt. I know I am guilty of being uncivil, but I've been antagonised. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, kindly stop referring to me as antagonizing. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

See what I mean? Instant ignoring of the core issue - BlueSalix's false accusations. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey just wait a minute!

“ A second editor, Mabuska, then arrived and chastized the first editor - Murry1975 - for moving my comments. Exasperated that the merger discussion was being derailed, I thanked Murry1975 for his support but politely asked him to keep his comments to the topic of the thread and not "refight the last 800 years of Irish history" as the two editors appear to be on different sides of that dispute based on their userboxes and I could see where this was rapidly heading once Mabuska cautioned Murry1975 he "shouldn't have moved them." ”

• Firstly I didn't chastise Murry1975, I just stated that he shouldn't have done it. Considering I backed his opposition to your proposal, my comment about the moving of comments was an olive branch to show you I was not just agreeing with him because of your remark at the Falklands article, but because I agreed with the oppose regardless.
• Secondly you thanked me for the support not Murry1975, however your subsequent response made me reject it.
• Thirdly you made a serious error in judgement in trying to judge me and Murry1975s viewpoints based upon our user pages and user boxes and then expecting that to mean me and him are going to be at each others throats! We don't always agree but we work together quite a lot and never have a problem and even share in a bit of fun.

And in regards to this: "I have posted it here instead of Incidents because I don't want to generally see Mabuska be sanctioned as I don't know if this is endemic behavior as I've never interacted with him before, I'm just hoping some temporary control (e.g. temporary topic block) on the Talk page can be applied until the merger discussion can conclude.".

• Firstly why would i be topic-banned when the topic was not the problem?
• Secondly you interacted with me only four days ago at Talk:Falkland Islands replying directly to me so you cannot say "I've never interacted with him before".
• Thirdly, the thing with Wikipedia... everything is recorded. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

(1) Here's the thing - I don't know you and I don't know Murry1975 and I don't know the history of your relationship. I can only respond to your actions as I view them. Your actions contain a lot of "fuck" and "bullshit" and "your anatognizing" and oh my "Your Indenetdness" and I demand "you apologize," so forth, etc. etc. If this is all part of what you just describe is fun play fighting together, that's totally fine. I have no problem with that. What I'd like, though, is if you could keep the fun to userspace and let us use the Talk page to discuss merger requests as I keep asking. The merger request is basically junked now. (2) And, you're right, I did post a 9-word response once to something you wrote. Thank you for that reminder. The tone, topicality, and style of your posts in that thread may need to be reviewed as well as it appears you were trying to start a political debate ("Argentina's position is obstinate," "Argentina is the state acting all Imperialistic," etc.) instead of participate in an NPOV edit discussion. BlueSalix (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

For now, busy at the moment, I will make to comments.

Firtsly, against TPG, my "oppose" was moved by BlueSalix to beyond his added comments, I re-positined it to where it was origanally all, with I admit an uncivil comment- which I asked oversight to remove, it was a comment born of frustration, this can be seen in the history, I had templated the mover and I add a cmment to stop moving it. It was again removed with some talkpage discussion on both mine and BlueSalix, where he accused me of drama and hijack, also claiming his comments where were they origanilly where- no mention of his moving of mine.

Secondly I would like to thank Mabuska for leaving the tp notice about this ANI as BlueSalix seems to have included me without including me.

I have not been on wiki since last evening, I took a step away from here yesterday as to clam down, I apologise for my uncivil edit summary in its wording, but not the conveyance of angst it was born from, which I still feel, as my comment is still out of place and now looks out of context. Murry1975 (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

BlueSalix please by all means ask for a review, the only editor to cause trouble at [[Falklands was you and your issue with comments and indentation, you know that problem you had with User:Elaqueate and User:Kahastok that I did not get involved in, the problem that took up a good half the discussion? The same problem that you started at the Duke of Edinburgh article with Murry1975?

I would also like the diffs of where I used the word fuck as BlueSalix claims, it should be easy to find at least one as they claim I've said it a lot of times to them. Otherwise BlueSalix is failing to provide diffs that back up the vast majority of claims or related ones that show how such a turn of events became as they have. Also I would like to see a diff showing how me and Murry1975 where engaging in play fighting at the Duke of Edinburgh article. Otherwise BlueSalix is making yet more false accusations and I would like to cite WP:BOOMERANG.Mabuska ^(talk) 14:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

And just like Murry1975, I apologise for getting angry and letting it get the better of me, but likewise not for the conveyance of angst it came from. An apology for that depends on BlueSalix's ability to acknowledge their guilt and apologise for it. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

First - I didn't accuse you of saying "fuck." (see my OP for a specific list of the issues I've raised with respect to your extremely aggressive style of addressing other editors) / Second - As for "An apology for that depends on BlueSalix's ability to acknowledge their guilt and apologise for it." I'm not going to address that. This isn't Judge Judy; I'm not looking for apologies or punishments, declarations of guilt, or public beheadings (also, as per my OP). As per my OP, I am here to seek assistance in getting the extremely aggressive style of commenting that has derailed a merger discussion under control as interpersonal appeals have thus far failed. (I'm also not sure what I'd apologize for - I think you're upset that I asked you and Murry not to use the merger thread to have a debate about Irish history. I stand by that request 100%, but if you'd like me to apologize for it and if that will get things calmed down, okay, I apologize. I still would rather you take political debates to user space, though.) Thanks, Mabuska! BlueSalix (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Murry1975, I realize your original move of my comments ([[26]]) was a GF mistake on your part and, while I'm sorry you became very upset in addressing it (as you've acknowledged), I consider it water under the bridge. That's why I didn't include you in this ANI. For my part, I'm sorry that - in the process of undoing your original reshuffling of my comment - that your comment also ended up getting moved. Manually undoing edits can sometimes result in confusion. Thanks, Murry1975! BlueSalix (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well thank you for finally apologising (on at least one thing), however it would appear you don't totally grasp what I wanted you to apologise for, and thus it comes across as kind of hollow. You also need to accept your role in causing this mess with your false claims (which you continued to add to in this discussion here) and the statements you have made here that are contradicted by earlier statements by yourself. Like even now you can't help but make up false claims... "I'm not looking for apologies or punishments" - so you never called above for me to have a temporary topic-ban? "I still would rather you take political debates to user space," - what political debate? Me and Murry1975 never engaged in one, and no-one mentioned Irish politics until you did. If that was in response to the Falkland discussion, I explained that statement at the end of the discussion, where I told you it was explaining what the text in the article is referring too! Does it ever end? At least I accept my part in it. I'm abstaining from any more responses unless an admin asks me something. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Mabuska - for the fourth time, the only issues I have, or have raised, are in my OP with linked diffs and I stand by all of them. Everything subsequent that I've written is right here for people to read. As such, it is really not constructive to pick out a sentence here or there of my posts, quote it, and then introduce an interpretive "so what he's saying here is ..." This kind of dramatic intrigue is how a routine 200-word ANI gets turned into the Nuremberg Trials, and is exactly how my simple merger thread got trashed as well. I would kindly ask you to dial it down a little and just let the ANI run its course. Thanks, Mabuska! BlueSalix (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

BlueSalix, maybe you should read what the admin rote on your tp. My moving my comment back was right your continued re-positioning was wrong. So the apology about my mistake isnt accepted, I will follow the admin comment on your page and correctly position it, I will take your apology then. Murry1975 (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I really don't believe Moriori had given you a carte blanche to continue to edit my comment from where I'd posted it and I believe you are seriously misinterpreting our conversation if you think he did. However, if you make the choice to continue to rearrange other editors comments to alter the intent of the original author, to pepper your edits with "fuck" and so forth, then honestly, there's really nothing I can do about it, other than to continue to politely ask you to to please stop and to empower yourself to edit in a non-combative spirit. I don't believe in edit-warring and I don't subscribe to a take no prisoners approach to Wikipedia. It's just not my style. Thanks, Murry1975! BlueSalix (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Through out my interaction with you BlueSalix you have continually displayed an attitude of ignoring what is actually said, either by others or in the process which you dont agree with.

"Murray1975 moved his oppose comment back to the top where it originally was. He had every right to do so and if that created collateral damage to your subsequent posts, then you would know why and could have amended them."

Every right to do so

I edit in a non-combative spirit. Its usually to the point- even to the extent I will answer everything point for point.

It is you who is continually personal, as pointed out above commenting, very incorrectly on my interactions with Mabuska, the 800 years comment. I put one f-bomb in an edit summary, I didnt "pepper" it anywhere, so thats a falsehood and a another personal attack. So with your rhetoric of non-combative editing I am sure you are going to strike that? Murry1975 (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Murry1975. I've said many times that I accidentally moved your comment in the process of trying to reconstruct my own comment that you kept moving. I've been unambiguous on that point so I really don't know what else you're hoping to get out of me here. As for your accusations that I've now been making "personal attacks" within the ANI itself, I'm not going to address that. The issues I raised in my OP I stand by and are absolutely the only issues I'm going to discuss here. I'm confident WP admins are literate people and can read everything written in this thread without the need for interpreters or lobbyists. If an admin feels something I said merits sanction, I trust in her or his judgment to recognize it and to act appropriately. Thanks! BlueSalix (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Moving it once is an accident moving it three times is totally untolerable. I am sure the admins reading this will see what you have written. You cant address it without admiting it. Good day. Murry1975 (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

As previously stated, I moved it three times because I had to thrice repair your three edits to my comment and your words were getting wrapped up in a copy of a block of text. I certainly wasn't manually retyping it every time. You made a series of three complex positioning edits to my comment and, in trying to repair what you'd done, I touched your words. I acknowledge I touched your words. I've said I'm extremely sorry as it clearly upset you, but mistakes sometimes happen in life. That's a mistake. We deal with it and move on, just like we did. Yelling four-letter words or engaging in an unusual and aggressive style of commenting that has the effect, intended or not, of running a thread off the track is not a mistake. That's the OP of this thread and that's the only topic I'm here to discuss. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"your three edits to my comment ", I never edited your comment. Please show the links. I suggest you stop with all these falsehoods. Murry1975 (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm requesting that an admin take a look at this so that it can be done with. Though just to make it clear for BlueSalix for when they say they are only looking to discuss what they raised here: if you are going to raise an issue, then expect the accused to give their view and their reasonings as to why they have acted the way they did. Whilst the topic of this is not about you but me, it is vital to the discussion to highlight the fact my responses to you at that time and throughout this where a direct result of your false claims, which you continued with and then added a heck of a lot more too throughout this discussion. You are constantly ignoring to acknowledge and accept that you made false claims that resulted in me becoming aggressive - that is the key vital component of this whole issue.

Here's a further example: "Yelling four-letter words or engaging in an unusual and aggressive style of commenting that has the effect, intended or not, of running a thread off the track is not a mistake. That's the OP of this thread and that's the only topic I'm here to discuss.". You raised this AN against me and my behaviour yet I never yelled a four-letter word (fuck) at you or anyone. Murry1975 said "fucking" in an edit-summary, but that was borne out of frustration. So there wasn't even a four-letter word, never mind words, which implies multiple use. Also add in the fact anyone looking at everything above will see that you can't be trusted to tell an accurate or reliable event of things. Mabuska ^(talk)

If you three don't stop rehashing your argument here, no one is going to bother dealing with it and it will be archived with little to no action, WP:TLDR and all that. I highly recommend you stop now and let others (who might be bothered at this point) read through the diffs and make comments as frankly, this is getting ridiculous. Blackmane (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Massive problem, definitely Wikipedia is about to end, and probably the entire world

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I went to add myself to Wikipedia:List of administrators aged 50 or more and found it does not exist. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to Logan's Run. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Like ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha! [Liek] here too! Guy (Help!) 00:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

42? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

WHAT? The FILM? Sheesh. Only the radio show is canon, you should know this. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, should I volunteer to help fill the gap? I'm sure my RfA would be uncontroversial AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Support, very diplomatic candidate. Bishonen | talk 09:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC).

Ha. He thinks 50 is a problem. Walk a mile in my shoes, youngster. Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Shoes? When I were a lad we made do with old newspaper and string. And bloody grateful for it we were too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You should retire from being an admin, and return to the more sane life of an editor. Leave it to the Young Turks. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Now, now. Let's not put any more on the poor Turks than we'd put on anyone else, no matter how old they are; that's nobody's business but theirs, anyway. It's rough out there in Constantinople, don'tcha know. GJC 03:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I too would now find myself in the admins-over-50 category, which amazes me, because I more and more find myself echoing the famous comments of Isaac Asimov:

"I still consider myself a child prodigy. I'm now the world's oldest child prodigy. I'm in my late youth. (aside) I call it 'late' because it's dead."

More seriously on this subject, we should all pay tribute to this retiring administrator. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

There are probably more of us admins heading for 70 than is realised ;) Greatest respect for the retiring admin - at 18 years his junior I'm still a kid by comparison. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the clock is unforgiving. No three revert rule. No terms for vanishing and returning. I, being on the wrong side of the median, see both youthful ideology balanced with the wisdom and reality of time. To the extent I am able to live beyond my years, I strive to achieve but alas am thwarted by vandals, admins, and their kin. --DHeyward (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

MONGO dinks dats poetic...--MONGO 14:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The youngest admin I know of was I think 11 when he got the mop. We now have a retiring admin at 83. That's quite a generational span across our admin corp. WJBscribe (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Care to link to the 11-year-old's RfA? Joefromrandb (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm still young. Although by medievil standards I'm ancient. ES&L 12:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Um, why not just create the category? Or, better yet, create a userbox that auto-gens inclusion in the category pbp 19:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

East Germany

Discussion has flared up yet again regarding the historical description of East Germany. Participants in the various discussions over the years have never been able to reach any formal consensus as to what should be used. This article falls within the scope of Arbcom discretionary sanctions. Apart from having attempted on a couple of occasions to moderate the discussions, I have not expressed any personal opinion and I'm not vested in any eventual outcome. However, I feel it is time for this situation to be addressed, and perhaps some admin discussion here as to what should be done to resolve the situation (rather than the content itself) would be appropriate. See talk:East Germany. 01:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

• 1.) Why "admin discussion", rather than "community discussion"? All editors should be allowed their say as to what actions admins should take to resolve the situation.
• 2.) Your declaration that that the page falls under discretionary sanctions has been challenged by more than one editor, so perhaps Arbcom should be consulted for clarification. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not clear that this article comes under discretionary sanctions and no reason why it should be discussed at AN. The discussion was recently re-opened by an IP who appears to be sock of a blocked user. (see SPI[27]) I suggest blocking the account now, rather than waiting for SPI. TFD (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately SPI claims require evidence. Really. Collect (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

184.145.64.67 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of R-41 [28]. --TFD (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#9

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an admin please remove File:Seal of Haryana.jpg from all non-articles? most of the uses are being created via templates, which I cannot remove it from. Werieth (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Most of the uses of this image were removed with this edit to Module:Portal/images/h. Now its up to the job queue to catch up, or you can force it with a null edit to each page. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ISSUE REQUIRES AT LEAST SOME ATTENTION (over 24 hours)!!!!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I know that you are watching for vandals, can you kindly watch this guy user talk:200.219.132.104. He is now under user talk:200.219.132.103 and still does destructive editing. Check his edits here and here and many where else. And over here someone gave him a right to revert, so he reverted a bot. Could you be so kind to intervene, as his edits look a lot like destruction.--Mishae (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Mishae, frankly, I am not such a good vandal watcher. I raise a flag every now and then. It does not seem that his actions are destructive, although are weird. It seems that he is correcting some code syntax to keep consistency. Did I miss anything? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, he put spaces after every carriage and that's his edits. He also substitutes RU and UK icons with (Russian and Ukrainian) which makes difficult to see which site is English and which isn't. According to WP:DEST his edits are considered to be unproductive and in some cases harmful since because of his mania to put spaces he sometimes deletes titles. More, he even substitutes cite news with Citation which makes no sense. Since I don't have revering tool I was forced manually to cite references as well as add those icons back in the Euromaidan article. I could have done more ref citations if not for this guy.--Mishae (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Mishae, let's address it with administrators for consideration. The articles are too big to track after all the changes and codes. Your concerns are valid and need to be addressed by somebody with bigger authority to prevent possible roll backs in future. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I already let user @Kudpung: know, but I think he will be too busy to reply. See, on one hand he had a good edit such trans_title= for foreign articles but on the other hand he doesn't need to move the carriages back and forward and substitute already good text with something less appealing.--Mishae (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Mishae, have you posted the issue at WP:ANI? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, guess what? I went to ANI, the admin told me to post it to AVI (Also he mentioned that some of the IPs were from Brazil). I posted it to AVI and they removed my comment (twice) at the end saying that it doesn't belong to ANI! I thought that Wikipedia have measures against disruptive editing???!!! Like, do anybody at ANI consider the seriousness of this or its O.K. now to do edits like this without any consequence what so ever. Furthermore, a guy here mentioned about a destructive edit and at the same time says "I fixed it now, but it doesn't warrant a block" and sends a ref to a minor edit. This is ridiculous because I wasted posting those comments till 1 fucking am, trying to convince the admins (which I shouldn't even call them that anymore) to take action. And what's worse, it continues! And this, is after my revert. Although the edit is good overall substitution of Sfn for ref name= doesn't make any sense, also editing author link as Pope Paul VI instead of his biographer's name. Like I smell that his next edit will be here and what's the point?--Mishae (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Mishae, Kudpung gave you a good advice filing petition at the "Requests for page protection". That way it would be possible to establish some control over the page. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Mishae, yea, it is pretty frustrating. I apologize for sending you there. I will try to address it with Russian administrators such as Ezhiki, may be it will be more productive. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You know, what's even worse? Is that I reported them not 1, not 2, but 4 IP addresses which were doing the same edits from Brazil and one more from somewhere else. I'm shocked that while other users receive at least a thank you (let alone a barnstar), I get ignored by the whole Wikipedia community regarding disruptive editing, which as we all know is a no-no here.--Mishae (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Mishae, are you following on your posts at ANI or AVI? What is the section title? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I requested a protection on most of them. Lets see what gonna happen.--Mishae (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Link one and Link two both of which were from AVI.--Mishae (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc (talk · contribs) issued a short term rangeblock. I'm too busy to look but I'll keep an eye on it and make sure it gets some attention. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both! Hold on, take my words back, what's this? diff--Mishae (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

No need for that; it's just that rangeblocks don't show up in the block log for individual IP addresses. It's still blocked. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, never knew it. Thanks! After so much time of chasing those IPs I am glad that somebody put a firm hand on it! Thanks again!--Mishae (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP Canvassing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is WP Canvassing on the Yemen article by MiddayExpress. He has contacted: AcidSnow, Inaytiy and Til Eulenspiegel, editors he has had close interactions with in the past in pro-Somalia articles, none who have recently or extensively edited the Yemen article. He has not contacted the Non-Pro-Somalia or other users that have edited the Yemen article extensively or recently. Looking at his user history it seems he and the other editors involved have routinely WP:Canvassed each other on other topics relating to Somalia and Arabs, especially Inaytiy and AcidSnow, and MiddayExpress has edited his page often (by archiving and removing posts by these users in order to respond only on their talk page) to disguise the frequency of this. I don't have time to dig in but these actions are common on Arab-related articles by these users probably due to issues relating to Somalia's contested status in the Arab League/Arab World (Somalia's attempts to integrate with Arab World, and rejection by many Arab states for various related reasons). Whatever the case this WP: Canvassing by these pro-Somalia editors is destructive to the Yemen and other Arab articles. YemenWarriorBoy (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The following editors were mentioned: @Middayexpress, AcidSnow, Inayity, and Til Eulenspiegel. Please notify anyone you report here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes but for it to be illegal we would all have to share Middayexpress POV, which is certainly not always the case, and he is very conscious that me and him do not always agree, nor does he automatically take my side just because I call him to look at something. There is zero evidence of me jumping in and defending his position--none. And as a Pan-Africanist I for one am not an advocate of making Somali people into Arabs, 100% this is not my politics (the opposite is true).--Inayity (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, per appropriate notification, "an editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message[...] on the user talk pages of concerned editors[..] examples include[...] editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics[...] editors known for expertise in the field." Inayity, AcidSnow and Til Eulenspiegel are some of the main, regular contributors on the Horn of Africa-related articles, so that would certainly apply to them. As for the obvious socking by the newly registered YemenWarriorBoy account, note his non-existent prior contribution history [29], this messageboard post as his very first Wikipedia edit, his self-professed familiarity with the details of the ongoing content dispute with the Yemeni User:Kendite's alternate account, his self-professed familiarity with veteran Wikipedians, his Yemeni username, and his familiarity with Wikipedia protocol and Wikilawyering. This is evidently no newbie. Middayexpress (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Personally, if I would have been a Somali, I probably would have been at rage if someone would have called my people Arabs, even if they are merging into Arab League (I don't follow on the current events from those nations). I know one thing; correct me if I am wrong, but Somalia is a part of African Union. My condolences to YemenWarriorBoy who probably feels as offended as any other editor is.--Mishae (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The dispute had nothing to do with the Arab League. It was over the identity of specific field slaves from Africa that cultivated palms in Yemen. The AL story was just one of the various things that the "newbie" YemeniWarriorBoy made up. Middayexpress (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

YemeniWarriorBoy is now indefinitely blocked as a sock of User:Kendite. Middayexpress (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Since he is blocked, we can close this discussion. Thanks for the explanation. Never knew that users can made up stuff. Was it at least referenced?--Mishae (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What do you think about Nottinghamshire blood bikes? Is it worth working and improving? Since I am a blood donator myself, I would like to help on this article, but only if there is notability. --BiH (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

1. This is the wrong place to ask for help with an article. For future questions like this, you could try Wikipedia:Teahouse, or maybe Wikipedia:Editor assistance, or ask at an appropriate wikiproject such as Nottinghamshire, England, Medicine

2. The person who started the article has the username Bloodbikes (talk · contribs) which isn't appropriate - see WP:ORGNAME. I've reported that here. It's not a huge deal, they can just change name - but it's worth being aware that they very likely have a conflict of interest.

3. Unfortunately, I don't think there should be an article about that org, because it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources (WP:GNG). 2 short mentions in the local paper aren't really enough to satisfy that. Therefore, the article is likely to be deleted. I searched, and was unable to find any other coverage.

Of course, if you or anyone else could find appropriate references to show that it is notable, go for it. Otherwise, no... sorry.

It's a shame, because of course it's a very worthy org. And I'm from Nottm. But rules is rules. 2.123.67.6 (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin who knows templates needed to fix fully protected, broken, and little watched template

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can some admin who understand these things take a look here at the talk page of Template:WikiProject Latin America? There's an error in the code and it's messing up a lot of talk pages. The Template is fully protected. There's been an edit request there for a few days with no response and I'm worried no admins watch the page. TIA, — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Fixed by Technical 13. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Heads up

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In view of this second verdict of guilty a close watch will probably be needed on Amanda Knox. Moriori (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Khabboos

This is an incident. Please see the thread of the same name at WP:ANI. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Orel Hershiser's scoreless inning streak/archive1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I got a little confused following a page move. Could someone move Wikipedia:Peer review/Orel Hershiser's scoreless inning streak/archive1 over Wikipedia:Peer review/Orel Hershiser's scoreless innings streak/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Monty₈₄₅ 05:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

United States Public Policy talk page archive number 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Archive 1
2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy/archive 1

Can an admin please merge the talk page history of these two together to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Archive 1? Future archiving will go to the 2nd archive, so this one is now only historical in nature, but for uniformity and standardization, name of the archive should be upper-case "A" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Archive 1.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the page with the lower-case "archive" title to the standardised name. Graham87 07:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Graham87, much appreciated! :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notification of a TFA nomination

In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck (film) has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. Bencherlite^Talk 12:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you require any admin action? If not, this can be archived; please let me know. Personally, I find it hard to understand why people in this century consider that specific nomination to be any different to any other. I can kindsa understand that the word sets off alarm bells, but Christ, it's being hacked out on Jimbo's talk and other places - I can't think that any admin intervention is gonna help at this stage. Thx. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

blocking 208.180.10.131 for vandalism

I reported 208.180.10.131 (talk · contribs) for vandalism at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Each and every all of the IP's edits from 2006 to date are acts of vandalism. The user has been warned several times but appears to have ignored all warnings. User: Admrboltz warned the IP but did not block him. I discussed the matter with Armboltz on his talk page, where I suggested the IP be blocked for a limited duration and Armboltz responded that 3 months is hardly limited and that I may consider bringing the matter here. I suggest the IP be blocked for 3 months, although I would support a shorter-duration block (say 1 month) if that's the community's consensus. IjonTichy (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

We generally don't block after a single disruptive edit if there are no recent warnings, so I think Admrboltz handled this correctly. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Mark, are you referring to the Education and warnings section of the blocking policy? Because the same policy also says "users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately."

We warned the IP in Sept., Oct. and Nov. 2013. All warnings were ignored and the IP vandalized again in Jan. 2014. Warning them again is unlikely to be productive. Blocking for 1 month may be more productive at this time, with escalating blocks if the disruptive behavior continues. IjonTichy (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

IP is from "suddenlink.net" - an ISP.

Has made a total of 22 edits, in 3 'batches',

• 2006 (Feb-August, but hey, long time ago), 5 vandalism edits
• 2013 May/June 4 vandalism edits (silly stuff, nothing terrible) [30] [31] [32] [33]
• Sept-Nov 2013, 6 edits, silly low-key vandalism [34]
• 31 Jan 2014, one edit, [35] - hard to tell if that is vandalism.

Benefit of the doubt; it's an IP address. They've been warned about the recent issue [36] and that seems appropriate, but I don't think anything further is necessary (or helpful) at this stage. Doesn't seem to mbe enough to consider it Long-term abuse for now.

Conclusion/opinion:Not worth doing anything else right now; standard warnings should be sufficient. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest someone closes this thread, because it's unlikely that this vandal - who made 22 edits in 8 years - is going to cause a major problem for Wikipedia. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is a shared IP, so its edits probably come from by multiple users, and thus the person editing in September who was warned may not be the same person editing yesterday. It's also very possible that the person editing yesterday was unaware of the content of the IP's talk page. It has been over 24 hours since they have been warned and they haven't vandalized again, so I'm not sure why you think the warning wasn't productive, seems to me like it worked. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I now agree with 150 and MA that the warning posted on the IP's talk page appears likely to be sufficient at this time. Asking that this discussion be closed. Thank you 150 and MA for sharing your views and helping move this discussion forward. IjonTichy (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The Tampa Bay Devil Rays

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could an admin please create The Tampa Bay Devil Rays as a redirect to Tampa Bay Rays? Thank you.Hoops gza (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Why couldn't you do it? I'm not complaining: I'm asking if you can remember the message that the software gave you when it refused to let you do it. Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This one as well I am not allowed to create: The Devil Rays as a redirect to Tampa Bay Rays. Could you please create it? To answer your question, I have posted the error message below:

Permission error

You do not have permission to create this page, for the following reason: The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism.

If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by email. Be sure to specify the exact title (especially by linking it) of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do. If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page.

Thank you.

Now, I suggest protecting both of these redirects after they have been created because I think I know what the problem is; people were probably starting to write on that era of the franchise's history when the team went by that name.Hoops gza (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

No, that definitely wouldn't be a reason for blacklisting. Weirdly, the title blacklist prevents the creation of all pages with "Devil Rays" in the name because there was once a spat of "creations and pagemoves by a serial vandal" related to this. I think I'll look into its removal; thank you, since I wouldn't have known what to look for otherwise. Sorry for the typo in the original creation — I've worked with things related to Birch Bayh for several years now, and I type "bayh" far more often than "bay", so my fingers instinctively put the "h" after the "y". Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Người Bắc Kỳ

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It sounds like racist. It means northern vietnamese people not Vietnamese people.--Namnguyenvn (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You have already started a redirects for discussion ... no need to post here DP 13:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

비가 , 서스 ​​캐처 원 의 호수

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

i am trying to translate an article (lakes of biggar,saskatchewan) into korean; but it won't let me. how could i do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.95.149 (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place to make a Korean translation: you should do that on the Korean Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Translate us for advice, and note that you need to provide attribution to the authors of the English article by placing the {{Translated page}} template, or rather its Korean version ko:틀:번역된_문서 on the talk page of the translated article. JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitration Clerks seeking new volunteers

The Arbitration Committee clerks are currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors willing to serve as clerks. The responsibilities of clerks include opening and closing arbitration cases and motions; notifying parties of cases, decisions, and other committee actions; maintaining the requests for Arbitration pages; preserving order and proper formatting on case pages; and other administrative and related tasks they may be requested to handle by the arbitrators. Clerks are the unsung heroes of the arbitration process, keeping track of details to ensure that requests are handled in a timely and efficient manner. Clerks get front-line seats to the political and ethnic warfare that scorches Wikipedia periodically, and, since they aren't arbitrators themselves, are rarely threatened with violence by the participants.

Past clerks have gone on to be (or already were) successful lawyers, naval officers, and Presidents of Wikimedia Chapters. The salary and retirement packages for Clerks rival that of Arbitrators, to boot. Best of all, you get a cool fez!

Please email clerks-llists.wikimedia.org if you are interested in becoming a clerk, and a clerk will reply with an acknowledgement of your message and any questions we want to put to you.

For the Arbitration Committee clerks, Rschen7754 04:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

RfC of interest

Administrators and other editors here may perhaps be interested in Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#RfC about listing discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

SEO spamming - a heads' up

Not sure where to post this, but it appears SEO-seekers are using dead links to spam their own links in hopes they won't be discovered. Not sure what action can be taken, but this is surely of some interest. — foxj 17:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

rofl. Well, one can hardly expect scummy people to behave like anything but scum. Resolute 22:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There are other ways besides this to insert inappropriate links with little chance of being noticed, which I think better not to explain here in detail. I had not thought of this one, but there is even the possibility that the replacement for a dead link might be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

For those interested, LiWa3 on the #wikipedia-en-spam IRC channel reports when links are not returning a normal status. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Kennyeliason (talk · contribs) appears to be trying this technique. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Fresh pair of eyes, please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's obvious that Abington Friends School is quite notable. It's also filled with copyvio and reads like an advert. Request help weeding it out.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

 Doing... 88.104.24.150 (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done [38] [39]

BTW, this is a content issue, and nothing to do with admins, so should not be here on AN.

Someone pls archive this? Ta. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

International edit-a-thon today = newbies to avoid biting

Hey folks. As a heads up, Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism is happening in 24 cities around the world today. If you notice any small extra influx of new pages or edits in certain areas (obviously art and feminism especially) please keep in mind that this may be edit-a-thon participants. The good news is that the vast majority of new editors participating will be there with experienced Wikipedians too, and thus can get a helping hand if you send them a talk page message about anything they need to correct or amend. Many thanks, Steven Walling • talk 18:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic, moved to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 11#Non-admin things on AN

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 11 § Non-admin things on AN Why does this relate to admins in particular? (Ie, why AN?) I'm quite used to lots of editors wrongly assuming admins are 'special' when it comes to content, but it's not great that a WMF employee thinks that way. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Interesting question. I wonder what the interesting answer is going to be? Eric Corbett 20:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC) I anticipate a lengthy meaningless Machiavellian schpeil...but perhaps I'm just jaded. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC) (Just because I'm editing with my volunteer account at the moment.) I just tried to give people a courtesy heads up. Sure, I could have posted on the WikiProject Editor Retention Talk page, some other Wikiprojects, and maybe the New Page Patrol or AFC project talk pages. But I figured if anyone was going to come and complain about some unannounced flood of new editors on artist bios etc. they might come to AN or ANI. If you don't think it's relevant, go ahead and close the thread. Steven Walling • talk 20:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Walling, you are correct that "if anyone was going to come and complain about some unannounced flood of new editors on artist bios etc. they might come to AN or ANI" - however, my point is, they are wrong to do so. It's likely content-issues, not admin-issues, and surely the more we can do to dispell the myth that admins have any authorieh over content, the better. It would be cool if WMF could enourage that attitude. Hoping you understand. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC) I guess what I mean is, "two wrongs don't make a right". If people post here about content, I can explain why they're in the wrong place and redirect them appropriately. But if WMF employees post here about content, that makes it look like I am wrong to do so. Does that make more sense? 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC) I moved this thread over to Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Non-admin_things_on_AN because if I did not, it'd be hypocritical. Hope that's cool. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

"keep in mind that this may be edit-a-thon participants" - why? Are their edits supposed to be treated differently? Is this an office edict? 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's not an edict. That's not even remotely what WP:OFFICE is about or for. Also: I'm using my volunteer admin account for a reason. We have separate (WMF) usernames to separate out when we're doing work for the WMF and when staff are just editing for fun. I repeat this disclaimer on my userpage, like most staff do. Steven Walling • talk 21:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Cool; in that case, I'll treat you the same as any other editor posting to AN about content. Closing. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a sad day when the community needs to be reminded of WP:BITE and WP:AGF for these types of outreach events. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• While I agree that's a sad day (and I think one's arrived), I also think it's reasonable that someone might be concerned about a lot of newbees showing up and suspect some kind of sock issue. While they'd be wrong to start blocking or warning those users, it would be reasonable to ask if anyone can figure out if it is a sock problem. In other words, I think having this announced here is a good thing. And it's not a content issue. It's a Wikipedia issue (use changing a bit). Hobit (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Move assistance

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please help move Riddarholmen Church to Riddarholm Church. The grammatical (Swenglish) interpretation of the Swedish name is incorrect. It's like Church of the Noble Island now, but should be like Noble Island Church. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please supply a reference to a reliable source, thanks. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Google Books ngram supports the claim. Why isn't this discussion at WP:RM? Favonian (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Because I was overwhelmed here and did not have time then to research the page and try to find out how to do this right. It looked extremely time-consuming for what I had hoped was as rather simple thing. Sorry!

Shall we move this there? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A strange situation (perhaps)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was doing some NPP when I came across this. It was created by User:Stanfordpandabot. I purposefully did not notify them as I am not necessarily seeking intervention by a sysop and it could be confusing to (them?), but rather asking for information on how this needs to be handled, if at all. On the user page it states that the account is shared between multiple people, however they also claim to be students. Is there some kind of action needed here? Quite frankly the article is borderline non-notable but perfectly referenced, and the account's editing patterns seemed like so many other paid ones (Wiki-PR and friends) which is what initially caught my eye. But AGF and all that. If we somehow allow students to share accounts then I guess there's nothing to be done here. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't biting anyone nor ignoring something that required action. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Notified, [40] 88.104.24.150 (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• To my knowledge, we don't allow that. Perhaps the education project team could be useful here? Pinging User:Ragesoss - it's important to find out whether it's an approved educational assignment (and we know whose hand to lightly slap) or not. Thanks for reporting it, and for your NPP work :). Ironholds (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't allow students to use multiple accounts, but they commonly do anyway if they aren't receiving guidance from established Wikipedians. I'd guess that this is a legitimate in-progress class (since somehow I do know off the top of my head that the mentioned professor is in fact a professor at Stanford, and that he does teach that class,) but one that hasn't received formal guidance. It's fairly common for instructors to hear about the idea of a Wikipedia-based assignment without realizing that we do offer hands-on support. I think it's fairly likely that the professor mentioned is using some sort of assignment that involves Wikipedia, and that he didn't realize we have course pages/in-person support/etc. I'll reach out to the students and professor at some point later later today or tomorrow as I have time, but if someone else really wants to beat me to it, please feel free (though please do let me know if you do.)

Tangentially, we don't quite have a formal process for approving student assignments, and since we can't really stop them currently easily, I'll usually grant course instructor privs to anyone is actually a course instructor, even if I don't agree with their instructional design and/or think it's going to be a trainwreck and even if the instructor refuses to take feedback - that way if it turns out to be one, the mess is much easier to clean up. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the outreach and explanation, Kevin. It'd be nice if we did have such a process - that way we could drive informal assignments towards the education programme and some actual structure and support :/. Ironholds (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I've made contact with the professor, and will be reaching out to the students today or tomorrow. (Broken foot has my on the slowside still.) Ironholds: I agree with you wholeheartedly that such a process would be nice. There's a lot of stuff about the USEP that isn't ideal. Unfortunately, with the amount of stuff I'm juggling in my volunteer time currently, I just don't have the time or energy to put in to a significant revamp of how the USEP currently functions. I suspect this is true of most other involved volunteers. I agree it needs a revamp, but without more support on the compensated end, anything that happens for now is going to be of the half-assed variety - which really is unfortunate. I think the USEP has a huge amount of untapped potential, but it'll take a lot of thought to get right, and likely a systematic revamp and series of RfC's to get everything implemented - and I doubt that anyone who isn't WEF or WMF staff even potentially has the spare capacity to get it ship-shape. Sage and Jami do a lot of important work, but a lot of it is patching holes in the ship more than anything else. (And we certainly do try to drive informal assignments towards the education program even as it stands currently.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've had some back and forth with the professor involved. It appears likely that these are his students (but that hasn't been 100% confirmed yet.) If these are his students, they're innovating within the context of a larger assignment (which does allow for innovation,) but we shouldn't expect to see any additional groups of his students. If too many issues are presented by them, he's willing to state that Wikipedia cannot be used as part of his assignment in his class, but for now, please just treat this set of people as you would any other set of new good faith contributors to Wikipedia (which obviously includes taking actions like AfD'ing etc, if warranted.) It's unlikely that they're commercial spammers as was initially suggested, but very likely that they don't understand many of our policies. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

m:Requests for comment/Global ban for DanielTom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Request at meta subsequently withdrawn. Monty₈₄₅ 19:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Hello, per m:Global bans, a general requirement of a global bans request for comment is notify all projects where the user subject to the ban has editied. DanielTom is either an active editor or a past editor of this wiki and therefore I am notifying the project of this proposal. Everyone is welcome to go and voice their opinion of the proposal and about the user in general. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FFD backlogs

Just to let you know, files for deletion are backlogged as far back as 24 November. I tried tagging the pages from 24 November to 10 December with the admin backlog banner but the tags were removed by AnomieBOT. I also listed them (mistakenly) on 1 January at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure but the request was removed by Armbrust, but not moved to the right place, hence why these are still backlogged. Cloudbound (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

AnomieBot removed the backlog notice because it detected the FFD daily header being "broken"; I've tried adding the backlog notice under the header, see if that works. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on indefinitely blocked IP addresses

Hi, this message is sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion on the Village Pump located at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 112#RFC: Indefinitely blocked IP addresses which may affect administrators on Wikipedia. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 20:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Blacklist request

• mariogames66.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Can someone who knows more about regex and the blacklist than I do please blacklist www.mariogames66.com? It's been spammmed for a few days now on Mario-related articles by a variety of IPs, and a simple review of that site shows quite clearly that nothing good will ever result from linking to that site. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This can be requested at the blacklist:  Defer to Local blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed additions are backed up to September, aren't they? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I know, and that are only the ones that did get caught .. <repetition of my general rant regarding that omitted for whatever reason fits ..> --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Backlog at UAA

Wondering if anyone could possibly clear the backlog at WP:UAA. Thanks. Ethically^Yours! 07:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Jehochman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This admin has been editing on behalf of paying clients. He has created articles for paying clients. He's lied about his activities and misled the community. He's also attacked other editors and admins for conflicts of interest while refuses to disclose the full extent his conflict of interest activities. Why is he allowed to retain his administrative tools and to continue to edit here? Candleabracadabra (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Candleabracadabra To start a discussion, I think it would be appropriate that you made your allegations concrete and provided diffs and other evidence you may have. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Examples that I am aware of include:

• Aaron Wall
• Ugo Colombo (real estate)
• Bob's Discount Furniture
• He has a COI with Vanessa Fox, an article where he has done extensive work
• BLP attacks on an industry rival: Jeffrey A. Citron (Jehochman is associated with competitor Broadvoice) Another problematic edit [41]
• The original Argox article. Adding links to his client [42].
• PSC Inc.
• Intermec
• Lyrtech
• Virtutech
• He was warned about it in 2005: "Hello, it looks like you are using wikipedia for advertising. Please don't do that. Thanks. Kim Bruning 17:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)" Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Edit showing he was aware that advertising clients is against policy.
• He's been involved in trying to influence the COI editing rules even though he has a clear conflict of interest as his company is in the business of promoting companies and making paid Wikipedia articles.
• Removes warning about his COI editing (in regards to COI policy) Irony of ironies.
• edit Saying he doesn't do COI editing because it isn't cost effective. No regard for policies? No effort to clean up the dvertisements he created?
• His statements to 28 bytes about "lying by omission" are also relevant.
• Says he doesn't do paid editing while failing to disclose the articles he has created for clients.

Also:

• Barcoding Inc.
• IntelliTrack
• DAP Technologies
• Roper Industries Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

As has been pointed out by others, many of these (possible) COIs edits are relatively old. I have set up a list over last edits by Jehochman to the articles I could access:

• PSC Inc. 2006
• Lyrtech 2006
• Roper Industries 2006
• SunRocket 2006
• Jeffrey A. Citron 2007
• Intermec 2007
• Virtutech 2007
• Bob's Discount Furniture 2009
• Vanessa Fox 2009
• Ugo Colombo 2013

Iselilja (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

So it's your position that Jehochman has no duty to clean up the advertisements he created, no duty to disclose his history of paid editing, and that creating advertisements is okay if you can get away with it for long enough? Is your position supported somewhere in policy? Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• This was raised on Jimbo's page, and ArbCom was the recommended target. Why raise drama here? ES&L 13:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Because ArbCom isn't the first stop in dispute resolution, and much of the accusation is false. Jehochman ^Talk 13:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been paid to edit any articles. When I first arrived at Wikipedia in 2005 and 2006 I wrote about topics that interested me, including my employer and some companies we did business with. After a while I discovered this wasn't a good idea and stopped. If you look at the old versions of the COI guideline you will see that it was very different in 2005, and as a newbie I wasn't even aware it existed. This is all a good example of "don't bite the newbie". Somebody who comes here and naively does things the wrong way should calmly be shown the right way so that they become a productive editor. As for anything recent on the list, it is a false positive. Thank you for your understanding. Jehochman ^Talk 13:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

What about YOUR statement about lying by omission? Can you disclose all the articles you created about clients and other editing you've done about subjects in which you have an association or conflict of interest? Does anyone else at your firm edit Wikipedia articles related to companies you do business with and have they in the past? Please disclose. We need to clean up the advertisements and promotional work you've done. By your own standards there are also serious problems with your continuing here as an editor and an administrator. You clearly state that you don't do paid editing but you clearly have. By your own standards you've been quite dishonest with the community and misled us to get admin tools and other privileges. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

So you admit that this is retaliation for that other disagreement. Wikipedia is not a battleground. I will not fight with you. The first step in dispute resolution is to go to my talk page and ask me to explain. Incredibly, nobody has done that yet. Apparently the intention is to fight, not to resolve a dispute. If that's the way things are going to be, I will not participate. If any editor wants to come to my talk page and ask questions, they are welcome. All of this is very simple and routine. There is no need to make a fuss. Jehochman ^Talk 13:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you have removed posts form your talk page about your paid editing and conflicts of interest. Please disclose all the COI editing you've done here so that it can be examined and cleaned up as necessary.

Why didn't you disclose your history of creating and editing articles on clients during your request to be an administrator? Do you think that this activity is relevant to evaluating your judgment and actions on Wikipedia? Is it appropriate for you to lie by omission?

I have no cause to retaliate for anything and I don't have any conflict of interest in this matter. This discussion is about you, Jonathan Hochman, your history, and your refusal to fully disclose your history of conflicted edits and any ongoing activities at your firm. Please come clean. What connections do you have with Ugo Colombo? If you can't be honest with the community, I think you have to be banned to prevent further damage to Wikipedia and its reputation. You've done a great deal of harm using it for promotion and profit while misleading your fellow editors. I see no sign you've changed your ways and your efforts at distraction and diversion are not helpful. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

−

• Wikipedia allows anonymous editing. You have no right to demand disclosure of my real life associations. My answer above is my answer. As for Ugo Columbo, I've already posted notes about that on my talk page. And no, I have not removed posts from my talk page in the last few days. Nobody has posted and question to me at all. Jehochman ^Talk 13:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC),

Don't forget to stop beating your wife too, ok? (I'm surprised there's still a redlink to WP:WIFE - maybe I'm just missing it) ES&L 18:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Jehochman, I have not accused you in being paid. I don't know if you were paid or you were not, and I am proud I have never made a false accusation against anybody. I accused you in spamming, in COI editing, in writing articles on behalf of you clients, and in lying. I've proven all those accusations with more than one diff. Now, you keep saying "much of the accusation is false", Prove it!76.126.141.41 (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Going to ArbCom would be premature

In my open letter to Jehochman, I outlined some steps he could take that I believe would allow him to avoid an RFC/U or ArbCom case. Among these steps is adding the {{connected contributor}} template to the talk pages of the articles he has a COI with (whether they were paid edits, or simply an article subject he happened to be interested in that "happened" to be about the CEO of his client's key competitor), and letting the conflict of interest noticeboard know, so that neutral editors can take a look. I don't believe an ArbCom case would be wise at this point; Jehochman has already started a conversation with ArbCom about my open letter, and after a long and candid email discussion between the two of us (which he cc'ed to ArbCom) an arbitrator let us know that this was not something within their remit. (They're not going to sanction an administrator for undisclosed paid editing and lying by omission, for the simple reason that there's no policy against it.) So, if anything, an RFC/U would be the appropriate next step, but again, I believe Jehochman can avoid even that if he acts appropriately here. Let's give him a chance to tag these articles himself before escalating. 28bytes (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• While true, I've been pretty unhappy with his clear COI when it comes to discussions about paid editing (which he defends without noting his job involves SEO and has indicated he's been involved in matching paid editors to his clients). If the solution is disclosure, I'd prefer that he A) also disclose those pages where he's been involved in setting up matching his clients to editors and B) also make it clear when engaged in discussions about paid editing and SEO. Hobit (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • That's the least of the concerns. His articles need reviewing. Frankly something like a WP:CCI for advertisers is needed. It's very easy to put up wiki articles citing a press release or two and they'll last for years or even close to a decade on the wiki. Most such pages are low traffic and thus unlikely to see much improvement from their initial PR state unless a concerted effort is made. The claim that this is somehow an old dispute should be seen in light of the facts regarding the durability of such PR acts, which is easily measured in years. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I saw the open letter yesterday, and I admired it. I think it's very reasonable to either expect Jehochman to go back over his contributions and check them, or for other editors to do it if he does not. Until that happens, I don't see any need to escalate the dispute resolution process. By the way, I was sorely tempted to put my comment under a heading something like "Tryptofish states the obvious", but I'll restrain myself to simply saying it like this. Take-home lesson for Jehochman: something about glass houses. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

      If I were Jehochman, I would have given up my administrative tools. Then I would have apologized. Then I would have cleaned up the mess I created, and then I would have retired.76.126.141.41 (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I don’t think an editor that isn’t man or woman enough to edit under their username is in any position to lecture others on the right thing to do. Iselilja (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. If I in my turn were 76.126.141.41 (talk · contribs), I would have edited logged into my main account, here and on Jimbo's talkpage. Unless my main account was blocked, of course. Bishonen | talk 16:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC).

Jehochman knows exactly who I am, including my real name, but you know what, if you disagree with IP editing you should start not with attacking me, but with changing Wikipedia policies. Besides I lecture nobody. I only stated what I would have done if I were in his shoes. 76.126.141.41 (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

28bytes, re ArbCom's statement that they're "not going to sanction an administrator for undisclosed paid editing and lying by omission, for the simple reason that there's no policy against it", could you obtain ArbCom's permission to repeat here exactly what was said in the relevant e-mail (assuming that the above quote is a summary of their message in your own words)? Or alternatively, could someone from ArbCom come here and say what exactly they said? Andreas JN466 16:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I was unclear; that was my interpretation of the situation and of ArbCom's remit, not the arbitrator's. The gist of the arbitrator's comment was that there was not (at this point) anything they could do anything about. In my experience they almost always require an RFC/U before acting in situations like this. 28bytes (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I still think it would be good to have a clear statement from ArbCom about this matter. It is a simple question: does Wikipedia have a policy against undisclosed paid editing or doesn't it? I think the community is owed that much clarity at least from the elected body that has supreme responsibility for interpreting and enforcing Wikipedia policy. Andreas JN466 17:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

At the time of the interaction I was mentioned in (2005), Jehochman wasn't using wikipedia for its intended purpose it looks like (see edits previous to my comment) . But that was a rather long time ago; I would initially assume their behaviour has changed since then? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC) speak of the Kim, and they shall appear

That would be charitable, but Jehochman's very recent pursuit of another editor that had done essentially the same as he – also years ago, and arguably much more minor – and his accusing them of "lying by omission" are flatly untenable behaviour. Andreas JN466 17:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kim, do you believe Clay Johnson (technologist) 2010 was a long time ago?

Ugo Colombo (real estate) Do you believe 2013 was a long time ago?76.126.141.41 (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)]

Do you really believe this is a problematic puff piece? WilyD 17:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you think a Wikipeida admin should write unreferenced biographies of living people that read if not like outright WP:VANISPAM then "merely" as WP:NOTDIR-violating entries? Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

After Mr. SEO admin got that page started (possibly throwing off any New Page Patrollers), the opportunity was immediately capitalized by some mysterious IP Special:Contributions/50.1.84.43, who significantly expanded the page into your typical VANISPAM. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Please, everybody, don't fight on a thread named for me.  :-) I am very happy to work with 28bytes or any other editors to ensure the quality of Wikipedia articles. As I stated before, when I arrived here in 2005 and for a time thereafter, I made some edits that I subsequently realized were not good. Long ago I reviewed my own work and took steps to clean up problems. I removed some content that looked like possible advertising. I believe I prodded at least one article, and additionally I may have asked uninvolved editors or administrators to review some articles. This happened 7 to 8 years ago and I just don't remember all the exact steps or timing.
• The articles listed above include all the articles that presently come to mind, plus some that are not problematic at all. Nevertheless, our standard should be "looks suspicious" not "actual problem". Since somebody listed them as suspicious, I encourage checking all the listed articles. The number is not very large. Out of an abundance of caution, I will not touch any of these articles.
• Over the coming weeks I will review my (very long) edit history and see if anything has been missed, and if so, I will report it for review.
• Editors are welcome to visit my talk page at any time and politely question the quality of my edits. Please keep in mind that anonymous editing is allowed at Wikipedia. While I have chosen to identify myself and my profession, I do not consent to other editors auditing my client list or my personal associations. If people pose questions of that nature, I will decline to answer. Every editor has the right to decide what information they disclose about themselves, or to remain completely anonymous. Jehochman ^Talk 17:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Thank you for your help, and I am sorry for any trouble I have caused. Jehochman ^Talk 17:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Time to close this?

I was tempted to close this myself, but concerned that some might see that action as attempting to prematurely end investigation into this matter. Having read most of this thread, and many of the links, I do see some questions worth asking. However, I agree with User:Jehochman when he notes that these questions should have been posed directly to Jehochman at his talk page. Were that to result in a stonewall, it would be proper to escalate here, but as Jehochman has indicated a willingness to respond to questions, I think it would be best to do so on his talk page, and return here only is the answers are not satisfactory. Some editors buy into the paradigm that one should start with discussion on article or user talk pages, and escalate only when that process fails. This is a perfect example of trying to jump the process, without even attempting to converse with the editor. Does anyone disagree?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

As long as Jehochman is willing to tag the articles that do have legitimate COI issues (so that reviewers don't waste their time on "false positives") I agree that we can close this. What do you think, Jehochman, are you willing to meet us halfway by doing that? 28bytes (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Birds of a feather... I was wondering when you'd come to his help. Did you tag your articles with COI appropriately? Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop it! That is uncalled for. This thread is about me, not him. Jehochman ^Talk 18:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree to tag all of them. Somebody independent of me should at least glance at each article listed because they are either about companies/people who were in the same industry where I worked, or else some unknown editor asked me for help, which apparently looked suspicious. The list is not very large. If after a first glance it looks like a false positive, or like a huge amount of work might be needed, the editor can ask me for my thoughts and I'll provide whatever useful guidance I can. Jehochman ^Talk 18:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, close this. Obviously, this has been "escalated" by both the rhetoric used and the forum. It's all so dramatic but, if you all are really interested in working through it -- go to his talk page and talk to him (and not at him). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block review request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have blocked user Swiss National Library (talk) and bring the block here for review.

This account was set up for GLAM purposes, and gave the names of two operators, one of whom also edits as user Micha L. Rieser (talk · contribs). They were told about the username policy, and invited to request a change of username such as "Michael at SNL", but declined, saying that this was a SUL account, already in use at de-wiki and Commons. Discussion ensued at WT:GLAM#Usernames for GLAM participants, where Micha Rieser said "We have now decided that we will not contribute to the GLAM project in the English Wikipedia."

Since the policies WP:ISU and WP:NOSHARE are unambiguous: "Sharing an account... with others is not permitted, and evidence of doing so will result in the account being blocked", and since User:Swiss National Library has said "The account is already used by more than one person and always will be" (diff), I have blocked the account.

I would like this thread to be about this block: discussion about whether it is necessary to change the username/shared account policy to allow shared accounts for GLAM institutions should be in only one place, at WT:GLAM#Usernames for GLAM participants where there has been little participation so far. JohnCD (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I am the original blocking admin on this account before a request to unblock was granted temporary. I am in support of WP:NOSHARE and do not feel that an exception should be made for GLAM or any other outreach such as it. --AdmrBoltz 21:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

As the policy is currently written this block is unexceptionable. The user stated that the account had been and would continue to be used by multiple people. That is clearly unacceptable under our policy, recently reaffirmed. Whether this should be a specific exception can be discussed elsewhere. DES ^(talk) 22:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I support the block. While I can understand why an institution might initially desire a single account for multiple people, I believe our explanation of why this is problematic should be convincing. The burden is on them to identify a good reason for the exception which overrides the problems it causes.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Good block, grounded in a policy with no need for change. Miniapolis 00:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Brianwilfred

I've been going through User:Brianwilfred's contributions (after CSDing a spam page of his a few days ago which I see he repeatedly re-created) and I find that he's uploaded a number of images which he claims are public domain because they're non-copyrightable shapes, but which are obviously photographs taken from outside sources. I've marked all of these for deletion, but he's also uploaded a number of images which he claims are his own work, which claims I cannot verify one way or another. Based on the other lot of images which were falsely claimed to be acceptable to WP, should these also be deleted just in case? (I've already made a judgment call to CSD mark a few.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Lifting of Topic Ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Here I was topic banned on Falkland Islands topics. After more than 6 months I would like to take up the Standard Offer and ask that the topic ban be lifted. In doing so, I would draw attention to the fact that it has been acknowledged that I remained WP:CIVIL throughout the episodes that led to this ban. I did make an attempt at an appeal some months ago and at that point had somewhat of a Damascus moment in response to a remark made by User:FOARP and in further conversation with User:Dpmuk. I realised that an error in my conduct was to vociferally respond to accusations made by other editors, and now realise that is fundamentally a mistake, giving the impression of a battlefield mentality. I have edited trouble free after taking a wikibreak (to be honest after retiring with the full intention of quitting for good) and on my return I have edited in some quite controversial areas without any hint of the problems that lead to my topic ban. For example at Talk:Black Egyptian hypothesis my comments in response to a post at WP:NPOVN were well received by all sides ([43]). I have been receptive to feedback on my behaviour (for example from User:EatsShootsAndLeaves here) and have managed to edit constructively acknowledging my mistakes. I have a mentor User:Nick-D, whom I consult over any problems I have, and at Nick's suggestion I agree to a voluntary 1RR restriction on Falklands topics. My intention is to resume a number of articles I have in my sandpit José María Pinedo, Esteban Mestivier, Antonina Roxas, which are articles on notable subjects in early Falklands history which have been requested by the Falkland Islands workgroup for some time. To be clear my intention is to resume content creation, which was always what I most enjoyed in Wikipedia Matthew Brisbane being an example of the sort of article I like to create. In the interests of full disclosure, I do have problems with PTSD stemming from service in the Balkans with the British Army. I do struggle with depression and I have been diagnosed with an acute anxiety disorder. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm supportive of the topic ban being lifted on the condition that WCM sticks to 1RR on articles concerning the Falkland Islands as he's promised above. I've been keeping an eye on WCM's talk page and have discussed a few issues with him, and it's clear that he's now approaching discussions and disagreements in a calmer and more productive fashion. As such, I think that there should be few risks involved with him editing Falklands-related topics again. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I've not had a chance to look into their recent actions but I'm fairly sure I was on the fence last time they asked and as they've not come to my attention since I'm happy to try lifting the topic ban. Dpmuk (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support lifting topic ban - if it causes a problem in the future, it's easily dealt with; and I get the impression that WCM knows that, and knows people will keep an eye on it. No concerns. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support lifting topic ban - Wee Curry Monster's knowledge and insight will be valuable on Falklands pages, and the above demonstrates that there is little risk of future behavioural issues. Kahastok talk 21:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support lifting topic ban. It's an obvious net positive for the encyclopedia, and the steps taken (as outlined in the appeal) seem adequate to prevent it from causing any problems. I've also reviewed WCM's contributions in another dispute he's recently been involved in, and do not see any ongoing significant problem in behaviour or approach. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I started doing some general cleanup in some of the articles you contributed to and your statement that your intention is to resume content creation raises some issues that I don't think you've addressed before. We recently cleared out a lot of word-for-word copy violations added by a different editor, unrelated to you, that are relevant here because they involved most of the pages that touch on Falkland Island topics. My concern is that, while helping, you restored copy-violating text in order to work on it, and I'm hoping that you agree that in the future, it's better to work on that material somewhere other than the mainspace and that copy vio problems should be treated with sufficient care. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Is it relevant to raise a May 2012 edit here? Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The issue of copy vios seemed relevant enough to this editor to complain about being muzzled about a week ago, so I had a small concern. I hope it turns out to not be relevant. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Your concerns are misplaced, I am fully cognisant of WP:COPYVIO, in fact if you ask User:Moonriddengirl I have done my fair share of removing them. The only reason for not dealing with the incident you refer to was I was not permitted to; initiually I was observing a self-imposed absence from the article in question and subequently the topic ban. If you dig a little further you will find some of the material you have removed was written by me in 2007, more than a year before that paper was issued. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. (I'll note that I haven't removed any of your material from 2007 for Copyvio reasons.) And if you're making a clear acknowledgment that editors should not use the unattributed words of others and the importance of proactively keeping any Wikipedia:Plagiarism out of the mainspace then that will put that concern to rest going forward. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support lifting topic ban – Wee Curry Monster's highly competent, knowledgeable and valuable contribution to a variety of Falkland Islands topic articles (not only) has been missed during these months, and I have no doubt that lifting the ban (which was hardly justified too) would be beneficial for Wikipedia. Apcbg (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I apologize but I have to be blunt: Wee Curry Monster is a highly pro-British biased editor concerning topics such as the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar. This wouldn't be a problem if his behavior was acceptable, but WCM seems to believe to be above Wikipedia's policies and goals, or at least he has his own interpretation for them and rejects other views.

User:Elaqueate has been doing some cleanup in the FI-related articles, addressing major issues to WP such as copy vio and original research. This has been faced by User:Kahastok opposition, as can be seen in FI sovereignty dispute's talk page.[44][45] I know Wee Curry Monster enough as to know that these interventions are the ones that motivates him to return editing on this topic: it is not articles themselves but the discussion of original research and sources what he feels urged to resume. The supreme example of this is Pascoe and Pepper's Getting it Right (originally from here but now removed). He revealed to User:Nick-D and User:Diannaa that this source copied content from WP, written by himself. This paper has been repeatedly pointed out as a self-published source; and not withstanding all this, WCM would defend this source at all cost (see [46][47]). What I'm trying to say is: his behavior is not only problematic in articles themselves but also on talk pages, project pages, etc. How are admins intending to keep an eye on this?

Also, I'd like to point out that WCM and Nick-D have been wiki-friends (and it seems outside WP too) since before I started editing. I don't think that he's the most appropriate person to be his mentor, as it seems that a) WCM has been receiving Nick's advises since long time ago, and b) a pre-established friendship creates a conflict of interests on Nick-D's assertion about Wee Curry Monster. --Langus (t) 19:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support lifting topic ban I was distantly aware of some of WCM's sub-optimal stuff that got him banned. We move on and grow, and everyone has the right to a second chance. Give him it. --John (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support lifting topic ban. Having interacted with WCM prior and post his topic ban, I can assure that there has been a significant positive difference in his behavior towards others. He has genuinely learned from his mistake about being vociferous in discussions, and how that can be misinterpreted as battlefield behavior. I further consider that lifting the topic ban would allow Wee a chance to respond to the allegations of original research. If problems arise after the lifting of the topic ban, then those should be reported at AN/I or through an RFC/U. With regards to Langus' concerns, I also encourage the parties to make better use of WP:3O and other dispute resolution methods (and abiding by them, ultimately per WP:DGAF) in order to avoid unproductive discussions.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose OP's assessment of their actions is not fully truthful. Please observe their actions with respect to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel and see that they have not been following WP:CIVIL and have conducted themselves more in line with battlefield mentality. Being that this conduct was less demonstrated less than a month ago, I see no reason to believe that they've learned from their previous mistakes Hasteur (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Actually that was exactly the dispute I thought of when first considering this proposal, and my initial remembrance was that WCM had caused serious problems there. But, when I went and reviewed all his posts there in detail (my memory isn't so great these days), I discovered that there were a number of people (on both sides) engaged in battleground behaviour (one of them was desysopped and one of them was admonished, though others also behaved badly), and WCM's edits there were not seriously problematic, even though I disagreed strongly with his comments and personally thought his participation was unconstructive. Unconstructive is not the same as disruptive or a significant problem, hence my opinion offered here earlier. (He struck some of his stronger comments there, which I think showed an ability to step back that is reassuring in this context.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support This seems exactly why wikipedia has a Standard Offer. There are issues. An editor is confronted and must take a series of actions to improve and turn a corner. This has occurred and the second chance is appropriate. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support handing over the WP:rope, on the condition that WCM abide by 1RR. While this user has some problematic behaviours in the past, they seem to have engaged in a good faith effort to be more WP:civil. If WCM ends up betraying our trust, it shouldn't be much of a problem to impose sanctions, given the history of a topic ban rescinded only with reservations. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 16:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Close?

There's been no edit here for 48 hours (i.e. it's ripe to get archived). Are we ready to close this? Kahastok talk 21:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed; I've closed it. 28bytes (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Templates

• HughOttoBaesler (talk · contribs)

This user has created a bunch of silly (in my view) templates. I started deleting a couple per WP:CSD#T2 and then decided I'd better seek additional input. The T2 criterion is not particularly helpful when it refers to "policy".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm failing to understand how the templates in his contributions are a misrepresentation of policy? ✄ (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about pages such as {{Radical Party of Chile/meta/shortname}}? If I'm not misunderstanding, they're components of larger templates, not standalone templates. Nyttend backup (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it is about things like Template:Jorge Alessandri electoral Coalition/meta/shortname, which is a very large name for a short text that will never change anyway (Jorge Alessandri died in 1986), so it seems to be rather silly to make a template for this. But perhaps I miss some reason why having this template would be useful after all. Fram (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a template component, and as a subpage, it should be expected to have a long name. The only alternative to this kind of subpage is instead to re-code the template so that it doesn't rely on subpages, and that's an editorial decision; it's not a decision that should be influenced with Special:Delete. T2 definitely isn't meant for templates like this; it's meant for things like {{spoiler}} or {{db-a34}}. Nyttend (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Fram has the right idea. The templates make no sense. However, they aren't exactly disruptive. They're more a waste of server space and a possible reflection of incompetence. Still, if the consensus is that I can't speedy delete templates like these, then I'll just restore them and let the whole thing go. The only reason I even came on this was because the user created an absurd article tagged for deletion, and because the article was so crazy, I looked at his other contributions.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You can list them for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:B. Fairbairn again

I'm torn as to whether to report B. Fairbairn here or to 3RR. Editor has made four edits to a great deal of protest on at least one article, and possibly more:

• 1
• 2
• 3

Two other editors and I have objected at Talk:Canada#Foreign Politicians but the editor ignored WP:CONSENSUS and removed the image once again

• 4

Moxy and I have also tried to engage the editor on the user's talk page. (And speaking of that, why is the user's talk page a redirect to an archive-in-the-making?)

There was an ANI entry Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive827#User:B._Fairbairn that started and ended a few days ago and nothing was done because there was no discussion. The discussion on the Canada talk page is evidence of an attempt at discussion. There has also been discussion at Talk:Somalia, Talk:Papua New Guinea, Talk:Kazakhstan, Talk:Poland, Talk:Mexico and Talk:Egypt. There was little response at most articles.

I'm afraid that I don't understand the editor's logic: if an image contains an image of a non-native politician, it shouldn't be on the article. It makes perfect sense to include an image of a foreign politician in a section discussing foreign relations of that nation (the case on the Canada article).

I'm requesting a block for edit warring on the Canada page, or at the very least a topic ban related to Canada-related articles, if not all political articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The aforementioned editor is also engaged in similar behavior in another article, Bahrain. In the last 10 days, he removed an image 5 times (and was reverted by 3 different editors), apparently for the same reason mentioned above. I came to this discussion from the notice on his talk page. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

B. Fairbairn has been changing dozens of major articles wholesale -- ones he never contributed to--and ignoring the protests of established editors. That's highly disruptive. Rjensen (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

And it just happened again [48]. I also noticed that these controversial edits (which in my opinion constitute edit-warring) are marked as minor. I don't understand what's wrong with keeping the image. Bahrain a major non-NATO U.S. ally. The Fifth fleet is stationed there. The image is very relevant to the section it is in. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Best we just go to 3rv at this point as no one here has even replied.-- Moxy (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• I blocked B. Fairbarn for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Bot outage at WP:DYK

The bots operated by User:Shubinator to handle important tasks at WP:DYK, namely User:DYKHousekeepingBot and User:DYKUpdateBot have not checked in for a couple of days now, so their work is being done manually. Shubinator also seems to be out of pocket -- User:Allen3 and I have posted on his talk page and I emailed him, but there's no reply. It's likely that the bots got accidentally logged out (based on Shubinator's analysis of past problems). Can somebody else get them working again? --Orlady (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi admins--can one of you have a look at User talk:DagosNavy? I blocked them for some naughty words and edit warring; they're a good-faith and long-time contributor who got totally carried away. A first unblock request was denied because they didn't seem to realize or acknowledge what they were blocked for, but the second request addresses that. I would like a quick decision, if that's possible. Thank you so much, Drmies (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Unblocked. No reason to keep him blocked at this point. -- John Reaves 17:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you John. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Permission error

For some reason I am unable to create the Jiřί Šedivý article. Why might that be? He is a former Czech Minister of Defense. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It's on the blacklist somewhere, either global or local. Start a Draft: and ask an admin to mov it for you. KonveyorBelt 18:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't even start a Draft: of it. It says it's on a blacklist. Could it be caused by a foreign character issue? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the titleblacklist. I'll make a null edit to create the page for you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, should be good. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Issue with expired RFC

I started an RFC at Talk:Mayer Brown back in mid-December which didn't get a lot of attention (however as I read it I think there is consensus for my proposal), and on 11 January the expired RFC template was removed. What is the correct course of action here? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANRFC. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Salvidrim! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Broadway (New York City)#RfC: What is the best name for the article about the street called "Broadway" which originates in Manhattan?

Could an admin please close this RfC with a determination of what the consensus of the discussion is? The RfC had more participation that any of the previous RM discussions, so it would be nice to get the page moved (if that is the consensus), and settle the issue, hopefully for good. (I think a non-admin closure would not be a good idea.) Thanks. BMK (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. BMK (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Mbz1

Further discussion clearly won't produce a consensus to change the status quo. Jehochman Talk 18:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just about two years ago I requested a community ban of Mbz1.[49] This ban and block has created some real life difficulties for Mbz1 who is a fairly well known photographer on the Internet, who's work has been linked to her Wikimedia user ID. She has occasionally violated the ban by editing as an IP. Recently I've receive emails from Mbz1 asking about her status. She's recognized past errors. Per WP:IAR I am willing to ignore the IP editing, since it was not related to the reason for the ban (which was to keep Mbz1 from interacting with Gwen Gale). I would like to remove the ban and block, and place Mbz1 under an interaction ban regarding Gwen Gale, and a topic ban from articles related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, which she admits has been a difficult area for her to edit. If Mbz1 resumes editing and has no issues, after a time she may apply to have the I-P topic ban lifted. Rather than vote, I will ask if anybody has a reason to object. Any error of being too lenient is very easy to correct. If we give Mbz1 a second chance, after two years, and a new problem develops, it is very easy to restore the block and/or ban. I suggest we give this a try. Jehochman Talk 00:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC) We just went through this on Jimbo's page less than a month ago DP 01:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Yes, and here on AN too, where it failed to gain consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Fair point, but I've now seen statements by the user that convince me this idea may have a better chance to succeed than I had thought before. Jehochman Talk 01:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Isn't she under an Arbcom block though? Wouldn't an appeal have to go through them? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Yes, and no for two reasons. (1) If I read this rightly, consensus in favor of Jehochman's request wouldn't affect the Arbcom block. He's asking that we get rid of the results of the community-imposed ban, not the results of the Arbcom decision. (2) Aside from things such as real-life laws and Foundation mandates, community consensus is the ultimate authority here; the point of arbitration is to resolve situations that the community can't (and if we have consensus on an issue, we obviously can resolve that issue), and Arbcom derive their authority from the community, not vice versa. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC) This is pretty much what I said the last time around. Granting a second chance would simply be the human thing to do, the project has nothing to lose by granting this, and the possibility of an accomplished photographer and artist rejoining it. I don't think we really need community consensus to unblock, so I put little weight in the recent discussions that attracted more than a few grudge-bearers. Tarc (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC) I agree with Tarc: I really don't see how this proposal would be a problem for us, but it sounds like it would have real-life positive effects. Why not? You still can't do anything if your account is blocked, aside from socking, and WP:EVADE applies to all socks of users whose main account is blocked. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC) What does Gwen Gale reckon to this? What's the worst that could happen? Can we manage that, and if it does go wrong, can we cope with the fallout and (presumably) reinstate the ban without excessive mess? From what I've seen previously, this is a user where behavioural problems might be an issue, but the failure/cleanup risk isn't a major concern (i.e. not one of the big content vandals). As we thus have relatively little risk exposure, I would support trying it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC) I wonder what turned Jehochman around so completely since that last AN discussion. Perhaps the emails convinced him that "Mbz1" is also a human being with flesh and blood and feelings and things to contribute. I was not paying attention when Mbz1 did all the things she was supposed to have done (I phrase it that way because I don't know, not because I don't believe that bad things were done), but worse things were done by others than what she was supposed to have done, and I'm a firm believer in second and third chances. If I didn't I couldn't look at myself in the mirror. I agree with the proposal laid out in the third paragraph of Jehochman's opening statement. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Support Proposal.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC) I'd like to hear what Mbz1 has to say about this. Perhaps we could restore her talk page access so that she can leave a statement? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose. Had circumstances been different, I might have been swayed by what Jehochman says is the user's regret for her past actions, but given that we had this conversation one month ago and the user was no more repentant than she'd been at the time she was site-banned two and a half years before, I have little doubt that this is a front to try to get the community to let her edit again. (And yeah, it sucks that the public record of her own actions is biting her in the ass in her professional life, but we didn't make her link her RL and WP identities and we sure didn't make her harass people.) When you continue to use IPs to harass people two and a half years after being site-banned for harassment, and then experience a magical change of heart one month later, there's something going on beyond WP:AGF. The WP community has wasted so much time and effort on this user. Does anyone seriously think she won't continue to cause trouble if unblocked? Before I will even consider supporting anything of the kind, I want to see that Mbz1 isn't continuing the behavior that got her banned. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC) (for the record, speaking solely as an individual, I would have to recuse from any ArbCom proceeding regarding Mbz1) I am rather surprised to see yet another discussion about this. Mbz1 has not just socked once or twice, she's done it dozens of times in numerous locations in project and user space. I had thought everyone had seen through her perpetually casting herself as the victim of a horrible mob, but apparently she's found a new advocate who should probably know better but has somehow fallen for her pity party act. Mbz1 has been socking and disrupting this project and other WMF projects on a very regular basis throughout most of the two years since she was banned. Unbanning her now would send the message that if you are obnoxious enough for long enough you will eventually just get unbanned if you finally manage to ask the right person. That is exactly the wrong message to send. I'm surprised to hear that she has admitted being the cause of at least some of her own problems, she has always blamed others for her own issues in the past, but it's too little, too late for my taste. I suggest WP:OFFER at the very least. If she can stop socking and otherwise engaging in disruption, including pleading with anyone can by email, for a period of several months that would show the minimum level of self-control I think we have a right to expect from any user here. So yeah, I have reason to object and suggest this be withdrawn unless and until she can stop her constant socking and canvassing by email. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose I'm afraid I agree with Beeblebrox. I see nothing that convinces me that thee has been any change since the last time this came up (quite recently). An IBAN with Gwen Gale will not solve the problem here, which is broader than that, and is behavioral on Mbz's part. I also don't understand how the ban from Wikipedia "has created some real life difficulties for Mbz1." It simply doesn't make sense to me, and I believe we're due a fuller explanation if the ban is to be overturned. BMK (talk) 07:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC) IIRC, it is because she uses her real name on her Commons uploads, but people follow breadcrumbs back to here and find she's a blocked user somehow. This despite the fact that, last I checked, there were no obvious messages on her user or talk pages. One (likely partial) solution for her is to change her account/credits on her uploads at Commons. As to this request, I opposed last time, but will stay neutral this. I still feel like she's just playing games and wasting time. If she can't even follow WP:OFFER... Resolute 14:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC) I believe the ban is upsetting the user very much and causing more harm than good, in this case. If the user can be civil toward me and can admit her own errors, that gives hope things could be different. The ban has not been very effective at preventing disruption, in this case. We can try something else and see what happens. If somebody Googles the person' real name, it only takes a few clicks to find her Wikipedia identity. We should show mercy in this situation. Jehochman Talk 12:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Support lifting the ban.--MONGO 14:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC) I believe the ban is upsetting the user. I believe googling from the name finds the Wikipedia account quickly. I am sympathetic to causing real world harm and the generality of being merciful, even to abusers. I also agree the ban has not stopped disruption. But - I think the last point undermines the arguments the first several ones make, not reinforces them. We have to be able to protect the encyclopedia and community against people who are acting unreasonably disruptively. I would be happier to rename the account and courtesy blank or rename findings to minimize real world harm. Just letting them back just now, after the ongoing IP disruption, seems unwise. I believe in reform and second chances, but enlightenment andcreversion to reasonable behavior are not usually found in the sudden flip of a switch. We are not reasonably balancing the needs of the project with the users needs if we just let them back on, iban or not. If they can calmly edit other wikis for a year after we obfuscate the real life identity connection, then reapply again for this, that would be another story. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC) As a compromise, can we agree to do whatever is possible to make it very hard for a casual Internet user to link the account to the real world identity? If we can courtesy blank pages, and perhaps rename the account, or whatever else will be effective, that would be good. Mbz1 isn't planning to edit; she just wants the stain removed from her real life name. Being merciful to abusers is a very good idea. Nobody is born an abuser; they get that way after being abused and mistreated. If we show such a person kindness, even if "undeserved", it can benefit ourselves and them. Jehochman Talk 16:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC) That whole argument strikes me as more of her insincere crybaby routine and I urge everyone not to fall for it. I'd like to know if she can explain why, if this is so concerning to her, that she has made sure to mention it as many times as possible in as many places as possible and even recently authored a blog on a WP criticism site using her real name. She has done far, far more to advertise the connection between her real name and her account here than anyone else. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC) OK, Jehochman asked me to stay off, and I said I would, and here I am breaking my promise, sorry, Jehochman. At least one editor said he'd like to hear from me. So here we go. I state I have never violated any policy listed in wp:harassment In particular I have never wikihounded anybody. I have never threatened anybody. I have never made legal threats I have never posted personal information of anybody I have never posted private correspondence by anybody I have never engaged in user space harassment If somebody has evidence otherwise I am more than willing to apologize. Now, I emailed Jehochman not to ask to start this discussion once again. I simply asked, if it possible to harass somebody without actually violating wp:harassment. Starting the discussion was Jehochman's own initiative. I also told Jehochman that I am not an angel, and if I were to start editing Wikipedia now I would have done many things differently. I'd like to add to this please that if I were to change my place with any of my worst accuser I would have supported unban or at least would not have opposed it because no matter how angry I could be with somebody, my anger just disappears, when a person is down, and I am proud it is the way I am! So now I am asking to close the thread, and leave my status unchanged. I am Mila Zinkova, my user name is Mbz1 and I am proud I have never harassed anybody, and never kicked a person who is down. If I am refused in being treated fairly I definitely need no kindnesses. 24.6.208.209 (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Ladies and gentlemen, the reason an unban will never be appropriate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Support lifting the ban. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

One more admin request

Can one of you please put your Wellingtons on and wade through ANI, to look at the half a dozen threads Ryulong is involved in? Specifically, the one with CensoredScribe and the category mess/madness/mishaps. (I'm not pinging them since if they start commenting here also they might bring down the grid.) I don't think there's consensus for a topic ban, and I'm not sure if there's enough consensus on my proposal (though I hope there is)--but something has to be done before the servers break. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

For the love of god, someone implode these things before they spin that far out of subsection-control next time. My fingers ache. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Prohibit them both from adding or removing categories without getting consensus on the talk page first for that category. That would stop the immediate pain. Some kind of centralized discussion (RFC maybe) where both are allowed ONE post per day might give a long-term solution. It's way beyond trainwreck status though. Ravensfire (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

List of Roman emperors

I'm not 100% sure whether this is the right place to do this, but I hope some of you are interested to give your opinion at Talk:List of Roman emperors#"Byzantine" emperors should be listed as Roman emperors. Any editor with knowledge on the matter is more than welcome to say his/her opinion on the issue there. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe you are looking for WP:DRN Blackmane (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I didn't really want to get into official dispute resolution process, just to attract some attention of people whose opinion could be helpful at the discussion on the talk page. --Sundostund (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Riots in Bosnia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please, someone should take a loot at Portal talk:Current events#Bosnia and Herzegovina riots. Thanks. --BiH (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Why are you posting it here? To garner support? I doubt anyone will go forward there because it is a semi-advertisement sort-of thing you're doing here. BiH, you may ask at the appropriate talk page if you need help. Ethically^Yours! 16:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Huge backlog of PRODs

Hello admins; there is a nearly week-long backlog at Category:Proposed deletion; if some admin would be willing to deal with this, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

All caught up. -- John Reaves 03:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Reverting fixes of equations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Let's get a consensus. For the past 2 days, the MediaWiki math-tag software has been unable to format math formulas with "{align}" or "{alignedat}" as discussed at wp:PUMPTECH for T60997:
• "wp:VPT#Math aligned environments failing to parse" (02:05, 7 February 2014)
Meanwhile, my attempts to re-typeset the broken formulas with math-tag "{array}{ll}" (left/left as "ll" for 2 columns) have been reverted 4 times by User:Ozob (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in 2 articles:
"Integral" (reverts: dif574, dif518) or "Spherical trigonometry" (reverts: dif931, dif585)
I think the proper way forward is to edit major math articles to replace the broken math-tag "{align}" or "{alignedat}" which show red-error messages with other markup, but I fear an edit-war will result. Many articles seem to be affected, but I would start with major pages, such as:
• Fix "Calculus" & "Fundamental theorem of calculus" etc.
So, I am asking if anyone knows if the math-tag software will be fixed soon to handle "{align}" or if we can agree to copy-edit math articles and re-align equations with the equivalent math-tag "{array}{rl}" or similar. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:59, revised 15:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we should sit it out until it is fixed, and have a site notice explaining the problem. Editors using MathJax do not see any errors, so they don't know why these edits are made and revert them. — Edokter (talk) — 10:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Those math-tags have been generating red-error messages in major pages, as in page "Calculus":
     :<math>\begin{align} y&=x^2 \\ \frac{dy}{dx}&=2x.\end{align}</math>
     has shown:
Instead, using math-tag "{array}{rl}" will show:
                      ${\begin{array}{rl}y&=x^{2}\\{\frac {dy}{dx}}&=2x.\end{array}}$
Major math pages have been viewed more than 10 per minute (such as "Derivative" at 2,900 per day), and so I was fixing the equation errors to use "{array}{ll}" to display the indented lines. -Wikid77 14:54/15:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at the Village Pump and Maths project. There's no need for yet another discussion here and nothing requiring immediate admin attention.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Planned fix for review under Gerrit: Apparently, there is a planned patch to fix the math-tag "{align}" or "{alignedat}" logged at https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/112057/. -Wikid77 15:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism backlog

There's currently a backlog at WP:AIV, perhaps admins could please help out there?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The board is clear as of now. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hrm, looks like it's backlogged, again! — Cirt (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a very busy board today. If people could pop over there now and then, that would be great. Thanks Cirt for reporting this. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Funeral of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, there seems to be a little bit of vandalism on that page (history) coming specifically from an address prefixed with "71.169..." so I was wondering whether we could semi-prot the article or rangeblock the IP (prefer the former). TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 22:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Semied for two weeks, though thataway is usually better for such things. Courcelles 22:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please fix main page DYK, it's NOT Lewis Leakey

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's Louis. -(AfadsBad (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC))

Materialscientist (talk · contribs) has just fixed this. Nick-D (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

For reference, WP:ERRORS is generally ignored. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 8

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. Could someone please look at this? Things are quite dead, and this need to be done soon. A number of articles are partially updated, and so is the main {{Infobox dam}}. It's a mess. There is consensus, and no objections. Can we get this going right away please? Rehman 10:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC) " Done Bot's been approved for trial run. NE Ent 12:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:RFPP backlog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nothing major but there are currently 22 (and growing) unanswered requests over at WP:RFPP, the oldest being from 10+ hours ago. If anyone's around and could head over and check it out, it'd be appreciated. Gloss • talk 19:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• There's a request that has been up there for a while now, Justin Bieber, it was protected earlier this month over edit warring issues. That protection ended and since then, the edit warring has sparked back up again. Whether the solution is to fully protect the page again or issue warnings and/or blocks, this should be taken care of soon, though the administrators tending to the backlog at RfPP seem to keep skipping over this request. Gloss • talk 23:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Taken care of. Gloss • talk 00:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:96.246.198.77

A glance at User talk:96.246.198.77 and Special:Contributions/96.246.198.77 shows the problem. Might a brief block be the best next step? 82.132.219.129 (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Horrible RfPP backlog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a long list of requests for page protection needing attention.--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Done, thanks to Paul Erik, Mark Arsten, CambridgeBayWeather. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yiannis Theophanous

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone please delete Yiannis Theophanous when they have a moment... Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apparent linkspam in progress

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reviewing Special:Contributions/120.28.112.109, the IP appears to be engaging in linkspam across many articles. I'd like a second opinion before I rollback all of his edits and warn him. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to bring it up here. Issue a spam warning from Twinkle and yes, remove his edits. If he persists beyond a level 4 warning then report him to WP:WikiProject Spam.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It certainly looks like spamming to me; I agree with Berean Hunter that rolling back the link additions would be appropriate. 28bytes (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, done. Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Also you can use a link like essentiallygroup.com.au (*|search current) to find other occurrences within Wikipedia in case they have been using other IPs and accounts.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AWB Check Page

There are multiple requests on the AWB check page that need administrator attention. Could one of the admins here please evaluate the requests? Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm about to step out, but I've done one (yours). Here's the link to the check page for any other admins who have a minute to help out. 28bytes (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

potentially contentious article needs fresh eyes

Genetic studies on Arabs has much useful information, but is poorly written and could be taken as a slam piece.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Block review:Kumioko/IPs

This is silly. No consensus for anything, mostly just ranting at each other. Kumioko; grow up, start contributing to the encyclopaedia. Everyone else, stop feeding the flames --Errant (chat!) 23:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Kumioko (renamed) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Kumi-Taskbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ShmuckatellieJoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) CheckUser talk, where the first "Kumioko" was changed to "Kumioko (renamed)" Kumioko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ThePhoenixReborn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) KumiokoCleanStart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) BannedEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 138.162.0.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 138.162.0.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 138.162.0.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 138.162.0.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 138.162.8.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 138.162.8.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 138.162.8.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 108.28.162.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 108.45.104.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 108.45.104.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 71.163.243.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 67.237.217.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) So, some time ago Kumioko deliberately got himself blocked. He later returned with the poorly named KumiokoCleanStart, which was obviously completely non-compliant with WP:CLEANSTART. An argument could be made that the creation of that account was block evasion, but that ship sailed all long time ago. So, late last month he abandoned the clean start account and began editing as an unregistered user. At least two of this IPs have been blocked. Geni (talk · contribs) blocked some of them with the block summary "I don't know who you are and I don't care who you are but you aren't a new user which means ever you are trying to play wikipolitics while avoiding having such activities connected to your main account or..." I undid one of those blocks and attempted to explain that it was actually quite easy to see who it was and the account was no longer active, which led to this exchange on my talk page. That IP has now been blocked again by Legoktm (talk · contribs) with the rationale "Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia: Trolling, bad faith commenting and other disruption." Leaky caldron (talk · contribs) also attempted to force them to keep old warnings on one of their talk pages. He became very upset when I spoke to him about this [50] to remind him that any user who is not banned is allowed to remove almost anything they like from their talk page. He also ordered me not to post there again, so hopefully the ping here is adequate notification of this discussion. I am not here to argue that there is nothing wrong with what this user has been doing. He acted pretty much the same before, and I and many others have told him previously that we found his comments obnoxiously unhelpful. And that is actually exactly my point. What troubles me is that he is being treated as though he were a banned "unperson" who is no longer allowed to speak his mind because he has chosen to no longer use an account. He isn't acting any differently except for the use of IPs instead of an account. The message that seems to be being sent here is that he can either behave that way or edit as an IP, but not both. I don't believe that is or has ever been how things are done here and would ask for community input into this situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Every noticeboard has examples showing that Wikipedia's rules do not cover every situation. Something went wrong for Kumioko a long time ago, and the project would greatly benefit from a six-month break, and a debate about the means seems totally unwarranted. Johnuniq (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC) The blocks are all for one or two weeks, not six months. I have no objection to this turning into a ban discussion if that is what the community wants, but we shouldn't treat any user, no matter how obnoxious, like they are banned just because they have chosen to use IPs to edit. That actually is kind of important. It is also worth noting that some of these IPs are on the "sensitive" list. Admins who block such IPs are asked to inform the WMF communications committee] but I see no evidence this was done either. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Actually, an argument could be made that the "abandoning account then editing as an IP" is a form of avoiding scrutiny. While when asked, he admits to being Kumioko, otherwise the connection is not disclosed, and it seems as if it's obviously an attempt to "avoid the baggage" of having an account. Now whether that rises to "sock and block" level, I'm not sure. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Actually, there are three accounts involved: his original username was "Kumioko", but it got moved to User:Kumioko (renamed). Clearly not socking as far as the accounts are concerned. However, the use of IPs without explaining who he is, and bringing up or taking sides in disputes while logged out, is not in line with WP:SOCK. I quote from the end of the introduction: Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics. Some days ago, while with IP address 108.48.100.44, he raised an issue at WP:ANI regarding actions I'd taken, and by editing logged out, he was definitely avoiding scrutiny — I thought it was someone with no past history of raising grievances against me or against other administrators, and thus I addressed him and his words as a newbie, not as someone with a history of jumping into disputes. Note that the dispute eventually was sent to ANI by the editor on the other side of the dispute (WilliamJE); I'm not saying "he got me in trouble, and I'd have been fine otherwise". Rather, the situation was complicated because people didn't know who he was — someone ended up creating Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WilliamJE, thinking that the IP was William. Regardless of his actions on other issues, William didn't deserve to be seen as a sockmaster, and this wouldn't have arisen if Kumioko had revealed who he was instead of avoiding scrutiny by editing logged out. Nyttend (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Hi. I don't care whether Kumioko edits via an account or as an IP. It was his comments on WT:RFA that I blocked him for, and had be been logged in, I would have blocked his account for a week (well, length might have been different). He then proceeded to blatantly evade his block on my talk page, so I blocked the IP for block evasion (31 hours). And for the record, I did notify ComCom when I saw the popup in blocking the second IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legoktm (talk • contribs) 04:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Well that's good, I must have looked in the wrong place for the notification. My problem is you say you would have blocked him for his remarks at the RFA talk page, but I don't see anything there that is any more extreme than the kind of comments he has literally been making for several years. Perhaps if you could more specifically identify which passages of those remarks warranted blocking? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Just a quick note, meta:Communications committee says that it's fine to email them, wmfcc-lmail.wikimedia.org. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC) @Beeblebrox:. First of all, I reinstated the blocked IPs Talk Page warnings under the terms of WP:BE - "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason." As an unregistered IP the page is not exclusively "his" and my purpose was to preserve the talk page's multiple warnings so as to facilitate those dealing with vandalism to quickly assess the extent of previous disruptive editing without having to reach into history. He was blocked at the time and I acted. You can apologise at any time for your inappropriate actions. Better still, just reinstate the talk page warnings per WP:BE. As for your unblocking a disruptive editor without first discussing it with the blocking Admin., I thought there were rules about that but I see that you are a member of AC so maybe you feel as though you can do as you like. The bottom line is that the editor behind these IPs (there are at least 4 others, BTW) has been WP:NOTHERE since their various RfA applications were comprehensively rejected by the community. They have become increasingly negative, disruptive and self-indulgent. They are quite plainly in contempt of the project and under the following specific headings: General pattern of disruptive behavior A long term history of disruptive behavior with little or no sign of other intentions. Treating editing as a battleground A user whose anger causes them to obsess may find the fight has become their focus, not encyclopedia writing. Dishonest and gaming behaviors Socking. Evading WP:RFC/U as there is no registered account Little or no interest in working collaboratively A complete lack of interest in good editing conduct practices. Little or no interest in working collaboratively. :Extreme lack of interest in working constructively and in a cooperative manner with the community where the views of other users may differ; extreme lack of interest in heeding others' legitimate concerns; interest in furthering rather than mitigating conflict. Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention There is a level of divergence of fundamental attitudes, whether in editing or to the project as a whole, at which this may not be reasonable to expect. Inconsistent long-term agenda Seems to want editing rights only in order to legitimize a soapbox or other personal stance, primarily relating to the lack of trust in Admins and bitterness at his own rejection. Having a long-term or "extreme" history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods Repeated chances and warnings, all of which have been flouted. Finally Beeblebrox, your opening statement of facts is seriously flawed. Let's not obscure the actual facts for the sake of lazy research on your part. The editor did not, as you say, "late last month he abandoned the clean start account and began editing as an unregistered user." He has been using his registered account together with various IPs interchangeably and frequently within the same discussion sections for many months. It is relevant to the overall picture of this user's behaviour and why the blocks must be supported and why you were entirely wrong to peremptorily overturn the original block. TBH, there might need to be a discussion about your Admin. actions. Leaky Caldron 10:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC) First I wanted to let you know you missed an IP on the list above, this one is for my home. Second, I am fairly annoyed and unimpressed that no one bothered to leave a notice on my old talk page nor the IP I added above eventhough you all knew what it was. I remember when it was considered inappropriate to open an ANI case on someone and not notify them, but then, this is the new Wikipedia where the rules don't apply to admins...kinda like I've been saying for a while now. I shouldn't have had to find out about it on Lego's talk page (that's why I left the note more than anything, to let you know I saw the message). Its pretty obvious the intent was so that I wouldn't be notified and you all would be able to have your little witch hunt and be able to twist the situation however you want before I had a chance to comment. I also wanted to point something else out. That is that much of what Leaky and Nyttend says about is complete bullshit (yes I am you both liers) I did, in fact create a new account more in the spirit of Cleanstart. It was User:ThePhoenixReborn but some quickly said I was socking and it became clear to me that cleanstart is pretty much a bullshit policy that's impossible to follow, so I created the KCS username to poke some fun at said BS policy since I was not going to be allowed to create a new one. Thanks to the cleanstart policy I have a "history" of socking. So my recommendation is to shit can that policy since its only going to be used as an excuse to ban editors from the site. That's why I cahnged it to KumiokoCleanStart. If I had my way, it would still be changed and frankly I knew that dumping my old account was going to give you all an excuse to accuse me of socking again because I am not using an account. Same thing with the comments about me having a conflicting attitude and having an irreconcilable conflict. Yeah I do, with admins and editors who blatantly violate the rules. Especially admins who often times are allowed to violate the rules or told they don't even apply (like WP:Involved). So the comments from Leaky and Nyttend are really off the mark and are just their way of misinterpreting my intentions (that's called failing to AGF) with the intent to try and get me blocked. Nyttend has a history of targetting editors he doesn't like and manipulating what they said and policy to justify it, so that really doesn't surprise me. I also think its kinda funny how its apparently ok to call an editors a troll above and that not be considered a personal attack. I'm sure no one will block Leaky for that like they blocked me and they'll probably find a reason to block me for the same or lessor comments just like Lego did before. In fact he's probably going to block this IP as block evasion just because I responded to this AN discussion about me. So cheers to all and happy witch hunting. If you all spent half as much time trying to deal with the abusive admins on this site, and less time dealing with me asking you to do so, this site would be a pretty good place to edit again....like it used to be when there was an environment of trust and AGF instead of assuming bad faith because you don't like the message. BTW, I have done more for this site than Nyttend, Lego and Leaky combined x2, so don't be assuming my intentions just because your abusive to other editors and I call you out on it. If you don't like being called abusive, then stop violating policy and being abusive. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Also, Leaky I'm going to call you a lier again here. Beeblebrox is correct, I locked my account January 27 as anyone can plainly see. So your the one that needs to do your research before accusing Beeblebrox of being lazy. Just because your looking for a reason to get me blocked, doesn't mean you can make one up out of thin air and then accuse another editor/admin of lazy research. I'm also not quite sure why someone didn't mention that sooner and why I had to do it. Geez people does policy and common courtesy not apply on this site at all anymore? 108.45.104.158 (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Leaky caldron's statement appears to be mostly accurate. You may have stopped using your account late last month, but Beeblebrox claimed you "began editing as an unregistered user" after you abandoned your 'cleanstart' account. If you have been editing with an IP for several months then you did not begin editing as an unregistered user at the time (you may have continued editing as an unregistered editor as you had evidentally been doing for several months). Perhaps Leaky caldron could have been clearer but if you read their statement careful, they did not actually dispute you may have stopped editing or otherwise abandoned your account late last month, so evidence that you did so is largely irrelevant. They only disputed when you started editing with an IP, specifically they made the claim you had been doing so concurrently with using your account (in the same discussions) for several months. Since you didn't dispute this I'm guessing it's accurate. BTW, even if Leaky caldron had said something which was wrong, their message came about 1.5 hours before your reply. (In fact, it took me longer to point out your accusations appear to be misguided than it took for you to reply.) And at a time when, I know from experience, there's usually somewhat of a lull in activity on wikipedia (Americans are sleeping, Europeans are at work), particularly from admins and on noticeboards. And this is AN not ANI which tends to get less action. So your complaints about a lack of courtesy or people not pointing something out sooner are frankly just dumb, and suggest you have little idea how wikipedia works and unrealistic expectations of volunteers here (which is definitely not courteous). Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC) I may be unrealistic but I fully understand how Wikipedia works, doesn't work and should work. I also agree that I sometimes didn't bother logging in to edit. That's part of why I finally stopped logging in at all. I believe Beeblebrox's comment was more that I abandoned my account and only use IP's now. I also want to add that I wasn't wheel warring, voting or doing vandalism from the IP's I was just commenting and generally people knew who I was. That is until the community decides to Ban me from the project rather than deal with the bigger and more difficult to fix problem of dealing with abusive admins and a culture that more and more disregards our own policies when it suits them as noted by your personal attacks of calling me dumb, something I was recently blocked for I might add. So just to let everyone know I am going out of town Tennessee this weekend so unless I login from my hotel room you all will be free to insult me, talk about how much of a troll and a vandal, trade personal attacks (and certainly no admin will block you from doing so). You can even block me if you want because I know some of you want too. I probably won't be able to respond or comment till Monday at the earliest. If you want to be useful or use your time more wisely I would suggest starting a review of the admin actions being performed by admins for the last 90 days, you'll see comments and actions that would appall you. But, I'm sure you have no interest in doing that, because the system has been made so that it is inherently difficult to get rid of an admin...an editor though is just a block away. Cheers. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Well you clearly don't understand much about wikipedia, what you've said has demonstrated that. Whatever Beeblebrox may have meant, Leaky caldron had quite a legitimate point that Beeblebrox's statement was quite misleading as implying you only started editing with IPs recently when you had been misusing them for a while. Which considering the core issues here, is important to the discussion. BTW I stopped reading after about your 4 or 5th sentence, not because your post is very long but because I found it incredibly boring (and this is from someone known for very long posts). But I will say whether or not we have a problem with abusive admins or whatever else you mentioned, people who behave like you have here and elsewere, are clearly the far bigger problem than whatever other nonsense you're talking about. It's unfortunate, to say the least, that you don't understand that. And I say this as someone who is not an admin and has never really been that interested in being one (I was asked a few times a while ago). Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Anyone who follows Jimbo's talk page knows that I have been a severe critic of Kumioko. And truthfully, I believe you gave him exactly what he wanted. He abandoned being a productive editor a long time ago in favour of his little anti-admin crusade that crossed the border into outright zealotry. It was obvious from his comments (example; note edit summary) on Jimbo's talk page that he was outright trolling for a block. (I found it pretty hilarious that he expected I would play into his hands there.) Kumioko has a obvious martyr complex going and his WP:POINTy behaviour flows from that. Resolute 14:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Speaking of abusive admins. Hi Resolute. Your are a great writer Resolute but why don't you leave the admin stuff to people who are good at it and have the proper demeanor. Your just upset because I'm not afraid of you and your admin super powers and I won't put up with your abusive BS anymore. I might act like a jerk sometimes but I am nice to people who are nice, I am a jerk to people who are jerks. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC) In this version of WP:RFA [51] you edited as Kumioko. In the same revision there are 25 edits by 108.45.104.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (clearly you). The following Interaction Tool Analysis show a small sample where you have edited multiply and a simple Ctrl-F highlights the sections in which your edits overlap. [52], [53],[54],[55],[56], [57],[58] On this subject of trolling, what would you call this? [59] Finally, unless I'm mistaken this could be you as well, interacting with your various IDs all over the place 71.126.152.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Leaky Caldron 14:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC) No that one is not me. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Thank you for proving my point, Kumioko. FWIW, I do generally "leave the admin stuff to people who are good at it". Doesn't mean I won't call a spade a spade though. But perhaps you can answer a question for me. Are you trying to nail yourself to a cross because you really want to be a martyr, or are you doing it because, despite numerous "retirements", you realize that you are unable to voluntarily separate yourself from a project you've long since given up on and are hoping someone else will do it for you? Resolute 14:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC) I dont really see how I proved a point about anything. To answer your question though I'm not really trying to be a martyr but if that's what it takes to call attention to the projects problem of abusive admins I guess I can be. I still think its a shame so much time and attention is being paid to me when everyone including n the admins know there are some abusive admins who shouldn't have the tools. Instead of addressing that, they would rather attack me because, presumably, they 1) don't like the message, 2) its easier and doesn't require the to go to Arbcom to do it and 3) don't like the inferance that they are abusers are enablers of abusers. The reason I keep coming back isn't because I cannot stay away, its because although I think this project is essentially a lost cause, I still hold this little tiny piece of hope that you all will listen to what I am saying, get off your lazy butts and do something to make the project better and get rid of some of the abusive and/or inept admins. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC) You cannot be as naive as you appear, but surely you recognize that if you have an issue with a few specific individuals, your habit of tarring everyone with a broad brush is the easiest way to cause people to dismiss you entirely. As a revolutionary, you are a hopeless failure because you methods defeat whatever message you might think you have to share. Resolute 17:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Its Kumioko again, I just wanted to clarify since I am posting from an unusual IP. I thought about it a lot on my drive and I decided if the community decides that they would prefer to ban me from the project than to do something about the abusive admins then I will abide by that. Its disappointing but that's the culture here, if your not an admin, then you cant be trusted and are therefore not trustworthy. Trust is a big part of the problem with this site and which will IMO lead to its failure. Just post to the KumiokoCleanStart user page once everyone is done voting. I already know the outcome so I won't keep posting after this. I also added 2 more IP's to the list above. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Site ban Clear-cut case of not being here to build an encyclopedia. I can't believe this much time has been wasted on this disruptive user. I favor an outright ban on his main accounts and appropriate blocks to any IPs used. -- John Reaves 15:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC) I would support a site ban based on recent behavior. ⛵ Admiral Caius ⛵ 15:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Support site ban, frankly the statements here are enough to convince me, and what little I've seen elsewhere also support that. Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC) This thread was started as a discussion of a block review and has morphed into a call for banning when there has never even been an Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kumioko? I also believe that given the nature of "anti-admin" language that the admin noticeboards aren't the best place for this. If banned from here then it looks like the admins did it. The community at large would be more appropriate for commenting and making any decisions via consensus. This would allow the non-admins to take a more major role in reviewing this situation. If folks are worried about martyrdom then don't fuel it.Berean Hunter (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC) That account is abandoned. He doesn't have a substantive account, just various IPs which are identifiable from the content. Leaky Caldron 15:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC) I don't know whether this will hold up but so far, in terms of those who have actually !voted (all 3 in support), only 1/3 is an admin. Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Why is it relevant how many are admins?--Rockfang (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC) I think the point is that Kumioko sees himself as being targeted by admins, while casting fewer aspersions on non-admins; if non-admins are also calling for him to be banned, Kumioko's arguments are weakened. Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Also, as a response to people who commented just below: (1) WP:AN is where community bans almost always get discussed, and the exception is the bans that get discussed at WP:ANI. (2) As OrganicsLRO says, a ban can be imposed on someone with a dynamic IP. To quote WP:BAN: Bans are different from blocks, which are used by administrators to technically prevent a user account or IP address from editing Wikipedia. Blocks are used chiefly to deal with immediate problems such as vandalism or edit warring. A ban, on the other hand, does not technically prevent editing; however, blocks may be used to enforce bans. Also, if you have a surplus of time, go read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors: there was an entire arbitration case for someone who only edited through dynamic IPs. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Note that my reply was directed at Berean Hunter per the indenting. Berean Hunter said this was a bad place for a site ban discussion (despite the fact, as others have pointed out, it's the norm for such discussions to be held here or at ANI which I presume they were aware of) because it may seem like the admins did it. And considering Kumioko's apparent problem with admins this would be undesirable. I'm not saying I agree, but considering that, I thought it relevant to see how true this was. Since of course, most editors in good standing are welcome at the admin noticeboards. At the time, the statistics were 1/3 people were admins !voting to ban which IMO makes it difficult to claim 'the admins did it'. The statistics now include more admins, but I think (I didn't check carefully for alternative accounts only at the user rights of the linked account) it's still 7/10 non admins are supporting a ban and 4/5 admins supporting a ban (i.e. a total of 15). Of course consensus isn't counting votes (for example, I only counted those those who clearly expressed a support or oppose even though there are obviously some e.g. Berean Hunter who appear to be supportive or opposed but didn't express a clear opinion). But still from this simplistic look it doesn't really seem it will be a case of 'the admins did it' if a ban is enacted. Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose as improper circumstances. AN isn't the place for community ban discussions. An RFC/U would be more appropriate, per Berean. KonveyorBelt 16:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Point of information - As is noted above by others, AN and ANI are the two locations where community ban discussions happen, and there is no specified order of preceding enforcement / community actions required prior to someone proposing a ban. If someone proposes a ban for unjustified reasons that will be noted, of course. This statement is merely informational regarding the ban process and is not an opinion for or against the ban proposal. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC) On what, a collection of IPs? (I haven't advocated a ban, btw). Leaky Caldron 16:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC) I dunno. Maybe you ought to ask the person who started this ban discussion what exactly could be achieved by site banning proxies and dynamic IPs. KonveyorBelt 16:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC) I thought a site ban was on the editor, rather than the account? The account may be long abandoned but it is clear that the editor is still here, and in the absence of any other common name, starting an RfC in the name of Kumioko (a name the editor clearly identifies as and responds to) would make more sense than any alternative I can think of. OrganicsLRO 16:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC) I didn't add the header, but I did propose the idea. I don't see any net positive to spending more time this editor. Perhaps it would be best to redirect this section to an RfC if that's the desired route. -- John Reaves 16:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Just to clarify a few comments above, I was here to build an encyclopedia and as far back as 2010 and especially back in about February 2012 I was shown that isn't the priority anymore Its better for admins to protect their Wikifriends even if they are wrong, to jump to conclusions rather than perform due diligence and review all the facts and protect the articles they own and the WikiProjects they belong too. Even if that means using their tools and violate policy to win disagreements. So no, my priority is building an encyclopedia but too many here just want to be Wiki Politicians and control everything to ensure their POV gets pushed. So regardless of any site bans or blocks I am going to continue to advocate that this situation gets fixed so this project won't soon go the way of AOL and MySpace. I also want to clarify another point its not going to matter where you hold this discussion, there are a lot of admins and wanna be admins that will show up to vote me out. Which is fine if you would rather send a message that abusive admins and editors are allowed here. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Also to the commentors here, don't believe everything you read, there is a lot of spin being added to this discussion by folks who want me gone so they can continue to push their POV and do what they want with no repercussions. So read between the lines of what they are saying and take into account how long I have been here and how much I did for the project. Why would I just go high and to the right for no reason. Think about that for a minute. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Support Multiple attempts to encourage Kumioko to move onward from their platform of "Admins are bad because the community wouldn't make me one". The benefit that the community has derieved from their contributions has been overshadowed by the general disruption and drama caused. RBI on recognition of the editor should be authorized. If the credentials to the "Clean Start" account have been intentionally trashed then we should take that as a permanant request by the editor that they don't want to edit here ever again. We've already granted this editor more benefits than most other editors who have followed a similar path. WP:DIVA should be followed and the "user" should be sent on their way. Hasteur (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC) If you really think I believe "Admins are bad because the community wouldn't make me one" you are gravely mistaken and really don't know me at all. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Support I normally skip ahead when I realize that I'm looking at another whine from Kumioko, but recently I gave a snarky response and received two "thanks" messages (not just clicking a link) from editors who are also tired of the pointless time wasting. The sad part is that if Kumioko took a few months off and returned without the grudge, they could resume useful contributions. Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose, and I say that as someone who has probably blocked him more than anyone. I'm really sad it's gotten to this point. I agree entirely with Johnuniq that Kumioko would benefit greatly by just forgetting about Wikipedia entirely for a few months; the method he's pursuing of effecting the changes he wants here is simply not working, and that has to be frustrating for him. But I don't think a ban would have that effect. In fact, I don't think it would have any effect other than alienating him further. It's not like he has a shortage of IP addresses he can post from if inclined, ban or no ban. 28bytes (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC) That argument applies to all ban discussions and the standard reply is that the purpose of a ban is to allow swift closure by WP:RBI. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC) RBI is designed as a response to vandalism, not to pesky critics who won't shut up. Carrite (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC) ? Probably the majority of site bans are not for vandalism, it isn't necessary. When someone is a vandal it isn't needed to site ban them to establish the person isn't welcome. Site bans are much more commonly used for editors who are not vandals but are still highly disruptive and just won't either change their behaviour or leave when it becomes clear their behaviour is unwelcome. Nil Einne (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Support as long overdue. BMK (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC) And the community would do well without you here as well BMK. But then the community won't ban abusive editors or admins, just those who speak out about them. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC) "And the community would do well without you here as well BMK". Possibly, but the community will determine that, not you. For someone who's annoyed when they're called a "troll", you're pretty free with the much more serious charge of "abuse" - you basically deal it out willy-nilly to anyone you dislike, sometimes on the flimsiest of rationales. But, for the record, my determination that it is appropriate that you be site banned has little to do with your being abusive of others, although, you've spewed out a number of NPAs recently (as have I, to my shame and regret). No, it's because you're become a net negative to the project. You're clearly WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia, and what commentary you do "contribute" - in Wikipedia space and on user talk pages - is unhelpful, repetitive, boring, childish, defensive, teaming with WP:BATTLEGROUND attitudes and fraught with an essential misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how the Wikipedia community works - although you clearly deem yourself an expert on that subject. Much of what you write appears to have the primary purpose of getting a reaction from someone, and if that's not "trolling", then nothing is. The bottom line is that the project will be better off without you, and you will probably be better off settling in as one of the resident shrieking voices at one of the Wiki-criticism sites, which will be much more attuned to your current program. If you ever decide to become a productive editor again, you can ask to be reinstated, but I'm sure that the leash would be extremely short - if, that is, you can convince enough people to give you yet another chance. BMK (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Support as one of the admins that Kumioko considers "abusive": [60][61], Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KumiokoCleanStart 2 Quite frankly, for someone who claims that admins have immunity from the same standards that regular editors are supposed to follow, he has been given much immunity, even though he should have been blocked long ago for Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, personal attacks, abusing multiple accounts (User:ThePhoenixReborn), block evasion [62], and other disruptive behavior. On this site, making serious accusations against any editor without evidence is not allowed; I don't see why my name has to repeatedly be dragged through the mud, and nobody will do anything about it, just because I am an admin. --Rschen7754 00:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Your correct I do count you there Rschen (but your not the only one) and you should have been blocked as well for many of the same reasons Rschen and yet not only have you not been you are an Arbcom clerk. That puts you firmly in the protected from persecution category. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Support as 2 accounts & god knows how many IP's and yet still being disruptive, Perhaps the WP:ROPE'S just ran out?. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Support, BMK's rationale above spells the reasons out quite nicely - as do Kumioko's very own comments in this very thread. Whatever his past contributions may have been he's here now for the sole purpose of personally attacking people. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Support site ban. A no-brainer; this has been getting increasingly disruptive for some weeks now, and the editor is very clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Support. It's a shame that it has come to this, but I don't see anything useful that Kumioko is contributing at the moment, and I see plenty of things that are not useful, as noted by Rschen7754 above. It would have been better to help Kumioko realise that the way he is attempting to reform the system is not working and not helpful, but that has been tried already. A ban seems to be the only route left. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose - Insufficient evidence presented to merit this ultra-extreme outcome. Carrite (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC) @Carrite - Has there ever been a site ban that you have !voted in favor of? I can't think of one. BMK (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Question: Kumioko, what would you like to see happen? What would you consider a win, and if you got it, would you be willing to take a break? - Dank (push to talk) 05:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Excellent question there, Dank.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC) I don't think it matters what I want, I really honestly don't think anyone cares. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Fair enough. I replied below at WP:AN#Sensitive_IP_list. - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose. I do not see the excessive harm about mentioning past problems, and often Kumioko's comments have been helpful to remember other issues by an editor with 400,000+ edits. I think blocking all IPs would likely do more harm, than good, because other anon editors would be locked out from editing at those numerous IPs. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Support - appears to have left constructive criticism behind some time ago. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose, with the strongest possible recommendation to Kumioko that he take six months away from the project before coming back again; at that point, i hope, his great productivity would have a chance to be better/stronger than his equally great frustration. Cheers, LindsayHello 12:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Support, it's about time. The user has had plenty of second, third and fourth chances, but still can't edit productively and it is apparent that he is incapable of taking a voluntary wikibreak. Nsk92 (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Support a site ban on the registered accounts, after which the IP addresses can be dealt with as block-evading sock puppets. If there is no "community consensus" here, recommend that his case be referred to ArbCom. (I think that "community consensus" at these noticeboards is a will-o-the-wisp, but that is my opinion.) I sympathize with but don't understand the suggestions that this editor voluntarily take a break. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose - He may be playing the victim, he may be getting on some people's nerves, but my own interactions with the user have been positive and productive. The user cares about Wikipedia quite a lot, to the point that conflict in the name of defending it - and apparently being removed from the project seems better then simply "throwing the towel in". A month off Wikipedia is more than enough time to get the priorities in order. A site ban under the circumstances is not going to help Wikipedia as much as it will validate the negative views. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Comment RfC/U are beyond pointless. They don't cause people to change their behavior and are little more than a "who can drag the most people's names through the mud the fastest contest". As for the site ban, I think it would be best to abstain from voting in it. Kumioko considers me to be a founding member of the evil league of evil. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC) sigh I'm going to let you all in on a little secret. It involves a mailing list discussion so the identity of the other participants will have to remain undisclosed, as well as exactly what they said. When the "clean start" account was started there was a discussion on the functionaries mailing list about whether or not it was socking. Because he deliberately got his old account blocked by, as I recall, publicly posting the password, it was not really a normal block. I believe the account was actually globally locked, which is a steward action that even arbcom cannot reverse on its own authority. By creating a new account and resuming exacly the same activities as his old account he was undoubtedly evading the block. I argued at the time that although he was evading the block he seemed to be doing what he was doing for attention and if we let the baby have his bottle that might take some of the wind out of his sails, mixaphorically speaking. I won't say I regret having made that argument, but clearly I was wrong as it is now clear to me that all it did was prolong the day this discussion was finally had. And now he is doing the same thing again, deliberately testing the borders of the socking policy, pretending to walk away and coming straight back and doing exactly what he was doing before. As much as I dislike the out-of-process blocks and attempts to end-run the banning policy I sympathize with the intent behind them. This is a user who is extremely tendentious in his arguments, who almost never has anything positive to say, and who again and agin stirs up trouble for no apparent reason other than to make a scene. When a user repeatedly quits WP in dramatic fashion and then immediately returns under another identity and continues what they were doing before, that is not an indication something is wrong with WP, it is an indication that something is wrong with that person. I don't pretend to know what that something is but I do believe the best thing would be if WP and Kumioko had some time apart. Like others here I would prefer Kumioko just saw the logic of that and showed some self control for once and just walked away, but I don't hold out much hope for that actually happening. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC) You are correct it was globally locked because I posted my password, I asked for my account to be locked and any admin could have done that but since I was denied I posted the password. That was, as I said, because I wanted my account locked and to edit as an IP, as is the case now, that was not allowed, so I created the ThePhoenixReborn account, that was called socking so I created the KumiokoCleanStart account because I had too many edits to simply rename the old account, they had to move it. So now that I am an IP again, its again an issue. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Support In Principle -- I think enough is enough with Kumioko and his shenanigans. However, the one who imposes the blocks on the accounts and numerous IPs are going to have to make sure that the IPs are not highly dynamic. Perhaps a range block would work, in addition to blocking the accounts? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 19:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Comment I find this discouraging because Kumioko has the potential to be a very productive member of the community. I haven't followed the history to know what went wrong, but I wish there were a better solution.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose -- less extreme measures should be used first. For instance, require the user to operate a single account or if they want to edit as an IP, we make some sort of restriction that they don't use IP's to evade scrutiny. Jehochman Talk 20:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose Per Carrite, per ChrisGualtieri, per others. --doncram 20:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Support something I can't tell if the User is evading a block or what, but the status quo: the repetitive unhelpful posts, the casting generalized and personal aspersions, the multiple unregistered accounts abuse needs to stop. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose- Per beeble's first comments on thread. What he's doing while some consider annoying is that he is not using his account. I don't see that as site ban worthy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC) That is not why he's being proposed to be banned. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose, because Beeblebrox is wrong is saying that is not an indication something is wrong with WP, it is an indication that something is wrong with that person. Beeblebrox is not incorrect because nothing is wrong with Kumioko's approach, but because this is Wikipedia: nothing is black and white / binary. We even espouse that in one of our five pillars (WP:IAR). While K's engagement style has become chronically ineffective -- I find the validity of his points is lost in both the volume and lack of structure in their contributions, and find myself skimming over their longer posts in discussions I otherwise have interest it -- there is no doubt in my mind that they value Wikpedia-the-Encylopedia and correctly identify some of its shortcomings. In the long term, we would better off at listening to some of Wikipedia's more critical contributors on-wiki rather than compelling them off-wiki, because a) the criticisms could be seen and evaluated by more editors, and b) on-wiki criticism is less likely to exceed the bounds of decency that sometimes occur off-wiki. While personally I don't have a problem with the IP editing because I can identify K almost immediately by the style, I understand most editors probably won't, so I would support a ban on intentional IP editing; that is, K should be required to create yet another account and use that exclusively because, honestly, if they've got to the point they feel that just having to log in is too much of a burden, it probably is time for a wiki-break. What no one has suggested or provided a link to is any instant of K disrupting mainspace -- you know, the important stuff. If their contributions in DR forums are disruptive, remember The oyster makes the pearl. NE Ent 20:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC) So if you never edit in mainspace, you're allowed to personally attack anyone you want as much as you want in other spaces without consequence? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose site ban. I think any user who proposes the ban of a user that does not result in consensus for the ban ought to be sanctioned their self, progressing in short order to their own topic ban against such nominations. I'll bet we would see an immediate reduction in these specious ban requests and an equivalent increase in RfC/U; in other words, a return to propriety.—John Cline (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC) The result of that would be chaos as nobody would ever propose a ban. And in many cases (including this one) a RfC/U is pointless bureaucracy. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC) So only users with the gift of precognition and an affinity for process may propose bans? -- John Reaves 21:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC) I'm nearly certain yours is but rhetoric, though I will proffer an answer: No.—John Cline (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Support. Kumioko started out as a productive editor, doing lots of bot-style small improvements, and working very hard to promote Featured content such as List of African-American Medal of Honor recipients. He assumed leadership of WikiProject United States, and there he began to run into trouble with other editors who did not agree with him. His failed RfA was a turning point; after that he was angry at the RfA process which did not give him the simple tools he needed to do more bot-style improvements. From that point forward Kumioko has been a thorn in the side of the RfA process, and an attention-seeking drama troll. He's threatened to leave Wikipedia many times. I support a site ban because Kumioko has long since become a resource drain on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Just to clarify the reason this ban is being discussed, is because the community would rather ban me for criticizing admins than to actually do anything about said admins. That's it, plain and simple. The nail that sticks out gets hammered and I am sticking out. Its not surprising that a large portion of those that voted support here (not all, in fact there are some editors I have never seen before) are also the same editors and admins who I think are the trouble. Another note is that I have little respect for those who would block me for "personal attacks or harassment" but then allow the editors I am responding too to call me "DIVA", "an attention-seeking drama troll", and others. Its pretty hard for me to respect someone who only enforces the rules when they don't like the editor or when they feel like it and not when the situation warrants it. If admins cannot separate themselves from their Wikifriends and enforce policy fairly and evenly then they/you shouldn't be admins, period! If that hurts your feelings, at this point, then I don't care, because its obvious no one cares about my feelings or the project which I am trying to get the community to make better. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Your "clarification" is nothing but yet another reiteration of your same-old tired screed, and entirely misses the point. You are being considered for being banned on the basis of very sound policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, WP:DIVA, WP:NPA and WP:DISRUPTION, all of which you are egregiously in violation of. This would be the case if your behavior was precisely that same as it has been, but your message had nothing whatsoever to do with admins, because it's the behavior which has caused this problem for you, not your specific viewpoint. The fact that you cannot see this, or how your behavior is seen by others is a major part of the problem. It really would be in your best interest to stop commenting here - you'd get more "oppose" !votes that way, whereas every time you post, you dig your hole that much deeper, since every comment is a display of exactly the problems that are being discussed. BMK (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Oh, and to those opposing the ban, I suggest you check out Kumioko's veiled threat to resort to massive sockpuppetry in the section below, where he writes: "if I want to edit, blocking the 2 or three [IP accounts] above is pointless. I also know how to get around the checkuser program if I wanted to do that and create an army of throwaway accounts." Yes, he does follow this by saying that he won't do that, but surely he is letting us know that he could if he wanted to. That, to me, is an implicit warning to us of his capability to disrupt Wikipedia, and an attempt on his part to coerce the discussion in his favor, since there was no real need to reveal this information otherwise. BMK (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC) No again, since you didn't read my comment that is not what I am saying. I am saying don't waste a bunch of time worrying about blocking IP's because its pointless and ineffective. That's it. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Actually, I parsed your comment quite closely. I know exactly what your statement meant on a superficial level, and that may even be what you think you were saying, but it was also, quite clearly, a implicit warning of what you are capable of doing. BMK (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Look BMK I was just stating that from a technical aspect there really isn't anything you can do to block me if my intent is to do so. 28bytes said it above as well and so did a couple other people. It doesn't really matter at this point, you folks are going to think whatever you want and there isn't anything I can say to change your mind. No one wants to do anything about abusive admins, it would rather silence me for trying. I edited up till about August of this year (along with advocating changes) and about August 2013 I just stopped making edits to articles because it became clear that it isn't a priority of the project anymore. People would rather protect their articles, they would rather blog in talk pages and act like they control the project. Then you have the WMF tearing up the project by releasing garbage like Visual Editor and soon Flow. So I feel like I am the only one around that even cares about the project. Am I? Certainly not, but it feels like it because all people want to do is rail on me. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC) If everyone "cared" for the project the way you do, the encyclopedia would wilt on the vine, and we'd all drown in WP:DRAMA. I, and most other editors care for the encyclopedia in a positive way, by improving articles, writing templates, categorizing, and so on. We care for it by making the encyclopedia better, that's what being a "productive editor" means. BMK (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Support, unfortunately. A couple of days ago on ANI I said I didn't think the level of disruption warranted a block, but I've since changed my mind. For example, the comment below, "I also know how to get around the checkuser program if I wanted to do that and create an army of throwaway accounts." sounds very much like a user who is totally off the rails and extremely unlikely to return to productive community editing. Sad that it's come to this, but here we are. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC) No, this is exactly why I don't trust you as an admin. Your picking and choosing pieces of the comment to justify what you want. Read the whole comment, not just the first sentence. I was just suggesting they not spend a bunch of discussion time on something that was irrelevant. Its like me just looking at your comment of A couple of days ago on ANI I said I didn't think the level of disruption warranted a block and justifying that you are saying I shouldn't be banned. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Don't be silly, what I want is for you to return to productive encyclopedia editing, or as a second choice to at least leave with some dignity and your head held high. Regardless of how the votes tally up, I won't be getting what I want because I'd say both those bridges burned awhile ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC) I support a site ban. Honestly, all this stuff got old ages ago. The user rarely if ever produces constructive content anymore; most of what I've seen from the user consists of whining about admins and the RfA process. TCN7JM 22:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose. The problem isn't Kumioko, it's all the people responding to him and giving him attention. Personally, I think he has made constructive contributions and has a lot to offer. His whining about not being an admin is annoying, but I ignore it, and so should you. I don't understand this need to block him and I oppose it. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Right, the problem isn't with the guy swinging his fists, it's with the people who get in the way of the punch. BMK (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC) No, the problem is with people who poke the bear, and then blame the bear for the problem. I've had several encounters with Kumioko and I don't see how he deserves a site ban. He actually deserves to be left alone. I hope that's not beyond your ken. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC) If he was a productive editor, I would totally agree with you, but as he himself admits (see above, where he writes "I was here to build an encyclopedia and as far back as 2010 and especially back in about February 2012 I was shown that isn't the priority anymore") he's "seen the light" and is no longer here to build an encyclopedia, he's on a self-appointed Mission, with a capital "M", and we're not here to accommodate that. If he were to become productive again, he should indeed be left alone to make his contribution, but there's no way the project can allow his kind of behavior from a rampant free-loading non-contributor, it sucks up time and gets in the way of the work. You're also wrong about people "poking him", if by that you mean they come to him to bait him. It's actually just the opposite, he haunts the high-profile pages, provoking people and whining when he doesn't get his way. If he's being "poked", it's because he actively went out looking to be poked, in order that he could, yet again, repeat his litany of what's wrong with Wikipedia. BMK (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC) That's not what I am saying BMK, as usual you are completely misreading what I said. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Sorry, Kumioko, you cannot deny the meaning of your words. There is no "misreading", there is only what you said - why is why you should really not comments any more. BMK (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Support per Andrew Lenahan and BMK. Kumioko appears to largely be here for the drama these days, and not to contribute to developing an encyclopaedia in a direct way. Their statement about block evasion below is concerning. Nick-D (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC) I can respect the editors calling for a ban based on the volume, tenor, and frequency of K's posts, although I don't agree with it. But implying there's some policy requiring all contributions to be direct is just making stuff up, and if the statement "I have already stated if the community bans me from this site I will live with that." is "concerning," this place really has jumped the shark. NE Ent 04:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC) That's the point I was trying to make by saying that they're here for the drama now. Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Comment – Kumioko mainly inhabits drama boards these days, where nothing much real happens. He is not disruptive to the main task of building Wikipedia. Sure Kumioko is tedious with his endless whinges about not being an admin. But we all have our quirks, and I would have thought the admin corps would be flattered by this inexplicable yearning of Kumioko to be a part of them. Aside from that, Kumioko is one of the now vanishingly small breed of editors willing and able to articulate accurate critiques of the system. The widespread admin stategy of treating able critics of the system as vandals and trolls by ignoring and marginalising what they have say, is of course effective. It is the strategy to be be expected from a bankrupt system which has no persuasive or rational counters to draw on. The last remaining strategy, and the system seems to be moving steadily that way, would be to somehow shut down constructive criticism altogether. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC) I'd appreciate a diff of some "constructive criticism" from K. BMK (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC) There is such a wealth of material there that I am not going to do that BMK. You can't have been actually reading what he has said. Just search back into the past on Kumioko posts practically anywhere and you will find constructive criticism. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC) (My goodness, my reading comprehension seems to be the subject of the moment.) No, I assure you that I have read what he's said (how could I avoid reading it, when he says it over and over and over again?), and I've found his criticism to be puerile, superficial and unconstructive. In point of fact, I've not seen him provide anything like a constructive suggestion to alleviate the faults he trumpets so loudly - he contents himself with complaining and tearing down, not with fixing and rebuilding. I was rather hoping that you would provide me with something constructive that he's said, but it seems that you're unable to do that, which is a shame. BMK (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC) I said nothing about your "reading comprehension". The first step in constructive criticism is to clearly identify dysfunctional areas in the existing system. Kumioko does this repeatedly and often well. He naturally repeats these "over and over and over again", because the typical admin response is to ignore such concerns and pretend they don't exist. Acknowledgement has to be there before there is any point in moving to constructive alternatives. Somebody needs to be listening. Nonetheless, Kumioko often suggests constructive alternatives. His arguments should be listened to and responded to with reasoned replies, and not just blown off with emotive language like "puerile and superficial". --Epipelagic (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Unfortunatly saying two editors "are jerks and should be banned", then later referring saying one is "a jerk to everyone" and "[should have] been stripped of his admin rights long ago for being a jerk to everyone" (full disclosure, he was referring to me) isn't 'constructive criticism', but rather personal attacks, and this isn't anything new but is, rather, his long-term M.O. It's regrettable, but since he either cannot or will not accept that what he might very well believe is constructive criticism is unacceptable to the Wikipedia community, well, that's why we're here. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC) I understand you are upset Kumioko said you were a jerk. Was Kumioko rude to you for no reason, or did you say something prior that upset him? Do you think that because you are an admin your feelings are more important than his? Are you saying you want Kumioko site banned because he hurt your feelings, and that this is what this issue is really about? --Epipelagic (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC) No, I'm not any of the above, but I am very dissapointed in the assumptions you've made that underly the statement above. I am not upset, my feelings are LESS important than anyone else's, and I do not "want" Kumioko site-banned. This issue, however, is really about the fact he makes and continues to make personal attacks and sees no problem with this, and thus as he either cannot or will not abide by Wikipedia policy and has declared below (whether he admits, or even realises, it or not) that he will continue to IP-hop sock, a ban is the only remedy left. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC) You say you don't want Kumioko site-banned, yet you vote to ban him. You say you are not upset Kumioko said you were a jerk, yet you say this is what the issue is really about. Did you discuss with him rationally what led him to make that comment? Kumioko's IP-hopping is pretty transparent and is only a problem for people who choose to make it a problem. He stated clearly below that he will not IP-hop if "the community" decides to muzzle him. A decision coming from a board like this, habituated by little more than admins, admin wanabees and drama board devotees, is certainly not a "community" decision. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC) I doubt if there's ever a World War III the people who turn the keys will want to turn the keys, but the keys will still get turned. I am, as mentioned, not upset in the least - to me, the insult is water off a duck's back. However, the repeated and flagrant violations of policy are the reason I don't see any other option but the ban. As far as discussing why he views me so negatively, I'm quite willing to if there is a prospect of progress. However the fact that, AFAICR, the only real interaction I had was where I opposed his usurpation of WP:FLORIDA by WP:US and things there seemed collegial at the time, means I haven't the slightest clue why he thinks I'm such a jerk. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC) The difference between theory and practice. In 1983, the keys did not get turned. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry, Epipelagic, but if there's constructive criticism at any point since Kumioko abandoned his account, at least, it's been stealthier than a B-2 stealth bomber. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Perhaps that's in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps it's there, as potent as a B-2 stealth bomber. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Oh please Bushranger, I called a spade a spade. This is nothing more than silencing me from continuing to call out abusive admins. That's all this discussion has been about. The starter if this discussion never intended for this to turn into a site ban discussion but you and a few others saw this as your opportunity to get rid of me. If I called someone abusive they did something first that provoked me to do so. I didn't just pick admins at random. As for personal attacks. I have been the target of personal attacks that no one gives a shit about for years. Calling me a vandal, a troll, a DIVA, then abusing the tools and blocking me for personal attacks because I responded in kind and didn't just stay in my little corner and take it. Now you and BMK and a few others want me to just stay out of the discussion while you twist what I say out of context, include blatant lies and distortions of the truth so you can justify banning me from the project? Please, that's not how I am wired. If this comes down to a ban then fine, but I am not going to just stand aside while I am still able to post and allow a few of the most abusive admins and editors on this site run this discussion. No one on this site cares about abusive admins or what I have to say about them at this point but when I am gone and they aren't under the gun and able to do whatever they want again its going to get worse. This discussion is just serving as an enabler to those. They are watching and hoping I get banned. This ban is just a disgraceful attempt to get me out of the way so a minority of the project can justify running it into the ground. I think it should be important to note that the people who voted here represent an almost insignificant portion of the community, far less than even an average RFA, and most are those that I think are abusive or bad editors and I have called out as being such at some point. At this point frankly, it really doesn't represent anything even remotely close to a community consensus. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Kumioko, there is a lot of sympathy for your views about abusive and ineffective Admins., not least from myself which you will know from many past discussions at RfA. Why, I have even be the subject of such within the context of this very discussion. Your problem as I see it is that you take your anger out on anyone who gets in your way, Admin., "bad" Admin. or non-Admin. You called me a liar twice up there without the slightest justification for pointing out your obvious use of multiple Ids while editing and for highlighting a blatant example of trolling, namely "Lol Ding ding ding. See, no need to login at all.", when challenged about it. You have too little to say and you say it too loudly, I'm afraid. The fundamental point you wish to highlight is being lost and you are now exasperating those who otherwise would agree and support you. I think the best way to deal with this is to ignore your off-topic rants via a modified version of WP:RBI, revert and ignore without the block, while leaving your useful contributions to speak for themselves. Leaky Caldron 12:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Moreover, it's just too confusing with these different ID's. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Support I'm sorry Kumioko. I really like you, and I enjoy every time we talk, but you need to stay out of Wikipedia for a while. It's for your own good. Six months to a year might do very good, but without a formal note that you are out I am sure you will just come back and back again until the end of time. You cannot separate from Wikipedia to take rest and come back fresh by youself, and so I feel forced to support a site ban I would not support under any other circumstances just because I know that it will be the best for you :( — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 04:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Strongest possible oppose - but hey, it's from an IP, so you might discount it. This proposal is blocking a user for speaking against the established consensus - doing so is repressing free debate, and leads to repression of ideas that can wake up this damn project. You are clutching at straws, saying he isn't here to "build an encyclopedia". You claim that the only way to help the project is to write articles - when it suits you. There are other ways to help - and one way is absolutely discussing the problems. I expect the Thought Police will win this argument though. 88.104.19.171 (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC) This cuts to the heart of the issue. There are over one thousand admins, and they have positioned themselves so they now have the power to close down the last remnant whimpers of constructive debate on Wikipedia. Prominent admins are pointedly endorsing blocking admins with awards and offering testimonials to the rectitude of admins who make unjust blocks. It is an increasingly fraught environment, where soon only admins and their yes men will have a voice. To say Kumioko isn't here to build an encyclopedia, as the OP of thi thread claims above, is gross misrepresentation and a more vexatious form of incivility than any Kumioko is guilty of. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC) How many of those 1000+ admins are active accounts? We do need adminship reform as Kumioko has so plaintively addressed for the last several years, but the way he's gone about it has been all wrong. He's got good ideas, but his social skills need work. That's the problem here. Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Why hasn't anyone invited me to join the admin cabal Epipelagic has uncovered? Am I not evil enough or something? Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Maybe you spend too much time writing content, & not enough time cultivating drama? Like me? (That's the only reason I have for why no one complains about my bitter attitude.) - llywrch (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Support To be honest I can't believe the community has put up with his nonsense this long. It should have been done a long time ago. Heck it should be been done when he evaded previous blocks by using his old bot account. He wastes so much editor time and causes so much harm to the wiki that it blows my mind that he thinks he is helping it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC) If only you would calm down, I could stop whipping you. Really folks, if Kumioko isn't buggering articles, just leave them alone. If they make inflammatory comments, find somebody who gets along with them to ask them to chill out. This whole process is just exacerbating the problem rather than solving it. Jehochman Talk 14:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose. Totally agree with Jehochman. Bishonen | talk 15:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC). Oppose. Is this really the worst thing about Wikipedia anyone can find to start a thread about? Sure Kumioko is always talking about admin abuse, but is that worse than actual abusive admins? Banning someone because you disagree with them is extremely bad form. —Neotarf (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose - If the Wikipedia treated its critics less like pariahs and more like people, there would eventually be less of a need for external criticism sites. Tarc (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Support - I don't like the idea of a ban for this user, who has shown himself to be as capable and committed a contributor as Kumioko is, but his disruptive behavior has reached a point that I have to conclude that a ban is appropriate. The fact that Kumioko's IPs ended up being the subject of an SPI case on another user is indicative of how broadly disruptive his behavior can be. Resolute's comments about anti-admin zealotry are on target, and Leaky caldron's bill of particulars is (unfortunately) accurate. A ban should be for a defined period (not indefinite, as this is a user who *should* be welcome here). I hope that Kumioko can control himself enough to abide by such a ban -- so that it doesn't get extended for bad behavior, but I'm not real optimistic about that. --Orlady (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Support site ban. User is clearly not here any more to contribute. --AdmrBoltz 19:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Support. Has anyone paid attention to what he's been saying in this thread? His comments include repeated accusations of lying and corruption; look at the paragraph beginning with "I also wanted to point something else out", for example. He's been responsible for jumping into tons of situations that don't involve him, only inflaming the results; let me remind you of the sockpuppet investigation for WilliamJE that I linked above, which clearly wouldn't have happened had he been editing with a username or had he not come in at all. This is not a simple critic: he raises WP:ANI threads while not mentioning an identity that everyone knows, and the results of the situation are markedly different from what they'd be if he'd noted who he was. That's the most basic element of WP:SCRUTINY. Throughout his comments, we're told how the eevil admins (me especially) are out to get him, without any evidence whatsoever. Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are considered personal attacks, and serious accusations require serious evidence. Make those accusations without presenting any evidence whatsoever, and why should we permit you to continue? Nyttend (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC) For what its worth Nyttend your not the worst admin, there are a couple I would consider worse. And just because your personal attacks are passive aggressive instead of direct doesn't mean they aren't personal attacks. And didn't you already vote in this discussion once above...or was that just a passing comment jumping into a situation that doesn't involve you, only inflaming the results? Or is this situation different because your an admin and I am not? BannedEditor (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Support. This edit, which comes across as little more than trolling, is the final straw for me. The repeated IP-jumping, now coupled with throwaway account creation, is unacceptable. SuperMarioMan 23:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose I see "things they do wrong" above, but I don't see reasons for such a huge and serious action. North8000 (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose. There's evidence of problematic behaviour, specifically personal attacks, and probably a battleground attitude, but not enough to justify a ban. Maybe try dispute resolution first; if that fails editing restrictions (such as interaction bans) would be more appropriate than a site ban. Peter James (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC) It is best to know a little about a case before commenting on it. Suggestions about dispute resolution and interaction bans may be fine for a run-of-the-mill problem, but they are totally inapplicable in this situation. Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose – What Jehochman says is totally on the point; Kumioko isn't doing things that are egregiously harmful to Wikipedia, so he should be let off the hook with a lesser punishment. Epicgenius (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC) What punishment would you suggest? BMK (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose per Jehochman and Tarc. I have seen no problematic behaviour in his use of various IP addresses interchangeably with accounts - everybody usually knows who they're dealing with, and when they don't it doesn't matter. I suppose it must be tiresome for hopeless, foolish, arrogant and abusive jumped-up little tools to have him pointing out their limitations, but there is a place for critics among us and plenty of valid targets for his criticism. Criticising the behaviour of literally dozens of deeply toxic personalities here is helping to build the encyclopedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Oppose—Doesn't seem like it will help anything. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Support per WP:SOCK, WP:DIVA (including the whole "Please globally block me!" incident on Meta[63]), WP:GRIEFING, and failure to follow the terms of remaining unblocked upon creating KumiokoCleanStart.[64] 71.234.215.133 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC) First, when do IP's get to vote in discussions on anything. Second, I see you added my old bot account claiming it was a sock, since when do valid bot accounts count as a sock? Third, you added at least 3 IP's that aren't affiliated to me in any way whatsoever. So this leads me to believe, since no one removed any of it, that stuff is going to be added randomly to my case to assist in justifying why I should be banned. I grant you its from an IP and IP's have no rights on WP as I have learned over the past few weeks and months, but still. If the evidence to ban me isn't there we shouldn't be manufacturing new stuff and twisting policies to suit our needs. This whole discussion is just turning into a bash Kumioko fest so someone pick an end date, tally the votes and close this fucking thing already. I don't need trolls and POV pushers commenting about how I hurt their feelings for violating policy and being bullies forever. BannedEditor (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Evidence for additions to list: Kumi-Taskbot (talk · contribs) was used to sock around the 15 February 2012 block of Kumioko [Kumioko (renamed)] and was blocked for it 138.162.0.45 was used to sock around the 20 February 2013 of Kumioko [65] 138.162.0.43 was used to sock around the same block [66] 138.162.0.42 was used to sock around the same block [67] by editing in a comment that was signed "Kumioko" from 138.162.0.41 (now also added to the list) The block log of 71.163.243.232 (talk · contribs) provides ample evidence of its use to sock around blocks While the .45 and .43 edits are not signed, the editor's fascination with ArbCom, the complete lack of the IP's history in that realm before or after, their critical contents, and the timing all point to block evasion. The rest are clear block evasions. 71.234.215.133 (talk) In regards to the bot, I added 2 comments to discussions letting them know that I had been blocked. That was it. If you want to make a huge fucking issue out of that, then fine go ahead. As for the IP's hell I don't know, maybe it was me, that was a few years ago and frankly at this point I just don't give a shit. This discussion is a lost cause anyway and has devolved into a free for all mudslinging contest anyway because the admins want to let everyone be able to take their jabs instead of doing their fucking jobs and ensuring there is some civility maintained in these discussions. Everyone can say what they want except Kumioko, lets block him, everyone else gets their say though. I have a suggestion, why don't you all run a bot and just undo every edit I made. All 450, 000 of them. Just reversion delete them right out. I don't care. I just left a note on 28bytes's talk page to close this as a ban and initiate the ban. Then everyone can go back to pushing their POV, admins can get back to using their tools abusively and editors can continue to be the owners of their articles and their projects. No collaboration needed. What a fucking joke Wikipedia has become. BannedEditor (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Questions for Kumioko So of us have questions before replying -- Moxy (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Kumioko what is your intent here at this project? What are your plans on being constrictive to the project. At one time you did edit articles in a positive manner...is this something you plan to do again or are you here to advocate a change in how things are done here?-- Moxy (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Sensitive IP list The sensitive IP list should be automated to produce a warning when blocking one of them, and an email to WMF should be generated automatically. When blocking IPs I would bet that most admins don't exhaustively checks the sensitive list. It's ridiculous to ask people to do such checks manually when software can do the same job with much greater vigilance and accuracy. Jehochman Talk 20:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC) My experience with sensitive IPs is that the block log is generally indicative of their status as such (e.g. comments in the summaries and multiple short-term blocks). -- John Reaves 21:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC) It already does - see screenshot. Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Good. I've complained before about this. I'll check the IP against the addresses on the blocking page, but I'm not going to go to the main list and check against that. Dougweller (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Don't get too wrapped up with the blocking of IP's unless your intent is to restrict all IP's from editing because if I want to edit, blocking the 2 or three above is pointless. I also know how to get around the checkuser program if I wanted to do that and create an army of throwaway accounts. I have already stated if the community bans me from this site I will live with that. So unless your willing to ban all IP's, don't spend too much time talking about blocking my IP's and whether their restricted. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC) You are not scoring point with that statement. What are you upset about and if you have a justified grievance, how could I help you? Jehochman Talk 09:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC) My grievance isn't with you, its just a simple statement being blown out of proportion. You guys are assuming its technically possible to block me if I choose to continue to edit and its not. Short of banning all IP edits and making it so people have to request an account be related and their identity verified. I know too much about how the Wikimedia software and Wikipedia and the checkuser program work so your just wasting your time discussing blocking or not blocking sensitive IP's. If the community bans me then I will stop editing. You don't need to get wrapped up over blocking IP's. With that said, most of those who are calling for me to be banned are those I have identified as being abusive or a detriment to the project in the past so its hard to consider this a consensus of the community unless more uninvolved editors weigh in. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC) A lot of people here, including you Kumioko, are making valid points, but I think this last comment is definitive. You don't recognize this as a valid forum, or these critics as valid critics. You know how to subvert the system, and intend to, if you have to. So ... I'm not sure what this discussion can accomplish. There seems to be no enthusiasm in this discussion for an RfC/U ... the problem isn't that more information needs to be generated, it's that people on all sides of this discussion have more information than they want to have, ... and that leads to votes intended to "just get it over with", which can't be fair to you, Kumioko ... or to the people who feel that you're interfering with the jobs they perform on Wikipedia. All that leaves is ArbCom. Are there any objections to moving this discussion to that setting? - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Not so much an objection @Dank:, just a practical concern that we will end up with 2 months of highfalutin waffle from a group of functionaries in whom I have probably even less confidence that Kumioko does about Admins. (look at the pigs ear they made of the recent WMF motion, almost all too eager to jump on an Admin. here at the behest of a bullying WMF staffer without taking time to consider the wider picture). This isn't rocket science. Kumioko can accept a suggestion to use a new registered user and have his content subject to removal or hatting when it is wildly off topic or the same thing to the various IPs he uses. He has never demonstrated good-hand, bad-hand socking behaviour and I think just ignoring the diatribes while discussing his valid points can be a possible way forward. If he agrees.... But either way, Arbcom. would come up with God knows what sort of impenetrable sanctions which defy implementation. Leaky Caldron 14:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC) I agree with you that Arbcom's decisions have sometimes seemed odd ... perhaps they were looking at a different set of facts than I had access to, perhaps not ... but I don't think that's a reason not to refer a case to Arbcom, if there's no other suitable setting for the case. If we're worried that the Arbcom case will fail because it won't take X into account, then we should try to get consensus for the statement: Arbcom, we're referring this case to you, but we want you to make sure and take X into account. I haven't ever gotten the sense from Arbcom that they don't want to hear about what goals the community is looking for in an Arbcom case. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC) sigh - Ok, maybe I wasn't being clear enough the last few times so here goes again. The statement above was not intended to be a threat or a message of intent, it was merely a statement pointing to the technical limitations of the Wikipedia software. I say again, I have no intention, of posting after this ban takes effect. Also as a further point of clarification you are correct that I do not think this discussion is an adequate representation of "consensus" of the community however in addition to the supports and opposes here I have also gotten at least 3 dozen emails from various editors, more of which are supporters than opposes of this ban, but chose not to vote here for various reasons. They did feel compelled to explain their reasons in private to me however which is totally fine by me. In addition to that, this is a high traffic, high visibility page and a lot of people by now have read and chosen not to comment, so in sight of the fact they didn't oppose it, I am counting them as in tacit support of this ban. As such, if no one noticed, I already added the Community ban banner to my old talk page and I am going to add a thank to the folks that opposed this ban. Other than that, my suggestion would be to close it. If you still feel inclined to take it to Arbcom, feel free although from my experience with them I am going to say that's probably going to be a waste of your time...but its your time to waste. Aside from that I would just close this as ban implemented. Although it might be useful in the future to define what the ban is and what the duration will be so that anyone who sees this in the future doesn't think the community does everything half assed just because they don't like the editor in involved. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Okay, let me just throw out a suggestion and we'll see how it goes. You've added a ban notice to the talk page for User:KumiokoCleanStart. Can you deal with a three-month ban, and would you be willing to check in with me after three months? At that time, I'd like to hear how things are going, whether your perspective on any of the above has changed, and if you have ideas for things you'd like to do on Wikipedia. Then I'll submit your ideas to the community and we'll see how it goes. I'd like to see you working on things you enjoy again. - Dank (push to talk) 03:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Kumioko's reply is at User talk:KumiokoCleanStart. I don't think he'll be back any time soon, and I'll stop watchlisting now. I'm sorry I couldn't come up with anything helpful here. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC) "I don't think he'll be back anytime soon?" Why? Because he made yet another dramatic DIVA display and labelled himself a "banned editor" when he has not yet been banned, and may not be? (Those tags are inaccurate and should probably be removed.) Kumioko's pattern is to go all DIVA, says he's leaving for good, and then come back almost immediately as an IP. After a while, he creates a new account and starts up again. I have no doubt that if he's not banned as a result of this discussion, he will do this exact same thing yet again. The tags mean nothing, and are no guarantee of his future behavior. BMK (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC) I just want to clarify something because its important. Bans do not prevent people from editing. They put more work on the community, admins in particular. They make it more difficult to edit and they make it more difficult to create an account. They are not a magic spell, fairy dust or unicorn poop that suddenly makes the individual incapable of editing. So putting your personal attacks on me aside BMK, because no one cares about who attacks me, how or why and they never have, a ban will not "stop" me from editing if that's what I choose to do. Also, its a well known fact that the checkuser program is garbage and can easily be avoided if I wanted to do that. Its also prone to false positives so since I have edited from several IP ranges that would affect the outcome of the result, if you want to ban a bunch of extra editors and accuse them it was me, then feel free. I'm sure you will find several you can add to the list of "Kumioko socks" since you seem intent on justifying your accusations that I am socking, which I am not. Just as I have restricted my edits to those related to this page or relating to this discussion, after this concludes, that will be it for me here. Not because this magical barrier was put in place, but because I choose to abide by it. BannedEditor (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Ah! Another unclarifying "clarification". In your fantasy, you may have these magical powers, but, in fact, if you are banned by the community, and "choose" not to comply with the ban, you will be dealt with like any other ordinary puppetmaster. Unless your socks return to actually editing the encyclopedia (something you haven't done in any volume for years), your posts will be immediately identifiable as being yours by their subject matter and style, and your socks would be squelched as quickly as you can make them. Since you clearly wouldn't be satisfied to simply make productive edits, and would inevitably slip into your complaining mode, your socking career is not going to be very successful. Besides that, once you start socking for real, any hope of returning to the community is gone. I guarantee you that most of the "supports" here would oppose your re-entry, as would some of the "opposes" if you took that pathway. So, please, stop acting as if banning is no big thing, and that you'd be doing the community some kind of favor by adhering to it. You've dug yourself into an extremely deep hole, and you're in serious danger of not being able to climb out again. These pronouncements portraying yourself as in some way a good Wikipedian because you're planning to abide by a ban (if there should be one) are absurd - your ban will be policed the way every other ban is, and unless you're going to abandon the project altogether, abiding by it is something you must do, not something you'd do to be nice to us. BMK (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Binky, you are about the last person on this project I need to justify myself too. You were already banned and allowed to come back yourself so you need to just disengage. For your information though, there is this thing called a contribution history and there is a Lab tool that will show my contributions. Anyone can see your full of shit when you say I haven't contrbuted anything for years. I was editing quite actively all the way through September of this year. I had over 10, 000 edits each in June and July, so your accusation that I haven't done any useful contributions are pure lies and show that you are only pushing your own POV and have no reason to be allowed to edit. You are a purely disruptive editor and you are characteristic of the type of editor I have been advocating be addressed. Fortunately you are not an admin but you are still active enough to be a net negative to the project. However I will admit you are right about one thing. Once I am banned I will be banned forever, this community has never been one for forgiveness and frankly I have done nothing requiring redemption. If the community doesn't take the problem of abusive admins seriously and wants to get rid of me so they can continue to ignore the problem then thats fine. I am confident though at some point in the future you also will have a big fat banned or retired banner on your page as well. Its only a matter of time just like so many before you or the last time you were banned from the project. Again though I was an extremely high output editor with a very technical understanding of how the project works. The ban process and the checkuser tool are simply not designed to deal with that 1%. You really need to quite instigating this BMK and move the fuck on and do something useful in the project for once. I really have better things to do than to continue to respond to your lies and general stupidity. Go find a girfriend or boyfriend or whatever your into. Sing a song, build a puzzle, play Xbox, I really don't care, but please disengage from this harassment and go do something else and leave me and this discussion alone. You say I am digging myself a hole but your standing on the edge of that hole and about to fall in. I would be happy to take you down with me but do you really want to go with me or would you rather stay here and continue to be an abusive editor. You cannot push your POV and trash if your banned from the project with me. BannedEditor (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Who is "Binky", Kumioko? And please let me "clarify" your various misstatements of fact. I have never been "banned", I was blocked for using serial accounts, and was allowed to continue editing after a community discussion that took into account my contribution history and the circumstances that provoked me into changing accounts without notification - real harassment that involved my real-life identity. All of this is public information, linked on my user page where it says "My history." I've never hidden it, and have never run away from it. As for your contributions, anyone can look at your pie chart and see just how productive you've been or have not been in the last 11 months. As for your threats of taking me down with you, the fact that you might actually believe that is just sad. I don't know if you've noticed, but you're not in control here, and my history is not the subject of this discussion, yours is. BMK (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Enough trolling BMK, your just embarassing yourself. BannedEditor (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC) How is BMK's comment trolling, exactly? ⛵ Admiral Caius ⛵ 21:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC) BMK meets several of the criteria for a troll. Generally though, in this case, he is deliberately and intentionally attempting to disrupt this discussion to push his own POV that I should be banned. We already know, he has had his vote and his say so at this point all he is doing is being a nuisance to the discussion and misusing the process. I hope that helps to clarify. At this point any fool can see that my ban is essentially assured so there is no need for his continued grave dancing just to be a Dick. BannedEditor (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC) That's incredibly hypocritical, Kumioko. You champion that you need a new, pointy account to respond to "personal attacks", yet you label anyone who responds to you a "pov-pusher", a "disrupter", a "gravedancer" and a "troll". ⛵ Admiral Caius ⛵ 21:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Admiral, I speak freely these days. If you don't like that, me, my attitude or the way I wiggle when I walk then the Arbcom is (---->that way) Feel free to tell it to them. You and BMK can turn this into a full blown Arbcom case. This process has already been allowed to turn into a mockery anyway. I'm done here, its obvious your just here to grief. Now shoo (or fuck off whichever you like less)! BannedEditor (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Darkness gathers... --Epipelagic (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Children will be children.... Blackmane (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Kumioko/"BannedEditor"'s recent behavior Anyone who reviews Kumiokos recent behavior (starting with the pointy creation of yet another account, BannedEditor) can easily see the problems quickly ematating from his actions. Kumioko's apparent goal is to abandon constructively contributing to Wikipedia altoghether in order to pursue any admin deemed "abusive", actions that cannot be described as anything short of trolling. Also intriguing is the threat to continue socking and disrupting no matter what sanctions the community imposes upon them, stating that "a ban will not stop me from editing", "it is a well known fact that the checkuser program is garbage and can easily be avoided" and other such threats. It is obvious that Kumioko has become nothing less than a Wikipedian representation of Statler and Waldorf, albeit with little humour involved. ⛵ Admiral Caius ⛵ 18:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Look, if the admins wouldn't have blocked the IP's and forced me to create a new account just to respond to comments I wouldn't have created it. Its a classic case of putting me into a situation where I can either break a rule so they can have an example to block me or I let them comment without being allowed to defend myself. is this the preferred way to respond? No, I don't like it either. Was the name I chose pointy? Absolutely and its intended to be. But if the admins wouldn't have blocked my IP, I wouldn't have had to create this username just to respond. Maybe you should be asking for the IP's to be unblocked. You clowns keep calling me a sockmaster because you don't want me to be able to respond. You want to continue to be able to insult me and add your personal attacks and me not be able to respond. In the end your just fanning the flames. If you would address the comments by BMK, Nyttend and others who are just instigating the problems and just let people vote Support or Oppose it would be much better and I wouldn't even have a need to comment. I also admit I think its funny that you and a couple of others say I am threatening because I have stated I will abide by the ban. The fact that I am technical enough to get around it should make you wonder why someone with that experience and who has over a dozen pieces of featured content, almost 500, 000 edits would get to this point. But you didn't ask because you don't care and that my friend is the problem with this site. Everyone is out for themselves and there is no concept or intrest in cooperation or collaboration anymore. BannedEditor (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC) You are rapidly becoming hysterical, Kumioko. You provide no evidence of alleged misconduct by BMK or Nyttend, who have given strong points against you to (compare to your response of "enough trolling"). Also, if you claim to be "technical enough" to avoid a ban, then why did you choose to create the pointy BannedEditor account rather than keep editing with IPs? Because you would be blocked for evasion? Note that all of your previous IP accounts were not blocked for evasion, but for personal attacks, something that you commonly accuse of your criticizers. ⛵ Admiral Caius ⛵ 21:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Actually I am not hysterical at all, I am a little annoyed at the length of this discussion and the general leniency that has been given to the personal attacks and BS levied against me but I am far from hysterical. I am quite calm actually. I would note one thing though; it appears that you have only edited here for a couple months and have a minimal number of edits. Yet as far as I can tell you have an excellent understanding of our terminology and policy. Now I am not trying to accuse you of anything, because you might well be a genius, but it sure gives the impression that you are either a sock of another editor or perhaps an editor who has left and come back under a new name. Neither BMK nor Nyttend have given strong points about anything other than I haven't been particularly nice to them because they are not nice to me. You also seem to infer that it is ok for others to personally attack me yet I cannot tell them to pound sand in return. On the IP issue, they blocked my home IP and my work IP, could I cahnge them? Yes, but its clear that editing from an IP is being used against me so I created an account with a very pointy name. Don't like the name, I really don't care. So as I said to BMK, you had your vote and you've spoken your piece now move along, there is nothing more to see here. BannedEditor (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC) So, umm, who are you, Caius? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Please ban him for not knowing the difference between "your" and "you're". Thank you. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC) And what should become of you for not knowing when to "shut the fuck up"?—John Cline (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Please close this Could someone uninvolved please close the site ban proposal one way or another? It's been open for over 4 days and I don't think there's much left to be said that hasn't been said already. 28bytes (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Banned user suggesting edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A curious situation has arisen regarding Mathsci (talk · contribs), who was banned for harassment by the Arbitration Committee in October 2013 [68]. He has apparently been sending emails to User:Rschwieb suggesting edits to the article Mutation (algebra), as reported here. He has also edited his own talk page [69] to make similar suggestions.

The suggestions (on the talk page: I have not seen any emails) do not seem unconstructive in themselves, although I would not necessarily accept them. There is of course a general position in Wikipedia:Banning policy that "Bans apply to all editing, good or bad". However I would add a personal concern. In April 2013 I had a rather unpleasant experience with Mathsci in which he displayed a surprisingly aggressive level of ownership: condescending unwillingness to engage in serious collegial discussion and lack of interest in finding consensus. I was not happy with the situation and decided to remove myself from the conflict [70] -- Mathsci's response [71] did not demonstrate any desire on his part to resolve the situation. I recently decided to resume editing (some time after Mathsci's ban). My concern is that Mathsci's comments relate to the article Mutation (algebra) which I created less than a week ago. It seems disturbingly likely that Mathsci, while banned, is in fact following my edits and is attempting to influence other editors to edit the articles that I am working on. This could be considered disturbing, although I am myself quite happy to consider any sensible and constructive suggestions he has to make, provided they are not accompanied by his previous levels of condescension.

I leave it up to the admin community to decide what to do in this situation. Deltahedron (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Followup: in these edits Mathsci condescendingly emphasises that in his opinion I should not have created the article in question at all. I am sorry that his response to my posting here is to continue his entirely negative attitude towards me and my edits -- if Mathsci had been able to take a more collegial line, I would have been inclined to view this situation more positively. As a direct result of his response, I now suggest that normal banning policy be applied, that Mathsci's email and access to his talk page be revoked, and that the one-year timer on any possible ban appeal be reset to today. Deltahedron (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with creating this. He's been indefinetly banned from Wikipedia, per the first link you showed.

That means (per WP BAN , he's allowed to post to his talkpage to appeal the ban only. He can't post with any other account either. So, he shouldn't be using his page to "talk" about that article or any other, nor should he have emailed anyone with suggested changes.

Further his talk page post smacks of gaming, especially his last line " That is a slight plus for would-be editors ". I'd move to strike it and block talk page access. (I haven't, I'm under a 0RR agreement with Floquenbeam, so someone else would have to ). But yesh, IMHO, he's gaming his ban.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   20:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Render under arbcom what is arbcom's -- I've filed an ae request Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mathsci NE Ent 22:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conversion of Oversighted edits to Suppressed edits

At some point in February 2014, a script is scheduled to be run that will convert edits that were oversighted using the now-deprecated Oversight extension into suppressed edits using the Revision/Deletion extension. Please see this backgrounder and FAQ for further details. See also T60373 for technical details. Risker (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this good or bad? It sounds like some ugly old edits that we all thought were unrecoverable, will become slightly accessible (via OS users) again--do we really need that? And I may not be reacting exactly appropriately to the word "script", but whenever I hear it these days, I expect something to go wrong. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it sounded like those edits have always been "slightly accessible", just without most people knowing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing is correct. After the migration, the edits will be exactly as accessible to each user class as they were before. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC on PC2 - 3rd admin needed for close

Colleagues; one of the 3 volunteer closers for the above-noted RFC has had to remove himself at the last moment. In a large, potentially controversial RFC like this, I continue to believe it best to have a triumvirate of closers. Accordingly, we need a new third.

As we have not yet really begun on deliberations, you're stepping in fresh and untainted. The sole requirements appear to be a) you're an admin, and b) you've never made any statements in favour or against PC2 at any point.

Please drop by the RFC talkpage to volunteer. ES&L 12:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm up for it, and indicated as such on that page. Pakaran 22:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Requesting page move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, is anybody here, who can move User:Euku/markAdmins.js to User:Brackenheim/markAdmins.js and delete the redirect on User:De.Spongo/markAdmins.js? (I asked Euku for permission this afternoon, see de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Euku#en:User:Euku.2FmarkAdmins.js. Regards, --Brackenheim (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Review requested: protection of Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For the last few hours there's been an edit war over this comment posted by an IP. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has deleted the comment and fully protected the talk page. I think it would be best if the comment remained and the page was unprotected (I've followed about half the diffs in the comment and they support the claims they're meant to support, so deletion under WP:NPA doesn't seem warranted - but I'm open to persuasion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

See my rationale here: [72]. – By the way, before anybody starts speculating about "involved" admin actions, I had resolved to protect that page in the state I found it (without the comment), as a perfectly uninvolved administrator, but then saw that somebody had beat me to it by a matter of seconds, reinstating the comment while I was preparing to hit the protect button. I think it is legitimate in such a situation to revert to the state I initially meant to protect. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That conflicts with my understanding of usual practice, but I'm no expert on page protection polocy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page archive move request

1. Wikipedia talk:Communicate OER/Archive 1
2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Open/Archive 1

Please could an admin move Wikipedia talk:Communicate OER/Archive 1 --> Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Open/Archive 1 ?

I'm in the process of formatting the talk page for standardization and uniformity.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, 28bytes, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User Divot

User Divot removes[73][74] the image from the article Azerbaijan. He was already against this image in Russian Wikipedia with the same arguments. After a long debates the administrator Victoria, who has a right to make conclusions in Russian Wikipedia on issues according to Azerbaijani topic, decided[75][76] that the image can be used in the article about Azerbaijan. But now user Divot continues his actions here. I think that this is destructive action, because consensus was already reached between users. We don't need to discuss the same thing hundred times in whole Wikipedia. So, please make some actions against him. --Interfase (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The map is wrong, Details on TP

Moreover, I asked a well-known historian Bournoutian, his answer: "The map is wrong. The word Azerbijan is written in another font and script--compare it to Georgia. It is impossible to put Erevan and Lake Sevan in the so-called Azerbijan in 1847-- since it was until 1840 the Armenian Province and after that the Erevan Guberniia.". Divot (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Administrator Victoria removed the map from the Russian Wikipedia

User Kreodonta three times returns the map ([77], [78], [79]) without a word on a talk page. Divot (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Truthrus33

Would someone else take a look at User talk:Truthrus33#COPYVIO and 3RR warnings, mainly below the block notice, and see if they are making proper use of their talk page. Also if they have rescinded the threat. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Meh. I can't think of the number of ways we don't need that idiot. Remove talk page access, I say. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah

Dear admins,

User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah appears to be engaging in disruptive behavior in Haaretz. The editor has not cooperated in discussion. The editor has not made constructive comments in the talk page and recently refused to participate in a dispute resolution process. See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Haaretz.

I also posted in the RS Noticeboard to help resolve the issue. The consensus was that if we have a full article as a source, we should cite the author's language from the article, not the abstract. I did not revert any part of the edit that the editor had an issue with. I simply changed "concluded" to "stated." The editor reverted with an overly dramatic edit summary (without explaining why he/she was reverting this bold edit). After that, I found the conclusion in the article, and just used the article's language, in keeping with WP:QUOTE. I kept the editor's choice of "concluded," and took the sentence from the concluding section of the article. I explained this in Talk:Haaretz. The user reverted without any explanation and accused me of violating 1RR. I quickly just self-reverted because I did not want to engage in any war for what should have been non-controversial edits.

After I brought this to the attention of a Dispute Resolution volunteer, Alf.laylah.wa.laylah then decided to post several new sections on Talk:Haaretz where he/she blew things out of proportion and made accusations against me. This battleground behavior is anything but civil. It is hard to cooperate.

When looking at the editor's history, it appears that Alf.laylah.wa.laylah seems to have disrupted the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and has trouble following the rule of WP:Revert only when necessary.

Do you have any advice? The user did not participate in dispute resolution. I am trying to come up with a suitable compromise per WP:RS and WP:QUOTE that uses the language of the article to avoid controversy, but this editor does not seem to budge. --Precision123 (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, you did violate WP:1RR. I thought I was doing you a kindness by offering you the opportunity to self-revert (which you took, sensibly) rather than going straight to WP:AE over it, so I suppose I've earned the pleasure of appearing on this noticeboard.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

IP unblock request

Hi, admins!

A class at the University of Western Ontario has a group of students who have been trying to create user accounts to begin editing. The professor (User:Professorclee) just notified me that a campus IP seems to be blocked (IP: 129.100.254.151). Can we possibly unblock this IP? Otherwise, I can help the students create accounts, but that will be a big obstacle for them as new users who are trying to start their training. Thank you for any information you can give me! Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the IP you've mentioned was caught in a range block (129.100.254.128/26) due to typical school vandalism. I've updated the block to allow account creation. As a side note, the original block is scheduled to expire on 03:59, 21 February 2014. Mike V • Talk 01:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Mike V: Thanks so much! Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Serbian elections

Hi everyone! There is a problem which, I hope, some of you will be willing to resolve. There is an user (ElectPartei) who change election results on articles about Serbian elections with his wrong, unsourced data. First he did it on Serbian parliamentary election, 2014, and now he's doing that on some other articles - look at his contributions [80]. Some other editors also reverted his versions... I definitely don't want to see this escalating into an edit war (I try to avoid those as much as I can), and I really don't have too much experience with reporting people, so I hope admins will be able to help to put an end to this. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Elevator

Please could an uninvolved administrator review Talk:Elevator#Semi-protection and user talk:Thryduulf#Elevators again. I'm interested in outside views of my initial semi-protection, my stance on the continued semi-protection, and the comments of all parties. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The initial semi prot made sense at the time but continued semi prot looks to be largely unnecessary. There is only 1 IP editor discussing seriously on the talk page and the edit warring ones have probably moved on. The only editor being stopped is the IP and judging by their willingness to discuss there's no point just preventing 1 editor from editing the article. Blackmane (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Compromised account?

I came across these two edits from MeetDrBen (talk · contribs):

• here he states "I am the Publicist and Manager of Dr. Benjamin n F. Chavis, Jr."
• here he states "I am Dr. Chavis".

The one or two compromised accounts I've blocked in the past were obvious "my brother did it" vandalism incidents.

Here, there aren't any behavioral concerns except WP:COI editing including the two good-faith requests linked above. What do we do here? Block it anyway? Try to educate? After all, there's nothing to prevent he/them from creating a new account that they both use, and it would never be detected if they don't slip up like that. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Obviously a violation of WP:NOSHARE - edumication time DP 09:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I soft-blocked it and instructed both individuals to create new, separate user accounts. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

User has received final warning, any further violations should be reported at WP:AIV for quick response. (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 16:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Wikiuser224-0-0-9

[81] etc. Divot (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Denied: Improperly warned. The user is now warned. Bearian (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

---

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

New editor is on a tag bombing spree

User has been blocked. (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 16:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Surface wall Is an account that is only disruptive editing by adding tag {{refimprove}} on articles that don't need it. (1 2 3 and more) user has been asked and warned to stop the disruptive editing however continues to add the tag.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

While some tags appear valid i.e. Volodymyr Ploskina, the vast majority of tags appear disruptive and the eitor's lack of communication if concerning. However they have not edited for 30 minutes so perhaps they have listened after all... GiantSnowman 16:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This was already reported here but disappeared due to some glitch. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Old Block Log

Admins, I was doing some housekeeping and stumbled across my old block log [82] and was wondering if it can be deleted. I don't remember exactly what all the commotion was about, but I think about a year after the block was made, the person who made it was DSd for abuse of admin powers and later had some problems of their own with edit wars and blocking. The interaction ban this whole thing was about was also later overturned. I think these block logs are used as a "wall of shame" to some extent and would like it cleared, especially since I've had no blocks since in nearly four years. Opinions? Thanks! -OberRanks (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no way to clear that without some really extraordinary circumstances, but people looking at it will probably know to take it with a grain of salt, especially since you've been editing for 3 years without problems. ₆an⁶sh₆ 21:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Need administrator attention on Wikimedia Commons

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I left a message on Commons Administrators' noticeboard for an urgent matter. NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 01:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

All taken care of. Someone please close this discussion, thanks. NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 01:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ADMIN WANTED

Please, will one of you read over the ANI thread "Two editors, an IBAN, and a possible case of hounding/baiting" and assess the situation? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Come on dudes and dudettes, close that thread. I'll send you Wikilove and whatnot. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• The section that needs closure is at the top of ANI, at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Two editors, an IBAN, and a possible case of hounding/baiting. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• And pizza, don't forget the pizza, for the brave admin who wants to close that quagmire. Blackmane (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done - like it or hate it it's the best I could come up with. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Interaction ban between User:Rusted AutoParts and User:TreCoolGuy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am requesting that, in addition to the newly created guidelines for Rusted AutoParts to follow from his most recent block (which can be read up on starting here), I am requesting that an interaction ban be added between him and TreCoolGuy. This was fueled by the discussion Rusted started on February 13 on Tre's page (here), but this whole situation stems from "bad blood" as it were, since Rusted started an SPI into Tre, and after the initial result, kept going back to it. With the short leash Rusted is on now, I think this will help him try to improve, as he has stated he intends to, and will also help for Tre, who has been an offender of 3RR in his own right, but that's for a different discussion. If any other diffs or info location is needed, let me know. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support. gsk 21:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support - yep. Both parties need to step away from each other - Alison ^❤ 21:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support makes sense. I mainly just wanted to know why the user felt the need to plaster my user page with my block notice. Rusted AutoParts 22:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support, and good to see you back Rusted. I hope things go well for you. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 23:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support - TreCoolGuy 14 February 2014
• Support - But why did someone not just report TreCoolGuy to WP:AIV after vandalizing User:Rusted AutoParts's userpage, as he had already received a final warning (can be found in their talk page history). This user has a long disruptive editing history as Favre1fan93, among many others can attend do. STATic message me! 01:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support Pass a Method talk 16:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support Looks like it is best to have an interaction ban. Ethically^Yours! 16:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support - if it wasn't for the fact it is mostly stale, I would also support a hefty block on TreCoolGuy for the userpage vandalism, and for their explanation being "First of all I can explain the first one, you humiliated me infront of everyone on Wiki by calling me a Sock puppet and showing that I was suspended for a period of time. I just wanted you to know how that feels." Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like to propose a block for TreCoolGuy, why don't you make a separate section (or subsection) for that? I would not oppose that. While involved in the previous discussion as STATicVapor mentioned, my only concern with this section was for the interaction ban. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Given the interaction with the user on my talkpage, I'm concerned about their clear lack of WP:COMPETENCE, but not enough to start another thread on them just yet (an example: they thought I was calling for a permanent block, which I clearly wasn't.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yup. I see that. Happened on STATic's page too. Competence is the major issue many of us in the discussion I linked (and others) are having. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support – Yep, looks like there's a lot of disruption that can be solved perfectly with an IBAN (no sarcasm in there). Epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SP Request

Hello, I recomended to Semi protection of Pakistan Idol (season 1). Some IPs trying to disruption editing on it. Please Protect it. Thanks - Cod Swick! (Reply here) 09:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I see no evidence of IP vandalism since February 6, so no protection is needed now. And for future reference, pleasse take requests like these to WP:Requests for Page Protection (RFPP). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Kendite/يوسف حسين

Discussion

User:Kendite/User:يوسف حسين has been a disruptive presence on the Yemen-related pages for some time. Over the past week alone, issues involving him have included (but are not limited to) general rudeness, calling another editor out of name, page owning, using gratuitous racial language, abusing multiple accounts, revert warring with multiple editors including an administrator, avoiding talk page discussion, ignoring standard talk page etiquette, ignoring administrator instructions to seek consensus, and deleting another editor's talk page comments. He has in the process showed little to no understanding of the gravity of his actions let alone contrition, despite having been blocked twice over the passed few days, with his Kendite account indefinitely banned.

He originally used to post using the Kendite account, but later abandoned that for the يوسف حسين account. The user first started using the يوسف حسين account in April 2013, in the midst of a heated exchange with another user on the Sheba talk page [83]. He changed the signature two minutes later to point to Kendite [84]. The other editor in the dispute then sock-tagged يوسف حسين's userpage [85]. Kendite promptly removed this tag [86], claiming that يوسف حسين was “just the account i use on another wiki project” and that he “edited one page using this account without realizing it”. This was of course an absurd excuse since an account first needs to be registered on English Wikipedia before one can use it here. Instead of publicly disclosing on his user page that that was an alternate account, the user continued to edit-war with various users to conceal this fact. This was despite the fact that both accounts were used almost exclusively to edit (and in an often disruptive manner) the same set of Yemen-related pages. The Kendite account was eventually indefinitely blocked about a week ago after a sock case confirmed the relationship. However, an administrator generously gave the user a second chance by allowing the يوسف حسين account to remain unblocked, and warned him not to repeat this behavior [87].

Despite this, Kendite/يوسف حسين continued to edit disruptively, revert-warring on the Yemen page over slavery-related material with a number of different editors, including User:Inayity, User:AcidSnow, and administrator User:Materialscientist. The user in the process also engaged in personal attacks in his edit summaries, while altogether avoiding discussion on the article's talk page. Additionally, he simultaneously revert-warred on the Najahids page with several editors over the same issue ([88], [89], [90]). More disturbingly, a number of editors including myself also noticed certain racial overtones in the user's remarks. The most glaring example of this was Kendite/يوسف حسين 's gratuitous use of the antiquated epithet "Negroes", although the source itself did not use this language [91]. He was eventually blocked a second time within a week for disruptive editing [92]. However, here again the blocking administrator was generous and gave the user another chance by not indefinitely blocking his account. Instead of showing contrition and pledging to improve his behavior, the editor in his unblock request proceeded to attack other users and refused to acknowledge that he had even violated 3RR. His unblock request was predictably declined by another admin [93].

After coming off his second block in a week, Kendite/يوسف حسين promptly attempted to revert the same material on the Yemen page that he had been edit-warring over to begin with. He only stopped reverting when I reminded him of the blocking administrator's condition to “consider agreeing to wait for consensus” [94]. Instead of sincerely attempting to reach a consensus, the user proceeded to ignore standard talk page etiquette, accuse me of attempting to "show off" when reminding him to adhere to it, take my words out of context, repeatedly call me out of name, make snide remarks about what he presumed were the ethnic backgrounds of the other editors (which none of us had actually divulged), and aggressively answered comments I never even made [95].

Besides the foregoing, the user also has major WP:OWNership issues. He at one point threatened the user AcidSnow outright to "just stay away from any Yemen related article" [96]. One of Kendite's last actions in this vein was to delete the talk page comments yesterday of the user Inayity. When Inayity protested [97], Kendite claimed that it was another accident. The user then gave Inayity permission to post his own comment again, but told him to “refrain” from doing so “if it's not related to the discussion” [98]. To add insult to injury, the user signed this dictum with a smiley face. Ironically, this very thread likewise owes its existence to one of Kendite's myriad orders/taunts (“file a complaint! you keep circling around this in a pathetic way you know that?” [99]).

Given the foregoing, it's clear that Kendite/يوسف حسين has expended every last ounce of good faith that has been conferred upon him. He was repeatedly given second chances by administrators, whose collective trust he squandered by not only re-engaging in the same disruptive behaviors as before, but actually intensifying and multiplying them. I therefore propose either a permanent Wikipedia editing ban on this user, or at the very least a lighter permanent topic ban on editing the website's Yemen, Arab world and Horn of Africa-related topics. Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I would add I seriously believe my remarks, which were to the affect be concise on the TK page, spare us the extensive bulk of text. From the edit history it was NOT an edit conflict, but a deletion. I suspect the user, since believing he WP:OWN the page is in control of what I can post. As he has asserted I have no role on the page only to "Help a friend" my comments are worthless. I may have replied with some minor incivilities, because it is shocking to be told to keep the talk page relevant by a prolix TK violator *the cheek*. --Inayity (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually the excuse that he/she “edited one page using this account without realizing it” is not as absurd as Middayexpress thinks. The يوسف حسين account was used on Commons and Wikidata in 2013. When he/she registered the Commons account it would have automatically created accounts in all languages' Wikipedias. If you have a Commons account under a different name than your Wikipedia account, then you also have a Commons account under your Wikipedia name, and a Wikipedia account under your Commons name. It is possible to accidentally edit Wikipedia under your Commons name if you click "keep me logged in" (and vice versa).--Toddy1 (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting; I wasn't aware of that. However, he was apparently not talking about his account on Commons but rather one on the very different looking Arabic Wiki [100]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I was not engaged in any disruptive editing, see the Talk:Yemen#Other Sources Regarding Sheba and Talk:Yemen#Najahid. User Middayexpress ( i had to write that right because apparently he takes it seriously) reported me several times on different occasions. He accused me of having multiple accounts and sock puppets but this user check proved him wrong. I was blocked again not for having multiple accounts but for edit waring because i believed that this edits were unjustly reverted. So i was blocked for 48 hours and i was told to engage in a discussion before reverting even if i did not break the 3 reverts rule, so i did. I did not revert their edits until i could receive census in Talk:Yemen#Other Sources Regarding Sheba and the usages of words like "black" and "Ethiopian Slaves" in the article because apparently user Middayxpress perceive them to be offensive or " too general", therefore specifications must be made.

Regarding my other account, User middayexpress said that an admin gave me a second chance! You should not have resulted to this because anyone can check the page history. The admin indeed thought that i had a sockpuppet account but the user check proved that it was not. any admin can check that i have the same email for both accounts, this one and the "kendite" account. i explained myself to many editors that i have simply changed my name in Arabic language wikipedia from "kendite" to "Yousef Hussain" and did not create another account. I did upload a lot of pictures to commons indeed and maybe i forgot to log out i really do not know what happened. But one thing i am positive about is that i did not claim to be a different person or engaged in disruptive editing using multiple account. User Middayexpress keeps bringing this issue up even though the case is closed and i have read somewhere in here that this is against Wikipedia policies.

As for my edit warring in Yemen, the reason i got so convinced that arguing with user Middayexpress and his group is pointless, was because i got engaged on multiple discussions where the users disregard every modern scholarly work and reference to prove their own personal views. So i decided not to argue with what i perceived them to be "Afrocentrists" or "Pan Africanists". I still believe them to be but i realize now that by refraining from engaging in a debate i was only hurting my position. I got blocked for being unwilling to talk to any one of them any more without explaining my reasons to any admin. The block was lifted but as you can see user middayexpress and his friends keep bringing that up every time, here or in Talk:Yemen and i do not think that constitute a good faith. User Midday express accused me of every obscenity one can make while editing in Wikipedia. His friends called me a "liar" and "stupid" and above that they kept threatening me that they will report me, as if they own the project and have some sort of superior power on me. [101][102]

I never threatened User Middayexpress or claimed that i own the article. Read Talk:Yemen#Najahid to see what i am dealing with. This user disregard every source i provide to prove a preconceived notion. In all of his contributions, he never made a solid argument but kept referring me to Wikipedia policy pages and reminding that i got blocked for edit warring. He accused me of incivility and calling him out of name. I did not pay much attention to his user name and sincerely thought of it as Midwayexpress , i did not see the big deal but apparently it is. Nevertheless, they kept referring to me using my previous user name to indicate that i was accused of having a scokpuppet account. His attitude in general was not that of someone who wants to reach census on an issue but to discredit me and disregard my efforts to show my side of the story. Because i did try to reach a common ground with him but instead of agreeing he jumps on talking about a completely different topic. like he did here. I agreed about his usage of an awkward term like "Jazali slave" instead of "Ethiopian slave" although these "Jazalis" are basically an Abyssinian tribe which makes them Ethiopians in the end of the day. But i agreed to his condition and asked him to keep the historical narrative. He refused and started talking about another group in Yemen called Mehri people, to prove that the "original Yemeni" ( a term that i first saw here) public are black.

User middayexpress accused me of taking his words out of context. well, he quoted this text :

the culture and pigmentation of the people of the Tihama is testimony to the closeness of Ethiopia and Yemen both geographically and historically

and said that this a prove that "dark complexion" of Tihama is a native feature of Yemen. The reason he is so preoccupied to prove that the "original Yemenis" whatever that means are black, is to say that usage of words like "black slaves" or "Ethiopian slaves" (mentioned in the references) is not logical in the Yemen article since the population is black! that's his main goal behind all of this effort. I refused this interpretation and quoted the sentence just before the text he quoted :

Ethiopia is Yemen's nearest sizable non Arab neighbor and one that had an important impact on Yemen over the ages

and told him that the author he quoted is actually agreeing with what i have been saying that slavery and emigration (back and forth) between the people of the two opposite coasts, contributed significantly to the ethnic admixture of the Tihama region (western coastal strip), as i proved with many sources i provided. He insisted that these black Yemenis are the "original/first" Yemenis.

Bottom line is, proving that Yemenis are black is a big deal for him, and i as someone of a Yemenite background absolutely refuse to alolow such notion to be emphasized in the article. That does not mean i am a racist, Yemen is almost a failed state so there isn't much to feel cocky about but i do not want Yemenis to be described as something they are not. He stubbornly refuse to understand that the Najahid Dynasty did not rule the entire coastal strip of Tihama. Tihama is a geographical term as i tried to explain, it is not a name of a country or a specific land. It stretches from Aden in South Arabia to Aqaba in the far North. I told him that the Najahid were princes of Zabid and its surroundings. No sign of understanding was ever presented and he believes that this black slave dynasty ruled the entire coastal strip of Arabia just because he so badly wants to believe so.

regarding my smiling at his friend, i told him that i have received a message about an edit conflict. I was debating with user Middayexpress and asked his friend to please leave the discussion relevant. He started talking about how stupid that comment of mine was and i was just recently blocked. He came to support his friend and i told him it's fine (meaning that it does not bother me not that i own the talk page) just keep it about the topic not me personally, because he started the discussion by saying :"I see you are using the talk page now!". I do not think there is any problem with me believing them to be Somalis. That's not a snide comment i totally believe that they are and there is nothing uncivil in pointing that out.

As you can see user middayexpress keep circling around cases that had happened in the past, about the usage of the word "negro" or me telling him or his friend to "stay away from any Yemen related article" . I stopped using the word "Negro" because i was told the word is not proper in modern English, and i stopped and i only used it once or twice in my talk page. i never claimed owning ship to anything but i was disgruntled by his group effort to emphasize a sort of ethnic link and connection between Yemenis and people from the Horn of Africa. and as evident, that is their primary concern in editing the Yemen article and its related pages. He removed a sentence and a picture [103] about Sheba from the introduction and ancient history section of the Yemen article because according to him, "it's not widely viewed as such" even though the link he himself uses in the article identify Saba as biblical Sheba.And he then removed the picture because the source in common says :"own work"!! i am not proposing anything other than sticking to the sources not your personal interpretations. --يوسف حسين (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Despite being told about how a page is supposed to be used he comes here and writes a book. This is not the place for discussing the specifics of an article, And I wonder who this ip is ip out of the blue. The above text and the general attitude of this users is characteristic of an unreformed person who needs editor a block or a mentor. Now he says he did not know the word "Negro" was offensive. I cannot WP:AGF with this editor.--Inayity (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Why don't advice your friends about "how a page is supposed to be used"? and yes it's really not offensive since i was discussing Ethnic features with your friend. He used the term "negroid" himself. --يوسف حسين (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Kindly stop making things up. The only time I mentioned "Negroes" or variations thereof is when quoting your own apparent Freudian Slip [104]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not deny using the word negro in my talk page, so you posting a link to my talk page is pointless because i never denied using the word. But you used terms like "Negroid" or "Negrito" or whatever in a previous discussion. I am pretty sure of it but i am not apologizing for this because first, i used it in my talk page to describe an ethnic group. I did not know that "it fell out of favor after the civil rights movements" because i thought the other famous variation of the word is the one that i should avoid using. Anyway i used it once or twice in my talk page and by the way, the word Negro is equivalent to the word Zanj and neither are considered offensive. You will never get them to ban me on racial grounds, stick to "disruptive editing and second block in a weak" --يوسف حسين (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not posting your use of the word "Negro" just to show that you stated it. That's indeed already been established. I'm highlighting the fact that that's not my word use. "Negro" is indeed equivalent to "Zanj", but it's considered antiquated. Thanks for the tip, all the same. Middayexpress (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Good for you, glad i could clear that up :)--يوسف حسين (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Kendite/يوسف حسين apparently missed the instruction at the top of this page stipulating that this noticeboard is not intended for continuing disputes. This is for actual editor behavior, which Kendite/يوسف حسين has indeed had continuous problems with. The rant above is an excellent, typical example. Those are not at all the facts of the situation, nor what I stated or how the discussion actually transpired. For starters, Kendite/يوسف حسين's claim that I supposedly "insisted that these black Yemenis are the "original/first" Yemenis" is a fabrication. What I did actually do was quote a passage from a book stating "it has therefore been assumed that the dark-skinned people of the Saranik [sic] tribes, the largest tribal federation of the Tihamah, were the earliest inhabitants of the region, but in fact it is not clear whether they first lived on the Arabian or African side of the Red Sea" [105]. So that assertion was neither coming from me personally, nor did the source itself even mention any "black" Yemenis or whatever. But since Kendite/يوسف apparently believes that anybody dark=black, he came to the personal conclusion that this is what I had asserted. Another example of the user's problems with the truth is his claim above that I supposedly "removed a sentence and a picture about Sheba". To "prove" this, he then proceeds to link to an edit by User:AcidSnow (!). Furthermore, although the user claims otherwise, he has indeed made many snide remarks about what he presumptuously believes is my ethnic background as well as those of the other disputants (please see AcidSnow's summary of those here). He has likewise repeatedly called me out of name in both talk page comments and at least one edit summary (e.g. [106]), which I have had to textually correct a number of times where possible. But of course, like his gratuitous use of the epithet "Negroes", he probably chalks this up as yet another "accident". From his rant above, it's also clear that Kendite/يوسف حسين still refuses to assume responsibility for why he was blocked (twice), even though an admin had to literally spell it out for him ("you were edit warring, plain and simple" [107]).

Bottom line, Kendite/يوسف حسين has long had major behavioral issues. They almost all in some way or another involve association of Yemenis with individuals and populations he perceives as being too "dark" (not "light" peoples, mind you; he doesn't seem to have any problem with that association). Although he tries in his rant above to re-frame the Yemen/Najahid dispute as one between him and "Afrocentrists" (I actually oppose Afrocentrism), the reality is, accusing opponents of "Afrocentrism" and a priori of being "African" seems to be a routine part of Kendite/يوسف حسين's modus operandi. He employed the same tactic in an earlier, equally heated exchange with another user on the Sheba page. Predictably, that discussion also in part involved pigmentation; Kendite/يوسف حسين strenuously opposed an historical manuscript depiction of a dark Queen of Sheba for what his opponent described as "apparently biased reasoning" [108]. He actually revert-warred on two separate occasions to remove that image, and was reported for it too [109]. Similarly, he just attempted another non-consensus revert on the Najahid dynasty page despite admin sanctions [110]. I could go on, but I think the point is clear. Middayexpress (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can read the pointless discussion at Talk:Yemen#Najahid and Talk:Yemen#Sheba and the removal of a picture Middayexpress , if you know the page policy better than i do why did you start talking about the "dispute" now? you could've just let me rant for ever. i'll be back shortly to respond.--يوسف حسين (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Since user Middayexpress couldn't just let me expose myself with my rants, i think i am obliged to respond. He claims that i have fabricated facts about his work. I am quoting him right now :

You also automatically presume that the Tihama's dark complexion (which is hardly exclusive to them amongst Yemenis) is a legacy of recent admixture ( i actually never claimed that) , when there are in fact several alternative explanations. The main one is that the Tihama were the earliest inhabitants of the region i.e. the first/original Yemenis : "It has therefore been assumed that the dark-skinned people of the Saranik [sic] tribes, the largest tribal federation of the Tihamah, were the earliest inhabitants of the region, but in fact it is not clear whether they first lived on the Arabian or African side of the Red Sea

So where did i exactly fabricated your words Middayexpress ? Aren't you trying too hard to prove that the "original/first Yemenis" are black or "dark skinned"? Your source does not describe them as the "first/original Yemenis", he stated that it has been assumed that this confederation which is the largest in the southern Tihama, was the earliest inhabitant of the region, but he does not know whether they were of Arab of African decent and may i add that your quote was a snippet review? i am pretty sure there is more to that quote of yours. Meanwhile, i provided many texts, WP:RS that can be used in the demographics section. You disregarded and said and i am quoting you :

the author is mistaken because dark skin has been a native feature of many populations in Yemen

and you attempted to back your own personal claim with a picture of Mehri people. I think that is your personal opinion that you are working too hard to prove. You can say the author is mistaken and bring a reliable source to debunk his conclusion, Because nobody wants to read your own. I think Wikipedia has a clear policy regarding original research. The fact that i got blocked after your bogus accusation that i had multiple accounts does not count because i do not have multiple accounts and user check proved so. I do not have to explain myself over and over again, the fact that you keep bringing that up proves who is suffering from behavioral issues. My edits are not disruptive and they never were, and i think i explained my point of view regarding the Najahid ruling of Tihama before. As for the discussion with user "Till Eulenspiegel" that absolutely has nothing to do with you, he was disregarding modern scholarly works and archaeological evidence and say stuff like :"these Europeans with their arm chairs what do they know about Ethiopia"? or "you have agenda against Ethiopia". How am i suppose to discuss anything with such users? anyhow, stick to your encounters with me because the discussion i had with user "till Eulen.." in Talk:Queen of Sheba was normal. Even assuming that i had a " biased reasoning", that is not enough to ban me from editing and i haven't completed my discussion with that person. Do not take it personally man --يوسف حسين (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The above is another prime example of Kendite/ يوسف حسين's low regard for website policy, including this noticeboard's instruction to not drag disputes here. He asks where exactly he fabricated my words, something I literally just pointed out. I never stated that "these black Yemenis are the "original/first" Yemenis" like he claimed in his first post above. In fact, not once in my entire discussion with this user have I mentioned any "black Yemenis". Only he has and repeatedly, as a look at the Yemen talk page readily shows. As I wrote, the user does not make a distinction between "dark" and "black", and instead readily conflates the two even if his interlocutor does not. He also does not appear to understand how the "earliest inhabitants of the region" is essentially the same thing as "the first/original Yemenis". Regarding Kendite/يوسف حسين's first block, it was over one User:YemenWarriorBoy. While Kendite may not have been guilty of malfeasance here, that whole episode and especially YemenWarriorBoy's aggressive, precocious remarks definitely does not inspire confidence. His second block was over "edit warring, plain and simple", as an admin put it [111]. Further, while Kendite above disassociates his previous encounter with Til Eulenspiegel from the Yemen/Najahid affair, it's definitely related since it too involved the intersection of Ethiopia, Yemen, rulers and complexion. That discussion was more "normal", though, in the sense that Kendite back then actually used to write much shorter, more concise, and often even polite posts, including during my own initial encounter with him on a related issue [112]. Unfortunately, something changed along the way, and he inexplicably became really agressive under his new يوسف حسين account, now writing long-winded, semi-coherent rants. I nor any of the other interlocutors actually had anything personal against this user. However, from his numerous antics and snide remarks, it's apparently not reciprocal. That said, if Kendite agrees to from now on communicate with myself, Inayity and AcidSnow like he used to under his previous account -- i.e. using short, concise posts, no personal jabs, actually listening to others and working with them -- I am willing to close this thread. Middayexpress (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This is sad. I am not repeating myself and i would advise you not to keep posting the same diffs over and over again. This is all you got? I used to be "polite"? i have the courage to apologize and retreat when i realize i am wrong about something. I was not rude to anyone and you can't prove that i was. My discussion with another user about a completely different topic is irrelevant but thank you for admitting that the discussion was normal and polite. I'll tell you something you fail to understand, ethnic admixture of the tihama people. As many source pointed out, "slavery and long-term migration have resulted in mixing with the peoples of East Africa, particularly in the Tihama region on the Red Sea coast". What part of that sentence you did not understand to come up with your "original/first Yemenis" theory?

Don't even get me started on your vigorous campaign to establish some ethnic and linguistic links between Yemen and East africa! Just read the shameful content of Yemeni Arabic and Ta'izzi-Adeni Arabic, where in the world did you learn that Ta'izzi Arabic is also called Djibouti Arabic [113]?? Yeah what "Warrior Yemen boy" or whatever said here [114] (you accused me of being the same person but user check proved that was a gigantic lie [115]) about your contributions shows that i am not the only Yemeni who is sick and tired of your contributions about Yemen and its related articles! Yemen has nothing to do with the Horn of Africa clear and simple and you will have to learn to live with that. My god! anyone reading articles about Yemen in this cite will definitely assume that it's an East African country thanks to your effort.

Speaking of listening to other users, i was not the one who tried to prove a personal point of view with a picture i found on Google. I am not the one who reverted an edit and posted a link that actually support the sentence that got removed! i am not the one who is throwing baseless accusations at users and keep reminding them of their past mistakes. good luck--يوسف حسين (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

YemenWarriorBoy was no newbie, that much is clear. He was blocked for it too. According to Ethnologue (not me), Ta'izzi-Adeni Arabic is also indeed known as Yemeni Arabic ("Arabic, Ta’izzi-Adeni Spoken[...] Alternate Names: Djibouti Arabic" [116]). But I'm not surprised that you have problems with even this much given your previous antics. At any rate, I tried reasoning with you and giving you yet another chance at improving your behavior, but it seems you're too set in your ways. Too bad indeed. Middayexpress (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

whatever he was, it shows that we are really sick of your emphasis in Yemen related articles. Ta'izzi Arabic is a variation of Yemeni arabic, it's not "also known" as Yemeni arabic. There many dialects in Yemen. Ethnologue does not say that Ta'izzi Arabic is also known as "Djibouti Arabic" as if the Arabic spoken in Tai'izz came from Djibouti!!! it says that The Arabic speakers over there ( pop 36,000) may speak Adeni Arabic. They speak french too and standard Arabic is an official language apparently. In their definition page of Ta’izzi-Adeni Arabic as a "language" they never mentions anything about it being called "Djibouti Arabic". I and others have a problem with this and so many other contribution of yours. I read Yemeni Arabic article and i swear it was as if it's discussing an east African population. You are not in a position to give me chances here. --يوسف حسين (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are sick of me editing the Yemen related articles (which you don't own, by the way), but that is what WikiProject Yemen participants such as myself do [117]. As for Ethnologue, not only does it list "Djibouti Arabic" as an Alternate Name for spoken Ta’izzi-Adeni Arabic, it also gives an actual figure for the total number of speakers in the country (36,000). It seems you overlooked that too. Middayexpress (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course i don't own it but that does not mean that i can't point at your mistakes. uh i did look at that just read the post again :" (pop 36,000)"! I am talking about their [main definition page of Ta’izzi-Adeni Arabic, no where does it say that this Yemeni accent is also called Djibouti Arabic. The Arabic that is used by 36,000 people in Djibouti may be the same or close to the arabic used in Aden but that is not enough to call it Djibouti Arabic since it was originated in Aden or Ta'izz. You have languages of Djibouti article, you can write that the Arabic dialect used there is that of Aden and an alternative name for THEIR ARABIC (Djibouti people) is Djibouti Arabic. Because the people of Ta'izz are not speaking a form Arabic imported from Djibouti or share some historical or ethnic link. People of Aden may be but not Ta'izz.--يوسف حسين (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"Djibouti Arabic" is not an error. Alongside "Southern Yemeni Spoken Arabic", it is what Ethnologue indicates is an alternate name for Ta’izzi-Adeni Arabic, as shown. So does the Open Language Archives Community [118], Babelverse [119], and Multitree [120], among other official linguistic repositories. Middayexpress (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you please not revert my edit here? It was quite impolite. AcidSnow (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not revert any of your edits here! you and your friends should stop making things up. It's pretty sad and desperate--يوسف حسين (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Odd that you would continue to lie when everyone can see your edits. If you did not revert my edits than what is this, as it clearly shows that you did? Maybe you thought it would be "funny" to go and edit my response; though it does not seem likely. AcidSnow (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You spent a long time bolding your comment, ok? I did not change your edit or thought of it as "funny". try something else--يوسف حسين (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

*sigh*, even after I showed you that you have, you somehow think that it is a good idea to continue to deny it. As for me bolding my comments, the diff you provided does not show that. In fact it shows me removing the vast majority of them. Why don't you just admit you reverted my edit and assume full responsibility? AcidSnow (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Middayexpress, do you really think he well stop just because you asked him to again? We have all requested him countless of times before to stop; so what makes you think he well stop this time? He has even asked to get reported several times and this is exactly what he got. So why change his ways now when he was told several times to stop and asked to get reported? Most of all he has broken the precursor to his return which was to receive consensuses for his edits which he would ignore and continue without it several times. As we can all see from his actions he has no desire to change. So what good well come out of a third chance to "reform" himself? AcidSnow (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, looks that way. Middayexpress (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. Inyaty", Didn't you ask me to tell what term the sources use about the slaves? didn't i answer you? and than you moved on talking about me and how i supposedly "threatened" your friend? In order to receive census you must discuss the topic first. not removing my edit and posting a link that actually supports me!!--يوسف حسين (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong place. Inayity's comment is further up. Middayexpress (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Where were we told to receive "census"? If I remember correctly you are the only one here that was told to receive consensus for your edits. In fact you would ignore that precursor and go on without it several times. Its quite impolite you would do that after you were given a second chance As for the link, I have already explain what had happened. Maybe you should stop ignoring my responses so you would not be constantly bring it up? AcidSnow (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. Don't revert an edit with a link that is actually supporting the edit that got reverted!! You are the one who should have talked and discussed before reverting my edit. Here is the situation, i added a sentence to the Yemen article and you removed it because according to you, Yemen is not widely believed to be home of the Sheba. Fine, where is the source to back up you claim? because i definitely presented mine. You did not present any reliable source or even a reason to justify your revert and kept posting a link that actually mention the Sabaeans as Biblical Sheba! Why in the world should i be talking to you now? As for the art of ancient Yemen picture, whoever uploaded it took it from the British museum in London. True the upolader did not say that the sculpture is Sabaean but it's mentioned that it dates back to 1st century AD. (Sabaean Era). The British museum is discussing Sabaean art while using a picture of the same gravestone [121]. In any case, there is no reason to remove the picture even assuming that it's not Sabaean, (it could be from another tribe associated with them) it's of an object from ancient Yemen nevertheless. you could have objected the picture description not its usage in the Yemen article!--يوسف حسين (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no desire to discuss the issue here as I have already done that before. I am really sick of "Kendite/يوسف حسين" continuous inappropriate behavior, as have constantly asked him to stop it yet he continues to do so. I would also mention the things he did before he was banned, but Middayexpress already did; for example when he threaten me to "stay away from any Yemen related article". Anyways, after I had originally told him to please not to call me Pan-Africanist, Afrocentric, etc, he still would not drop it. All of this is part of his "theory"; which is significant flawed as he also thinks that Til Eulenspiegel is African when he is not. He has also straight up lied when he claim that there was "support" for his "theory" from EdJohnston and that he said we are "pan-Africanist". In fact he said not such thing or even supported/agreed, but rather "As with the edit mentioned by Inayity he thinks he is dealing with Afrocentrists and for that reason won't discuss.". So where did he get that EdJohnston agreed/supported him when there is no evidence?

I also never called him a liar (so once again he has twisted my words), which he claims, again and again with no evidence. Inayity also never called him stupid, but rather his comment was. I have also not attacked him in any way, but he on the other hand has continuously attacked me through the discussion; for eexample when you threatened me.

After he finally kept his "theory" to himself he began to move on to speaking for me, put words in my mouth, and try to twisting my words against me. This does not help him in any way as anyone can see what I have written. After each time he attacked me I would tell him to please stop, yet he would not, but rather use a different technique to so. As for "threatening" him, his diff does not show that. In fact it says "would you also like us to file one on the racial overtones of your messages and edits?. I said this in response it to "file a complaint!" to see if he would also like to include that as well in the report. This is no where near a threat, but clearly was a question. As you can see from this discussion he got what he asked for. I don't see the point of him doing that as everyone here can clear see and read the diff.

He also continues to tell me to stop "talking" about him when I am not. Its even more frustrating because he is doing the exact same thing! He tells me to stop when all I am trying to defend myself from his false accusation. He also told me to stop "ranting" about him and stick to the discussion. As you can see from here he would rather ignore all my request for him to stop, be hypocritical and pin the issue all on me!

He also claims that I have "completely ignored" his quotes when I have responded to them in every single one of my responses. When I told him that I was unable see his "quotes" because he deliberately changed them, he said in response, "if you can't find them than it's your own problem". I have no idea why he is acting so inappropriate even though I constantly told him to please stop. He not only says that, but that I have no even discussed the issue at hand. Its odd that he would continue to lie when anyone can see that I have. It appears that he would rather ignore most of the things I have written and would rather see what he wants to. Besides the "quotes", he goes on to claims that I have not even talked about his sources! I am really hoping he is joking as I have been doing it through the discussion. For example, if his "quotes" are coming from his book and that am discussing them am I not also discussing his sources too? He also continues to mention the picture I removed and says all this stuff about it when there is nothing besides Art from Ancient Yemen, in the image summary, so I have no idea where has gotten it from, but he claims to be "sticking to the sources and not personal interpretations". Maybe this is just another way for him to discredit me? He has been doing it before through this discussion, on his own takepage, and on the Yemen talkpage too! He also knows fully well that there are sources that go against him for the Sheba discussion, yet he continues to add it. This is why I never bothered to bring up sources that go against him, as he clearly from his past action would not even bother to read them. He has done the same by ignoring my comments about his "quotes" and sources and even continues to claim that I never said anything about them. "Just read his latest response on the matter. it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand", as you can see here he is being deliberately annoying. I highly recommend everyone in this discussion to read my second to last entry at the Yemen page and decided if I have discussed the issue or not!

I also never claimed that the link was mine; it just happen to come with my revert. Could you show me where I said it was mine/my own? Not just these, but he was also asked to use the talk page before he made edits so he could receive consensus. He, however, went on without receiving it not once, not twice, but rather three times! Odd that he would continue to act so inappropriately after generously being given a second chance. So what good well come out a third chance? I wont revert him right now since nothing good could come out of it.

Unfortunately, with no evidence he still believes that this issue is a "personal matter" of mine; once again he is still bring up his "theory". Just as EdJohnston said before, I am loosing interest following his continuous inappropriate behavior. AcidSnow (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That sure is a lot of bolding. I thought you were trying to tell a story-within-a-story, but I can't make it out. Should I read it in reverse? 134.241.58.178 (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how this could be a "story-within-a-story" nor how reading in reverse well "help" you. If you want to by all means go ahead. Anyways, who are you? You are the third "ip" that has "found" his/her way into the discussion. AcidSnow (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

As if i am going to read all of this. Talk:Yemen#Sheba and the removal of a picture and Talk:Yemen#Other sources regarding Sheba you were suppose to discuss this with me but you did not. I don't care whos link you used, you were reverting my edit with a link that actually support my contribution. --يوسف حسين (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I knew you would not, just like all my other responses. I also never told you to read it so it does not really matter. I have already explained the link; maybe next you will read them so you would not be constantly bring it up? Anyways, who else did I discuss this with? AcidSnow (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

All i know is that your revert is pointless since you are using a link that is actually approves my edit. You either discuss my edit in the article talk page like you are supposed to and bring reliable sources to back your claim, or your edit will be considered simply disruptive--يوسف حسين (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if you actually read my response you would not be saying the same thing overt and over again? AcidSnow (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Site ban

• Support – per OP. Middayexpress (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support – This issue came up with another editor not too long ago, and the difference was he wanted to contribute by changing his ways, I do not think this is the case. And using ip addresses to tell me my comments are garbage means we have a problem personality.--Inayity (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support – see original post AcidSnow (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a dispute over content and sources. Have the participants been pointed towards dispute resolution options? —Neotarf (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This AN is not about content dispute, but rather his continues inappropriate behavior after generously given a second chance. AcidSnow (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see he changed your comment here [122] to make it look like you had added bolding to it, but he was the one who added bolding. That's not right, and he should be asked to undo it. But it seems you are also arguing about sources. I have seen "Sheba's palace" in Ethiopia, and all the little tourist statues of Solomon and Sheba together, but would love to see the Wikipedia with more information about the Yemen sources. Arabic sources are terribly under-represented in the English Wikipedia, and I think it very worthwhile if more of them could be added in a way that respects the principles of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. But if you have so many disagreements, maybe a third party would help to keep the discussion on task. —Neotarf (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not change his comment or even came close to it.He was the one who added bolding to his own comment.--يوسف حسين (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

*sigh*, even after being caught red handed by two editors and shown clearly that you did you continue to lie (though not surprising its getting annoying). As for me bolding my comments, the diff you provided does not show that. In fact it shows me removing the vast majority of them. Why don't you just admit you reverted my edit? AcidSnow (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have unarchived this unclosed site ban discussion from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259 for further community input. When an admin believes there has been sufficient discussion, please assess the consensus.

  يوسف حسين (talk · contribs) was blocked on 15 February 2014 for four days at User talk:يوسف حسين#Edit Warring: Ta'izzi-Adeni Arabic (permanent link) Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent archiving. Time step one week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Persistent tendentious editing, including vandalizing people's posts in discussions and then lying about the vandalism, means they are a net negative. And I'm not seeing the positive side of their contributions. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per too much verbiage, too few diffs. If an editor wishes to have another editor sanctioned, especially with a site ban, the burden should be on them to present a concise summary supported by diffs which clearly show the issue(s). NE Ent 13:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm seeing plenty of diffs in there, Ent. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• I am not convinced that all the fault is on one side only. To reply to a long comment by making a long diatribe against long comments is not particularly helpful. I see this as essentially a series of ordinary content dispute, of the sort which is best solved by agreeing on a acceptable wording of the points at issue. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Bleach (manga)#Proposed merge with Bleach (anime)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bleach (manga)#Proposed merge with Bleach (anime) Hei Liebrecht 20:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of UserTalkPage Access

User:Colton Cosmic, who is subject of a self-created RFC/U has now twice inappropriately used the WP:ECHO function in order to WP:CANVASS specific people to comment on his RFC/U:

• February 14 Canvassing
• February 17 Canvassing

Although he is aware that this is inappropriate (I even noted it in my "view" on the RFC/U), he continues to do so. In my view, as he continues to do it, he should have his talkpage access revoked - and ensure that he does not have "email this user" enabled in order to prevent e-mail canvassing as well (something he's done in the past) DP 14:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No need to remove it yet. The RFC will run its course and it doesn't appear he's attracting a lot of positive responses by canvassing. After the RFC, salt the account. I don't see how that name can be resurrected. --DHeyward (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Chiropractic

I think there is a significant WP:OWN problem with QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edits by virtually anybody else (including long0time Wikipedians like Alexbrn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and me) are reverted almost immediately, and there are talk page comments such as "Reliable sources must not be deleted again" (as if Wikipedia is mandated to include every reliable source, and no editorial discretion may be used). His discussions on the talk page are terse and aggressive. I am sympathetic to a properly skeptical view of the topic, but this is not the way to do it. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Note also: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Some stats for edits since Jan 23, when the current run of rapid-fire editing began:

Editor               Edits
Alexbrn  . . . . . . 21
AndyTheGrump . . . . 1
AnomieBOT  . . . . . 11
BullRangifer . . . . 3
Chris the speller  . 1
Citation bot . . . . 1
DJFryzy  . . . . . . 2
Drsjpdc  . . . . . . 2
John Snow II . . . . 1
JzG  . . . . . . . . 8
Monkbot	 . . . . . . 1
Ocaasi . . . . . . . 1
Puhlaa . . . . . . . 5
QuackGuru  . . . . . 169
RexxS  . . . . . . . 1
Solomonfromfinland . 2
Vzaak  . . . . . . . 1
Grand Total  . . . . 231

Total volume of all changes over that time is 91.2kB and 56.3kB of that is QuackGuru.

QG makes so many edits in such rapid succession that it is not possible to assess them p- and if you try, he just reverts you or asserts that his version is neutral. He's had two lengthy topic bans from this very article (6 months and a year). The issues described with QG's ownership, refusal to engage properly with others, and general MPOV problems, go back years with absolutely no sign of improvement - in fact quite the opposite. I suspect the first thing to be done is an indefinite topic ban from chiropractic broadly construed, also likely to be needed for acupuncture. Guy (Help!) 14:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Even without looking at the contents of individual edits, it's obvious that we have an edit war going on here: reverts by five different people in little more than 24 hours, and since it's three versus two, it's not really a situation for a block. For this reason, I've protected the article for 24 hours. The article previously had indefinite semiprotection because of vandalism, so that should be restored when the full protection is over; JzG, could you restore it when the full protection is over? This is definitely one of the "any reasonable admin" situations mentioned at WP:INVOLVED, since you'd just be restoring the undisputed status quo; anyone else should feel free to restore it, of course. I wish we could check a box to "restore previous protection when this one expires". Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem. But it's actually two separate disputes. One editor is a chiro, here on the usual mission. We are perfectly used to that, Puhlaa has been active to the article since forever, trying to present the idealised form of chiro he believes in - all perfectly sincere and polite, easily managed. Now look at the number of reverts by QG, and the number of editors whose text he has reverted, which amounts to, basically, everyone other than QG and possibly the bots. I don't think protection is really needed, but it will stop the war while we sort things out, so no harm no foul :-) Guy (Help!) 23:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This is what the source says: "So, do the risks outweigh the benefits? The best evidence suggests that SMT, whether it be for neck or low back pain, is a safe and effective therapy. At a population level, the benefits still outweigh the risks."[123]

This edit by Guy was a SYN violation. "Although" is SYN. These are different sources that are not connected. The part "published by practitioners" is not what the source says and this is a violation of WP:ASSERT. I think I am being unfairly targeted at ANI. Adding original research is not editorial discretion. Deleting reliable sources such as WHO is not appropriate according to a number of other editors. User:RexxS started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Is WHO guideline a MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's never alright to try to solve a dispute by an edit war, even when you're right, so kudos to Nyttend for the temporary full prot. There are several editors at the article who have long experience with dealing with topics that are on the borderline between Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Fringe. I understand that the principal dispute is not between skeptics and fringe-pushers, but (unusually) between editors on a different part of the spectrum of skepticism. Chiropractic is an awkward case because it is widely practised and generally seems to fit in with our definition of CAM and yet has an underpinning non-scientific theory that most of us would recognise as fringe. As I understand it, the locus of the dispute revolves around what parts of the article should be considered CAM and what parts fringe. I remain convinced the way to improve the article is for everybody involved to steadily work through each section of the article on the talk page and actively seek consensus on what are the best sources to use for each section. It may need third opinions and perhaps a skilled mediator, but agreeing the sources to use will make the text easy to write. The lead can be done afterwards. I don't believe that excluding good-faith editors normally leads to a better article, so I wouldn't agree to banning anybody from discussion other than as a last resort - and I don't think we've reached that point yet, no matter how much one party has annoyed the other. I've found Guy, Alex and QG to be good-faith editors, although they don't see eye-to-eye on everything. My advice is take things slowly - there's no deadline - and put the effort into finding what can be agreed and what needs third opinions. It's obvious that all parties can't have everything that they want, but equally it's not obvious that any party has to get all that they want. I recommend compromise. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

In no particular order:

1. "Although" is not WP:SYN. It's grammar. I was balancing a report by chiros that says it's safe with a report from an independent source that shows they cannot possibly know that, because they have no systematic reporting of adverse events (and indeed their claim of safety is contradicted by other facts cited; they are in denial).
2. QG promotes instead a statement that "The evidence" says it's safe. "The evidence" does not. The evidence is equivocal, with chiros saying it's safe and independent investigators finding that, for example, people under 45 with strokes due to vertebral artery dissection are 3-5 times more likely to have been to a chiro in the last week.
3. Neither of those facts is relevant to the fact that QG exhibits absolutely classic WP:OWNership, and that this appears to be repeated wherever he decides to edit.
4. QG's good faith is not in dobt. His behaviour, however, is a problem. Look at the RfC. Look at the block log. Look at the past sanctions. Do not be seduced by the fallacy of false balance.
5. The fact that chiro overlaps slightly into reality-based medicine is also not relevant. It would not matter if it was abject quackery like homeopathy or a solid science-based therapy, anybody editing as QG edits, is a problem.
6. Yes, a few of us have a long history of holding back the tide of woo on Wikipedia. This isn't POV-pushing, it's m:MPOV.

So, in cases where the problem is with a several editors warring, we protect. In cases where one editor is waging a war against all comers, we sanction that editor.

QG seems to want to call a truce. I am prepared to support a 0RR restriction and a limit of ten edits per day, as an experiment. Otherwise IMO it's topic ban time, as the RfC comments propose. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that I imposed protection (rather than issuing a block) because of the edit by AndyTheGrump, who reverted a reversion of QG's edit. Had he gone the other way (i.e. reverting QG), or had he not come in at all, I expect that I would have blocked QG, but given what happened, an unwarned/undiscussed block for QG would have been inappropriate (why block just one participant?), and it would have been even worse to block one or more of the other participants in addition to QG. No comment on whether this discussion should end with sanctions for anyone. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

To explain my motivation for the revert: having seen QuackGuru's post on WP:FTN, I took a look at the article (which I'd not otherwise been involved in, beyond attempting to read it some time ago, and finding it less than coherent as I recall), the talk page, and the editing history, and gathered that there were several interrelated issues involved - but my revert was based more than anything on DJFryzy's edit summary: "{{subst:uw-vandalism3}} Please refrain from blatant bias in this article and refer to the talk page." [124] This seemed to me at the time to be inflammatory, and unlikely to help with consensus building - it should be noted that DJFryzy's last post on the talk page at that point dated back to October last year. My own edit summary was intended to point DJFryzy back to the talk page: "Undid revision 595050094 by DJFryzy (talk) please read WP:VANDAL, and explain in detail on the talk page what you consider to be wrong with the article". [125] With hindsight, this may have been a mistake in that it looked like taking sides with QuackGuru in what is clearly a complex issue, though my revert did at least succeed in bringing DJFryzy back to the talk page discussion. Whether such discussion is going to actually resolve anything, and whether my revert helped or hindered, is of course open to debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If you check further back in the edit history you will see I am not the only editor who had a concern about the older version. QuackGuru (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

No, that's you citing a revert to one of your versions as an endorsement of your editing behaviour, which it was not. You seem not to be able to admit that your rapid-fire editing, insistence that your POV is the only neutral POV, assertion that only your edits meet policy, reversion of everybody else and so on, are a problem. That's why we're here. You're the only one behaving that way, You're the only one changing a substantial proportion of the article in dozens of successive edits, too quickly for independent editors to review your work, and reflexively reverting any modification to your text. That's WP:OWN. I was rolling back over 30 edits by you in quick succession making substantial changes to a mature article whose neutrality was disputed only by advocates of the quack therapy in question.

That's how WP:BRD is supposed to work. For you, it's bold, revert anyone who changes or reverts your boldness, and discuss only in the minimum terms necessary to assert that only you are right. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have mixed feelings about QuackGuru (QG). On the one hand QG is generally civil and content focussed; but the manner of editing is such that it often seems to turn Wikipedia into an inefficient place for other editors. I find that if QG gets going on an article, I tend to back off because I know my time can be used more efficiently elsewhere.
• An example of this can be found in the GERAC articles, which were hotly disputed for a long time. The dispute centered on the amount of low-level medical detail the article should contain, with QG in the camp that opposed including that detail. This bubbled-over onto AN/I[126] and at FT/N[127] with QG eventually being persuaded by Guy Macon to start an RFC. This duly took place with consensus ending up on QG's side: less detail should be included. But now the bizarre twist. Since this section here on AN has been started, QG has approached two editors, Middle 8 and Mallexikon, in the opposing "camp" (who had jointly initiated a RFC/U on him) and offered it seems to reverse his position ("please revert ALL the edits I made" [128] / "Truce"[129]). This whole idea of a "truce" speaks of a battleground mentality. What is going on here? Are two editors being "allowed" their desired content in exchange for backing-off on an RFC/U? Were those thousands of bytes spent on the article Talk page, two noticeboards and an RfC just part of a game? This is not how WP should be edited, I think.
• Finally, it is annoying that despite being asked not to, QG uses the {{cite pmid}} template all the time on medical articles, which isn't in line the MOSMED and which makes the work of other editors harder. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru is an interesting, difficult editor who is highly detail-oriented (for better and for worse), sometimes productive, with intense tendentiousness and IDHT beyond belief (see current RfC). I don't mean to pile on, and I don't think he's a bad guy on the whole; he's just a net liability. I think his main challenge (WP:COMPETENCE) is social: he blanks everything on his talk page; he nitpicks every edit and there is just no talking to him, per Guy above; instead of productive discussion he generates endless iterations of IDHT and stilted, declarative sentences, and cascades of edits that get way ahead of consensus. His comments on my talk page asking me to revert all his edits were odd, and in a curious section (re the RfC), but I don't know if they reflect a battleground mentality or if he's just stressed and freaked. He seems to be contemplating a long wikibreak from some of the topic areas where he's had conflict. That's good, but if history is any indication, regardless of wikibreaks or temporary sanctions, he'll eventually be back with the exact same issues. There have been multiple RfC's, AN/I threads etc. over the years, and his conduct never changes. We should act. Suggest an indef topic ban (chiro and acu at least; likely all alt-med, maybe all science and health), including talk pages. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 13:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a textbook case of when someone needs to be topic banned. Let's get it done. Jtrainor (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not just give an edit restriction of something like one edit per day to article space? Why topic ban? He does good work, by all acknowledgments. This can be seen by the fact that he riles the pseudoscientists the most. jps (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The corollary to that is, if someone who supports the reality-based view still manages to piss me off, then they are doing something very badly wrong. I am really quite outspoken when it comes to quacks and charlatans. Guy (Help!) 00:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not extensively familiar with QuackGuru's editing, but looking over the discussion there appears to be agreement that: 1) QuackGuru is editing in good faith, and at least sometimes he is making productive edits; 2) QuackGuru is not engaging other editors productively. So the ideal solution is to curb #2 without hindering #1. Depending on the crux of the problem, that could include a 0RR restriction, a restriction on the number of edits per day, or discretionary sanctions. Would it be possible to try one of those prior to instituting a topic ban, with the understanding that further problems (especially gaming his restrictions) would result in stricter sanctions?   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty familiar, and can tell you that we've tried a bunch of provisional stuff (cf. history here), and eventually QG always bounces back with the same problems. Gaming? He blanks all attempts at communication on his talk page and repeatedly (repeatedly!) IDHT's. But mostly I think it's a social competence thing. At some point we have to stop worrying about losing an editor's talents, especially when other editors can do the same work without the tendentiousness. IMHO we have reached that point when an editor is a net liability and has been so for years despite multiple attempts to help. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 09:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

(e/c)That being said, QG has actually gradually changed for the better; he's had no blocks since '09 (block log), most of the RfC's/ANI threads/etc are pre-2010, with a pseudoscience topic ban in 2011 as part of Arbitration enforcement. Some finite sanction may be OK; I just can't figure out what to make of stuff like the "truce" thing above, and this. Sincere? Gamey? This is active: WP:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru2. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 18:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Jess has hit the nail on the head. The knee-jerk reaction that Wikipedia tends to have ("ban, ban, ban!") needs to be applied only when users are adding no value at all. Since people agree that QG adds value, there needs to be another option. That the waters are being muddied by Middle 8 who, in spite of being paid to do acupuncture, changes the content of articles on acupuncture to promote the subject in blatant violation of WP:COI, does not help matters here. In response to Guy's concern, I admit that I have also been pissed off by users of Wikipedia who I think generally do good work and are generally in-line with what I think should be done on this website. I don't want to see any of them to be banned, however. The ones I want to see banned are those who add no value. jps (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, you rather like bans, just for editors you think are unhelpful. A lot of things have been tried with QG, bans and otherwise... and he has indeed gradually improved... and I don't know what does or doesn't work. Re me: Seriously? Wikipedia has never made one's profession (as opposed to one's employer) a basis for WP:COI; do we really want to? Seems like a mind-blowingly stupid thing for an encyclopedia to say that professionals shouldn't edit their own areas of expertise! I think you're unfairly singling out acupuncture as a venue for possible self-promotion (e.g., health-care turf wars), and I'm confident that you're mischaracterizing my edits, possibly because your biases are so intense that you can't even identify good sources for acupuncture (that per consensus at WT:MEDRS). (sigh) But that (COI) is for a different noticeboard - specifically: WP:COIN#Acupuncture. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 21:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why one's profession should be any less of a potential COI than one's employer -- it depends on the editor. Some can write about their work or their company in a straightforward and neutral manner, while others are so strongly connected to them that they cannot achieve objectivity. In the case of a quasi-medical procedure like acupuncture, which, by its very nature, cannot be studied using double-blind tests, and therefore is largely reliant on anecdotal evidence, and is highly subject to the placebo effect, there's always going to be a certain amount of clashing between those who truly believe in the technique, and those want to see some objective proof of its efficacy. That means that we need to be much more concerned about the self-interest of the people who edit the article. Given that, acupuncturists who edit it are bound to be held to the highest standard, which means a declaration of their potential COI and, if their editing isn't pristine, following full COI procedures. BMK (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This does not really apply to quackery: to be able to write neutrally about homeopathy, acupuncture or chiropractic would require that you accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that they are placebo interventions based on incorrect views of human physiology. It would be impossible to accept this and still practice, unless you were an out-and-out charlatan. Most are not: they are deluded, but sincerely so. Guy (Help!) 01:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree, except that I was specifically referring to acupuncture, since that seemed to be what Middle 8 was referring to. I can't say that I'm up on the scientific literature on acupuncture, but it was my impression that the impossibility of double-blind tests meant that it wasn't considered to be the equivalent of homeopathy or chiropractic, and that there was still some doubt about the actual effects of the practice not due to the placebo effect. As I said, I'm well prepared to be told that I'm wrong, and that the latest scientific studies have shown it to be totally ineffective. (And, BTW, there's also an in-between place where a practice such as acupuncture might create certain effects, but for totally different reasons then given by acupuncturists. Again, I'm not saying that's the case, but it stands to reason that putting needles into the human body would provoke some kind of physical response which doesn't have anything to do with the flow of qi through the body.) BMK (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You should look at research into sham acupuncture. It shows somewhat conclusively that acupuncture's positive benefits cannot be distinguished from the placebo effect. jps (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that's a little bit of a biased view... I would recommend to just read the efficacy section of the acupuncture article; there's actually quite a few reviews documenting that acupuncture works better than placebo for certain pain conditions (the argument is basically over whether the effect is clinically meaningful). Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The claims that "real" acupuncture is more effective against pain that "sham" acupuncture are all based on designs that were not double blind. When you double blind, it's pretty clear that acupuncture is wholesale quackery. jps (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(detailed reply removed.) This really isn't the venue for such a debate; see Talk:Acupuncture.--Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 02:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block based on current record of disruption and past block log.[130] Screw the topic ban. I don't give a flying fuck about acupuncture or any other topic du jour QuackGuru is obsessed with today, I'm just sick of seeing him edit war and revert on every single article without discussing calmly with other editors on the talk page. He just isn't suited for Wikipedia, end of story. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't generally agree with throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so I would disagree that QG should be indef blocked.BMK (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Depends on how unique the baby is; QG's skills aren't in short supply. In fact his literature-search skills, supposedly his forté, is questionable: here, QG deleted a meta-analysis because its authors also referred to it as a "study", which he thought meant it must be a primary source. He kept arguing this semantic point despite evidence to the contrary (see archived thread and scroll down to "it was a study. Failed MEDRS.".) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 19:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• I restored the 2013 meta-analysis but with neutrally written text as discussed on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Because of recent retaliatory behavior I'm leaning back toward indef ban. Busy now but will post diffs later. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 19:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I am discussing article content. You and Mallexikon claimed I skewed the facts but you are refusing to say what the problem is. See Talk:Acupuncture#Legal and political status. QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose block One does not get blocked just because they have made the most edits. QG was trying to bring the article to GA per here[131] A noble but overly ambicious goal as these topic is horribly controversial. Having written dozens of GAs myself, I know that these usually take about 500 edits. I usually make them all within a couple of weeks. To have someone come along and try to use this as evidence is crazy. Doc James(talk · contribs ·email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit restriction rather than ban

I think this option should be discussed at the very least. The "all or nothing" approach to complete banning or being given complete free reign at this website needs to be re-evaluated in situations like this. One possibility is to request that QG should only edit articles once per day. This would address some of JzG's overwhelmed by edits concerns. jps (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Given this article is covered by discretionary sanctions, AE might also be a good place to go. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Given the recent comments by QG in this debate, I think it's unlikely to work. Put bluntly, he seems to be incapable of allowing for the possibility that his interpretation might be anything other than the sole correct one. You could argue that he improves the articles, but you could also argue that he doesn't (obviously, since there are several other active editors with no obvious commitment to the subject whose edits he's nonetheless reverting). I think his edits are a curate's egg, and his behaviour s uniformly problematic. The fact that we are here again after the previous topic bans suggests this behaviour is inherent or dispositional. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Callanecc makes a good point about, AE, Guy. Also, I wish that Wikipedia was more prone to trying alternatives to ban, ban, ban, but I know I'm in the minority on that one. jps (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Guy, I do appreciate your feedback on your talk page. I am discussing a truce with you and I do accept the edits by other editors to chiropractic and other articles. Please let me know what else I can do to improve the way I use Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Jps, you are not alone in hat view, I am happy to consider things like 1RR restrictions and such, but this has been a problem with QG since 2006, I don't think it's fixable. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have incredible sympathy for QG if it's the timeline that is supposed to be the compelling reason. People can (and do) make a similar argument about whether I should be blocked/banned from this website. In any case, my suggestion was not 1RR which doesn't really address the totality of your concerns. My suggestion was an edit restriction of one edit per article per day. That would slow things down considerably. Have you mulled that over at all? jps (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

(a) Recidivism isn't something I'm real sympathetic about; (b) there would have to be talk page restrictions too; he's massively disruptive there. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 13:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

JzG lists on his user talkpage the following issues:

• Large numbers of substantial changes, overwhelming anyone else's ability to review them
• Reflex reversion of any edits to your text
• Behaving as if you WP:OWN the article
• Dysfunctional communication with other users, rarely extending beyond terse assertions that you are right

Articlespace restrictions would deal with 1), 2), and arguably 3). 4) is too vague and confusing for me to be able to understand what is being requested. QG is rarely terse. He's actually quite verbose.

jps (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have agreed to the edit restrictions. I do agree to articlespace restrictions and I can make less comments on the talk page too. QuackGuru (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose currently I am still looking for evidence. QC has recently caught a sockpuppet. He/she edits in a very controversial area.[132] The last thing we need to do is restrict people who are willing to deal with the sockpuppetry that occurs here.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Do I hear quacking?

It has been pointed out that QG's edit focus, style and behaviour is a very close match to KrishnaVindaloo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Certainly the earliest edits by QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are not those of a newcomer, starting not very long after KV was blocked and immediately commencing a high level of activity. Guy (Help!) 07:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to have the right username there, Guy. We have no KrishnaVindalo. There is a User:Krishnavedala, but he's never been blocked, and seems to edit on entirely different subjects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This editor ? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes. That'll be the one - I'd been searching for 'User:Krishna...', and Vindaloo has no User page, so didn't show up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The other user referenced here has not edited for more than seven years. I'm not sure why it would be relevant to this thread. I imagine CU would be declined on the basis of such a stale concern. jps (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

CU would probably be irrelevant; he's probably switched ISP's and/or moved at least once. But QG is almost certainly KrishnaVindaloo. That characteristic writing style... topic areas edited... how he responds in various situations.... no question, in my mind. FWIW. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 12:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Does it really matter whether this is KV or not? QG has been editing quite long enough for us to decide, based entirely on edits to that account, whether he/she is a useful contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

+1. I suggest that this line is rather irrelevant. If we were having this discussion in 2007 or 2008 maybe this might be fruitful. But, to quote the previous US Secretary of State, "What difference does it make?" jps (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Jps, what about, let's say, as recently as May 2013, when you were using sock puppets to edit war while simultaneously requesting an unblock? Does that make any difference? After all, you were unblocked even though you were using sock puppets to disrupt Wikipedia. Why does there seem to be an exception made for editors like you and QuackGuru to disrupt the encyclopedia while other editors are indefinitely blocked and never heard from again? I know the answer, of course. It's because you and QuackGuru are promoting "THE TRVTH". It's so funny and ironic how you guys are almost indistinguishable from the pseudoscience and woo-spouting editors you claim to be fighting against. Both of you guys claims to know the truth and admins protect, encourage, and enable you to wage this campaign. QuackGuru's blitzkrieg tactics would be unacceptable from any other editor, but because he's doing it on behalf of WikiProject Medicine, it's OK. The hypocrisy is not only unbelievable here, it's evident to other editors and demonstrates that the community is corrupt and unwilling to enforce policies across the board in a fair and equal way. Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not KrishnaVindaloo. QuackGuru (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

So, what we have is:

• A combative, WP:OWN-violating editor
• Who is the subject of an ongoing RfC for combative, WP:OWN-violating editing
• Who has already been sanctioned multiple times for combative, WP:OWN-violating editing
• Who is still indef-blocked under his previous account for combative, WP:OWN-violating editing
• Whose primary response to any attempt to address his combative, WP:OWN-violating behaviour is to assert that he is right.

We've got nearly 8 years of history on this editor. If there is improvement, then the pace of said improvement is glacial. I'm not minded to waste much more energy on this unless someone feels like mentoring him (and I suspect that will be a high maintenance task). Guy (Help!) 15:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I was not blocked under a previous account and I do not have a previous account. As I said I will change and make smaller edits to articles and change the way I use Wikipedia. I want a truce and I do accept your suggestion for someone to mentor me. QuackGuru (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that we should Enact a Ban and/or block (possibly Indefinite) because what I think is that he is thinking that just because he is also a good editor, It means he can not be Banned/blocked. This is actually doing the exact opposite! Behavior like this is uncalled for when done by any user, let alone a user who also makes good contributions! We can not let this continue! Happy Attack Dog (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Happy Attack Dog has been here for 13 days and made 53 edits, only 6 of which are to articles. I suggest that he or she doesn't reallyhave standing to comment on this matter. BMK (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As QG has been blocked and banned in the past, I seriously doubt that he believes he cannot be banned/blocked. jps (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• BullRangifer said in December 2009 that QuackGuru's behavior was "exactly, to a T, the same as the behavior exhibited by the indef banned KrishnaVindaloo... so much so that I have always suspected that QG was a sock of that disruptive user." Unomi agreed. An Arbitration Request for Enforcement was filed against QuackGuru but checkuser would have been of no help after three years, and nothing came of it. Binksternet (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment So people are trying to use a block back in 2006 by no other than Guy (User:JzG) himself as justification to block QG now? Wow. My mind spins. Guy has 5 of his own blocks. Counting previous blocks is not justification for a further block. Is there any current evidence of sockpuppetry by QG in the last year? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hum we seem to have a number of people who disagree with QG position and have a long history of an adversarial position with him or her attempting to have them banned. When people make statement like "notoriously difficult editor who now seems to be on an anti-acupuncture crusade, to the point that he is willing to skew the facts" and than they try to create a ""skeptic faction" [133]. Anyway this should be closed and discussion continued on the RfC User. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. I have no history of adversarial editing with QuackGuru at all.[134][135] Let's face the facts. WikiProject Medicine depends on disruptive editors like QuackGuru for their blitzkrieg approach. Don't think for a minute that QuackGuru isn't coordinating with them to help them push out any editor who dares to deviate from their POV. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow we have blitzkrieg abilities that I didn't know about? Will definitely have to look into that :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No, the 2006 block is not a reason to ban. But the long-term conduct, including evading that block, may be. And I am not sympathetic towards quackery, this is rather easy to verify. I'm happy to have cleared this up for you. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Great glad we are on the same. Also not a big fan of unfounded claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• We indeed have recent evidence here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru2#WP:IDHT. It is an entire thread (less than 90 days old, and for which a complete set of diffs will be submitted: Rate of serious adverse events (from Talk:Acupuncture, stable version as of Feb. 14, 2014). If this doesn't indicate a problem with QG's recent conduct, I don't know what would. It's longish, but that's the point: the IDHT is protracted and is much more apparent as a full thread. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 15:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed six month topic ban of User:Middle 8 and User:Mallexikon

Here these two make the claim that QG is "Skewing the facts because of anti-acupuncture bias" [136]. The evidence is this dif [137] were QG adds

In 2006, German researchers published the results of one of the first, largest controlled randomized clinical trials.ref name="He-2013" As a result of the trial's conclusions, some insurance corporations in Germany no longer reimbursed acupuncture.ref name="He-2013" The trials also had a negative impact on acupuncture in the international community.He, W.; Tong, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, L.; Ben, H.; Qin, Q.; Huang, F.; Rong, P. (2013). "Review of controlled clinical trials on acupuncture versus sham acupuncture in Germany". Journal of traditional Chinese medicine. 33 (3): 403–7. PMID 24024341. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)

Now the claim of skewing the evidence requires a serious review. The ref is a 2013 review article. The ref is properly formatted with the cite journal template. Each line has the ref attached and the content added is just enough paraphrased from the source in question to not be a copyright violation. If one reads the paper in question it supports the content in question. This is what we want editors to do.

Now QG and the two user User:Middle 8 and User:Mallexikon have been at odds for some time. Making false unsupported claims such as they have done above should not be tolerated IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support six month topic ban for these two. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that if we Used A indefinite topic ban on QG that this would curve the problem. Anything more by him could result in a Site ban. But then We would have to look out for sock puppetry. Happy Attack Dog (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Happy Attack Dog has been here for 13 days and made 53 edits, only 6 of which are to articles. I suggest that he or she doesn't reallyhave standing to comment on this matter. BMK (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Seeing that the claims made have not be justified there does not appear to be any reason to ban QG. The ones making the unjustified claims on the other hand... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oops - For the record: Doc James correctly points out that one of the diffs[138] doesn't match the claim given. This was accidental;edit: I we failed to catch it before certifying. Mallexikon is more familiar with this than I am, but IIRC, the dispute had to do with QG wanting this, to the exclusion of the additional sources in e.g. this (although the larger context was that in these trials, acupuncture was no better than a placebo). The proper diff(s) will be provided ASAP at which point the Doc may wish to reconsider his comments above and at his outside view at the RfC. I do apologize, and accept the trout 'o shame, for this mistake and the misunderstanding it caused. And Doc... be a little less hasty with your WP:BOOMERANG, OK? We could have worked it out at the talk page level; there was no need to escalate. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 17:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Further note - Ironically, at GERAC, QG's anti-acu bias was making it harder to include detail that explained how the trials in fact showed real acu to be no better than sham (placebo) acu, and that initial reports in the media that "acupuncture works for low back pain!!" were wrong. Apparently, QG fixated on those inaccurate reports and thus assumed the article was a pro-acu WP:COATRACK.[139][140] QG thus was against including much experimental detail,[141], while Mallexikon [142] and I [143] wanted it in there so that even slightly science-literate readers could follow.[144][145]. (And yes, this kind of evidence belongs in the RfC.) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 17:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• If you are going to make claims against other editors you need to have difs of poor quality edits. Trying to use diffs of really good edits and then claiming they are bad really hurts your arguments. Anyway the last thing we need is someone who is involved trying to force this closed. Definitely not cool and not winning those attempting to ban QG support.
• Anyway if the desire to deal with issues it would likely help to remove all the old evidence and all the unfounded claims from the RfC here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru2 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• CORRECTION - Mallexikon just explained what actually happened. [146]. I'm very surprised. [147] So now, in addition to my earlier apology for not adequately proofreading the RfC, I apologize for assuming that Mallexikon's used of evidence was obviously accidental, when it was in fact just improperly handled, i.e. incomplete. Oy vey... --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 07:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• If the poorly supported claims were crossed out here [148] I would drop my support which isn't terribly strong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support The RfC request appears an attempt to remove a figure who opposes the POV of Middle 8 and Mallexikon. Not only did it fail to distinguish very old diffs from the new "evidence", the new evidence is now shown to be demonstrably false. I would wager that their bias has got in the way during this escapade rather than any malicious intent but nonetheless a real issue exists, Second Quantization (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC) (Formerly IRWolfie-)
• Support The encyclopedia is an easy target for WP:CPUSH activists, and the acupuncture topics do not need constant nurturing from those promoting its wonders. Mistakes happen, but such a mistake in this context is not to be swept under the carpet. Johnuniq (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose transparent attempt to block editors who actually know something about the subject. I also oppose the transparent attempt to ignore the major disruption caused to the encyclopedia by QuackGuru on behalf of WikiProject Medicine. According to QuackGuru and DocJames, experts are scum if and only if they edit from a different POV. Both Middle 8 and Mallexikon have never been blocked, while QuackGuru has been blocked at least 13 times for disrupting Wikipedia.[149] It is time to end the constant disruption by indefinitely blocking QuackGuru, not by sanctioning the opposing POV of editors who have no history of disruption. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You are right, just a couple more times than your 10 blocks [150] but some of yours have been more recent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

And my blocks are relevant how in a discussion about QuackGuru's disruption? Troll much, Doc James? Middle 8 and Mallexikon have never been blocked, unlike QuackGuru. There is no rationale for a topic ban on either of them, but quite a precedent for an indefinite block for QuackGuru. If that isn't clear, feel free to distract us once again with another red herring by bringing up my block log. I don't mind. I worked hard for those blocks and I earned them. Viriditas (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban by WP:CPOV & WP:COI editors. BMK (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Sorry for the misunderstanding - Surprised to see the supports, given that this was a good-faith error. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 02:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Doc James may want to AGF and reword his outside view accordingly. I posted a special notice on the RfC about it[151], but since IRWolfie-/Second Quantization moved it[152], editors may not have understood that this was a good-faith accident. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 02:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This claim against QG is still not supported by diffs and has not been withdraw. The claim is just a link to a comment by Mallexikon which contains comments verging on incivility were he says "disgustingly obvious attempt to skew the facts" [153] with no diffs to support the comments that are verging on incivility. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

GQ chose to mention the GERAC trials at the acupuncture trial. The GERAC are notable because they led to acupuncture being included in the list of reimbursable services of Germany's statutory health insurers (this fact has been emphasized on the GERAC talk page again and again. It was also the reason why GERAC survived AfD. Doc James knows this. QG knows this). But GQ chose only add this to the acupuncture article: "As a result of the trial's conclusions, some insurance corporations in Germany no longer reimburse acupuncture treatments.[195] The trials also had a negative impact on acupuncture in the international community." If you don't like to call this "skewing the facts", what do you call it then? --Mallexikon (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear that "Doc James knows this" except I am Doc James and I didn't until reading it now. So add it based on a reliable source. And problem solved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment on COI -- Mallexikon has no potential COI here. He's noted repeatedly on the RfC talk page that he doesn't make money from Acupuncture/TCM [154][155][156], but jps has refused[157][158][159] to redact his assertion[160] on the RfC page (see: Outside view by jps). This compounds the error above by suggesting further bad faith (or COI) on the part of the RfC certifiers. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 02:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• One can be a civil POV-pusher without having a financial interest in the subject. True believers do it frequently. The basis for the suggest topic ban is not COI, it's making false claims in support of a fringe POV. BMK (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• @BMK, I think you'll need more than just one diff to support that last contention. :-) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 07:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Newsflash: in the real world, outside of the basement dwellers on Wikipedia, neither chiropractic treatment nor acupuncture are considered "fringe" by medical practitioners. By all accounts, they are deeply part of mainstream culture and the health care ecosystem. Whether they are effective or not is another matter, and that debate is not limited to alternative medicine, as there are many regimens and procedures associated with mainstream medicine that fall out of favor every day as more evidence becomes available. Whatever your opinion is, acupuncture and chiropractic treatment are used in traditional medical environments throughout the world. Wikipedia has a tendency to promote and advance the views of extreme skeptics who often violate the NPOV policy in order to promote one side over another. That's not how Wikipedia works. Yes, there is a debate about whether these types of alternative medical practices "work" but that debate is also found in mainstream medicine. Medicine is more of an art than a science, and this debate reflects that problem. Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Last time I looked we don't judge whether a subject is "fringe" by how many ordinary people believe in it, we judge science by scritific standards, and medicine by medical and scientific standards. It is irrelevant whether Sally and her Uncle Fred get relief from visiting the acupuncturist or the chiropractor (there's this thing called the placebo effect which can work near miracles), unless the scientific and medical community say that the effect is caused by the "therapy", it ain't mainstream. And that's not just the case here in the Wikipedia basement, it's true in every institution of science and most institutes of medicine in the world. BMK (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Chiropractic and acupuncture are most certainly considered mainstream, so you must be living in the past. They are covered by most major health insurance plans and physicians will often recommend them for specific problems. With that said, their efficacy is in dispute, as are many accepted mainstream practices and drug regimens. You appear to be appealing to Wikipedia's perspective on what is fringe rather than the external world outside Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Fellow editors this is not the place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, indignantly - I explained my allegation of QG skewing the facts at the RfC/U in this diff (Talk:Acupuncture#Edits on "Legal and political status" vol. I), which reads:

  "User:QuackGuru was kind enough to add some material about the German acupuncture trials here... You know, the set of large trials that resulted in acupuncture being added to the list of reimbursable services in the German statutory health system. Interestingly, the text that was added by QG reads: "As a result of the trial's conclusions, some insurance corporations in Germany no longer reimburse acupuncture treatments.[195] The trials also had a negative impact on acupuncture in the international community." I try to AGF in this case, but unfortunately I know that QG knows that the GERAC resulted in acupuncture being reimbursable in Germany (as we have been working on that article together)... To leave this tiny fact out, and instead only present the side-note material about some health insurances allegedy not reimbursing acupuncture anymore and alleged negative impact on the international community, is a disgustingly obvious attempt to skew the facts. I know we have our differences in perspective here, but there're some rules for chrissake. If you're willing to skew the facts in this way, maybe you should stop for a minute and ask yourself whether your POV got the better of you."

Now I guess Doc James simply didn't read this - that's a little embarrassing. Or he did read it and didn't get it - that's even more embarrassing. But for accusing me of a "false claim" I'd actually like an apology. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

So why did you not add further text than? If you did and it was supported by a high quality source and QC removed it than there might be a bit of a case. But right now I still see unsubstantiated claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

GQ chose to mention the GERAC trials at the acupuncture trial. The GERAC are notable because they led to acupuncture being included in the list of reimbursable services of Germany's statutory health insurers (this fact has been emphasized on the GERAC talk page again and again. It was also the reason why GERAC survived AfD. Doc James knows this. QG knows this). But GQ chose only add this to the acupuncture article: "As a result of the trial's conclusions, some insurance corporations in Germany no longer reimburse acupuncture treatments.[195] The trials also had a negative impact on acupuncture in the international community." If you don't like to call this "skewing the facts", what do you call it then? --Mallexikon (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is the current text: The German acupuncture trials were a series of nationwide acupuncture trials set up in 2001 and published in 2006 on behalf of several German statutory health insurance companies due to a dispute as to the usefulness of acupuncture.[185] The trials were considered to be one of the largest clinical studies in the field of acupuncture.[185] As a result of the trials, acupuncture was paid for in Germany by the social insurance scheme for only low back pain and osteoarthritis of the knee.[186] This decision was made in part on the results of the trials and in part for socio-political reasons.[186] However, as a result of the trial's conclusions, some insurance corporations in Germany no longer reimburse acupuncture treatments.[187] The trials also had a negative impact on acupuncture in the international community.[187] See Acupuncture#Legal and political status. QuackGuru (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I did not skew the facts. Mallexikon, you are not assumed good faith and the evidence is against you here. You and Middle 8 did not attempt to improve or expand the text. I expanded the text and added in more information. So what is the current problem with the text? I started a discussion after I made my initial edit to the section for feedback. Middle 8 did not have a problem with the text in that section at that time. See Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 11#Legal and political status recent edits. I recently discussed this on the talk page again. See Talk:Acupuncture#Legal and political status. I also started a discussion in the RfC. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2#Legal and political status. QuackGuru (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that you expanded the text and thanks for that. However, you did so only after I protested at the talk page. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Its not called "protesting at the talk page" its called bringing forwards other high quality sources and created balances text based on all the best available evidence. This is how Wikipedia is supported to work. User A adds text based on one high quality source they have found. Other users bring other high quality sources and the text get altered further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure. QG knew that the GERAC are notable for resulting in acupuncture being reimbursable by virtual all German health insurers. But his summary of the GERAC was: "As a result of the trial's conclusions, some insurance corporations in Germany no longer reimburse acupuncture treatments. The trials also had a negative impact on acupuncture in the international community". That is skewing of facts, even if he has a source. But it makes acupuncture look bad of course, and I guess that's why he's getting so much applause and encouragement here. Cause the end justifies the means, right? --Mallexikon (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• This suggestion is utterly fatuous and an egregious violation of WP:POINT. The determination to have this fatuous discussion in spite of these obvious facts, is worrying. Guy (Help!) 06:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • We do not block people based on the amount they contribute. And incivility such as you claiming I'm an idiot here does not move the discussion forwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if Mallexikon's and my errors in presenting evidence have worsened the signal-to-noise ratio here. I agree that other editors may be trying to exploit this, though. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 06:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Guy: Has it escaped your notice that this suggested sanction has received more support than any of the sanctions proposed against QG? Or that no one has endorsed the views of the instigators of the RFC/U? Or that equal numbers of editors are supporting pro-QG outside views as are supporting anti-QG views? All of this means that the facts, which seem so clear to you, are seen differently by other people, and that there is noting in the least "fatuous" or pointy in the proposed sanction. Your suggestion seems utterly lacking in AGF. BMK (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• So far nobody has endorsed the gentle outcomes sought in the RfC. That is true. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 08:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Gentle? Your suggested outcome is to remove QG and that you be left to divy up the article. Second Quantization (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"Divvy up the article?" What's that supposed to mean? --Mallexikon (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• On the fence at this moment because I'm having a bit of a dilemma. We certainly wants to send a clear message to people who twist other people's words or made wrongful accusations out of thin air (and maybe this block sets a precedent for future violators). But blocks aren't supposed to be punitive. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef siteblock, for Middle 8 only - Longstanding behavior pattern of excessive editing in topic areas unlikely to change, despite extensive feedback. Please take action. Sincerely, --Middle 8's family (leave him alone • don't talk to him) 09:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I think that these guys have no reason to be banned whatsoever, why are we even worrying about them? The real problem is QuackGuru. Happy Attack Dog (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• The above editor has been here for 14 days, and has 54 edits, only 6 of them to articles. Their lack of experience should be taken into account when assessing their !vote. BMK (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• BMK, Don`t Judge a book by its cover. Happy Attack Dog (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I've actually looked at some of your edits, and they appeared to be those of a newbie, but your comment gives me pause. So, allow me to ask, since, according to you, your "cover" is not indicative of your "contents": have you had an account before, and was that account blocked or banned? BMK (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• BMK, I have not had a formal account before (Although I have edited once or twice before as a IP). I believe that we should not discriminate against people who are new. I am kindly asking you to stop judging me based on my skill level, remember WP: Don`t bite the newcomers. Also, I do not edit articles because my only real purpose on Wikipedia is to find, and destroy, vandalism. I am simply trying to bring due justice to QuackGuru. Happy Attack Dog (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• The vandalism that is most important to remove is in our articles, so why only 6 edits in that space? As for this, you simply do not have enough experience on Wikipedia to be making judgments such as this. I would suggest that you stick to reverting vandalism and work your way up to commenting on AN and AN/I. BMK (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-PR ==> statuslabs.com

From [161] “Employees, contractors, owners, and anyone who derives financial benefit from editing the English Wikipedia on behalf of Wiki-PR.com or its founders are banned from editing the English Wikipedia. This ban has been enacted because Wiki-PR.com has, as an organization, proven themselves repeatedly unable or unwilling to adhere to our basic community standards. This ban as a whole may be appealed at WP:AN at any time that Wiki-PR.com as an organization is willing to (a) divulge a complete list of all past sock and meatpuppet accounts that they have used, (b) divulge a complete list of all articles they have edited that they have received any financial benefit from whatsoever, and (c) pledge to, in the future, only edit under transparent, disclosed accounts and adhere as closely as they are able to all of Wikipedia’s content policies. Individual accounts blocked under this ban may be unblocked if any uninvolved administrator honestly believes that it is more likely than not that the individual account in question is not connected to Wiki-PR.”

According to the Signpost In Briefs section Wiki-PR has changed its name to Status Labs [162]. Checking the new site it's clear that it's the same company, using the same software, same style, some of the same boilerplate text. You can still check the old site for comparison [163]. I'd just like to make sure that the ban applies to "Status Labs" as well so I've added Status Labs to the Wiki-PR entry at WP:List of banned users

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question that the ban extends to new names and urls, etc. Did we ever end up using filters or such to help keep an eye out for this group? If so, those may need updating as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Certainly the ban extends to any subsequent incarnation of the group, the founder, or any traceable derivative. For clarity, because they can be expected to seize upon whatever arguments against us they can imagine, it might be well to re-enact the ban saying so in no uncertain terms. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me reiterate some of the wording: ...derives financial benefit from editing the English Wikipedia on behalf of Wiki-PR.com or its founders are banned.... This makes it clear that the ban is meant for the organisation and its people, regardless of the name they use. Should someone actively seek an expansion of the ban so that it "officially" covers the organisation regardless of its name, I'll support (there's no way that it would hurt to expand it), but I don't think an expansion necessary. Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a fair interpretation to say that the ban also covers "Status Labs". Different name, same folks. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC).

Username violation unblocks

Hello,

As per the current procedures for admins, any unblock requests for users blocked per Wikipedia:Username policy must be followed up by a username change request by the blocked editor themselves. But shouldn't the unblock request with the suggested alternate username be itself considered to be a Username change request? For example, User_talk:8022284499VT and User_talk:Imsindia1 are two users who have been unblocked so they can have a username change. But neither submitted any such request. It has been over 3 months since the former was unblocked (and even started editing after being unblocked), and over two months since the latter was.

I think that this case might be more common than it appears, and a possible solution would be to remove the bureaucracy and do away with the explicit username change request by the unblocked user. There could be a number of ways this could be implemented, but overall, it will end up making things simpler for the new users.

Any thoughts?

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I've multiple times submitted username change requests on behalf of other users. Of course we can't go around submitting changes in normal circumstances (imagine I hate Camelcase. Please change this username to "Theoriginalsoni"), but when you have a new user with a problematic username, there's really nothing wrong with submitting on the other's behalf. A simple link to the unblock request should suffice at WP:CHUS; in the reason parameter, we can put in something like "Submitting on TheOriginalSoni's behalf. He got blocked for a CamelCase violation, but he submitted a request for unblock with username change to Theoriginalsoni". Unless I've figured out the other user's password or convinced the developers to play around with the contents of the database, we can't deny that the other user is asking for the change, so the diff should be sufficient evidence. Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• They should be re-blocked. I typically watchlist those who I unblock for username changes. I sometimes forget to return. We don't submit for them, and it's difficult to do so. Those who return to editing using their previous name will have trouble requesting a future unblock because they already violated their promises once DP 14:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Imagine that you're one of these users. You start editing, only to learn that you've been banned because you picked a name that's not in line with some crazy rule; they tell you to pick a different name, and if it's all right, you'll be unbanned. You follow the directions and pick a different name, and you find the situation stressful enough or annoying enough that you just go away for a few days. You come back, and you get a message saying that you can edit because your choice got accepted. Hooray! This done, you go off and start editing. Now Isn't this a plausible scenario? It's easy to misunderstand what's going on, make a good-faith request, have it accepted, and wrongly assume that you did everything needed. When we're talking about new editors, we really ought to assume cluelessness in lieu of assuming broken promises, making it easier for them to comply rather than showing them the door. After all, this scenario of unblocking for username change is only done when the username is the only objection, or when the user's other objectionable actions aren't enough to warrant a block (a vandal with bad username won't be permitted to request a change), so I don't see why we should reblock or otherwise sanction them just because they didn't request the same change at two different pages. Nyttend (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Nyttend. If the unblock request specifies a prefered new name, and that name is acceptable under the user name policy, and is not in use, then the unblocking admin ought to file the username change request on behalf of the blocked editor. if this is difficult, then the process should be changed to make it easier. Why make new editors jump through hoops needlessly and increase the chance of problems. DES ^(talk) 16:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Requesting a username change may seem a little intimidating, but there's actually a handy link on Wikipedia:Changing username that will take care of most of the work: Click here to place your request. Admins who do a lot of unblock-on-condition-of-rename work can click that link, enter the current and desired usernames, and save the page, and a bureaucrat will be along to take care of it. (The bot will complain that the person who submitted the request isn't the person who will be renamed, but that's nothing to worry about.) Admins aren't under any obligation to do this for the user, of course, but if any want to, just bookmark that link for future reference. 28bytes (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• I wonder... should someone tweak it so that any unblock pending a name change would re-block the existing account if it edits in mainspace, or after seven days, or something like that? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• I also agree with Nyttend and DESiegel. It's too easy for new editors to fall through the gaps; let's make it easier for them. bobrayner (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Why do we need to unblock editors to request a namechange? That procedure seems unnecessary - the 'unblock for namechange' should (as it already has) a suggested new name, and that type of requests could then be handled by bureaucrats (instead of admins) who, solely based on the unblock-request, rename the account ánd unblock at the same time (or would the latter be out of the scope of what we expect bureaucrats to do?). In that way you don't end up with unblocked promotional usernames which do not request rename, editors with violating usernames who can edit using that account, or have to revisit cases where editors need to be reblocked because they did not carry out their suggested username change. I do however realise that this is more work for the bureaucrats - they would have to monitor a category for that (or a bot needs to transclude a username change request on behalf of such unblock requests). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(noting that declining the request can be done by others. Also, one could design a 'admin recommendation' into the system, like the 'unblock on hold' system). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• One possible solution is that if a User xyz was being unblocked by an admin for a username change, the admin could replace the {{unblock}} by something like {{unblock namechange}} instead of {{unblock reviewed}}. The new template could look something like "Your unblock request has been accepted and is waiting for a Bureaucrat to change your username", and we could have crats monitor the template the same way admins monitor unblock templates. The crats will have some additional load too, but this would probably make matters simpler. Thoughts? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • This seems like a good idea - doesn't add much more work for the 'crats (they simply need to monitor a single category, chekc the history to make sure that the template was added by an admin, rename the account, and unblock it). Most of our 'crats are admins, and the rest aren't because they've given it up. If someone thinks tghat monitoring that category is too much, we could even have a bot do that, filing the requests ta CHU. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Good idea, I agree. JohnCD (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Careful, this is sounding too logical DP 15:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What's this, an AN thread with no dissenters by third response? Something is very wrong here... but not TheOriginalSoni's proposal, which sounds very sensible indeed. I've often thought that the username unblocking process required the unblocked user to jump through too many hoops; this is a neat and elegant solution. Who's going to write the template, then? Yunshui 雲‍水 15:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The primary challenge will be that if the Buro is responding on the user's talkpage to a category based on an unblock acceptance, the Buro will have to verify that it was, indeed, accepted by an admin and unblocked, and not "accepted" by the user themself (or someone else) DP 15:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a response to everyone: I'd happily support this idea. Just please be careful to write out good documentation, lest we admins get confused. It seems like half the username blocks are made by Daniel Case, whom I should have notified about this thread when I first saw it. Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. I believe it's desired to have a record of all username changes at CHU, so perhaps it's best to include a requirement for the 'crats to make a pro forma pre-accepted request at CHU/S when we perform these kinds of renames. (Don't worry, we're bureaucrats, we can handle paperwork.) Incidentally, I've been thinking about writing a script that will warn an admin who's looking at a username block that the user in question has made edits to CHU/S or CHU/U: I've seen some cases of users blocked solely for a username violation after they've already made a username request. Is this a thing admins would be interested in using? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be interested, but I'm not a scripts fan; I've only ever used a couple in eight years' editing. If I were a scripts user, I would be quite interested in using it. Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, for those of you who aren't total squares, the script is ready for trial here. As always, install by putting importScript("User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/renameWarner.js"); into your common.js page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment I think a time limit on the unblock would be a better idea. Blocks go off automatically when their time is expires - is there any reason why this can't be applied to the temporary unblock (it DOES say temporary) for applying for a change? Sending things to CHU automatically may not work. The first name many select is the one they've just been blocked for, but in capitals or with the spaces taken out. Or Bloggsco instead of BloggsCo. Or even no change at all... There should also be some way of automatically reblocking if they edit anywhere other than CHU, their talk page or the unblocking admin's talk page. For now, if an unblocked account hasn't gone to CHU after a reminder has been issued, it should be reblocked as it was before. They may have been run over by a bus, or decided that they can't write an article about their business that will pass anyway. Just leave a note saying to re-request. Peridon (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC of possible interest

Administrators and other editors here may perhaps be interested in Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#RfC about listing discussions, which is going to close in a couple of days. The reason I'm posting this here is that the RfC is about material that is transcluded here onto WP:AN, and is of significance as to how it will appear and be used here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

BracketBot

I am going very briefly without references. BracketBot constantly interferes with editors who make small edits under WP:OWNFEET which I and another editor wrote a few years ago. I have tried to find a way to disable this bot, but nothing is mentioned on the talk page of the author, to which I have asked twelve hours ago, nor on the page of the bot itself if you can actually find it. The author of the bot may have forgotten about parentheses, ellipses, guillemets and punctuation in a foreign language, but I muhgst admit I am losing my good faith and it surely is all right for a good faith editor to stop a bot but I can't find any link to do so. The Google search mainly shows that it has been a nuisance. Si Trew (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you give any examples of false positives so problematic they warrant shutting it down? In my experience this bot is remarkably helpful and very rarely wrong. Mogism (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, the opt-out instructions are clearly explained on the bot's user page; have you tried them? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC

It is hard to give examples because it tends to be edit conflicts, that it gets in the way too quick when making small edits. I correct those edits myself but BracketBot gets there before me and has an edit conflict. I know it does good work but the author does not seem to be willing to respond to any complaint about it; in which case, that is not a good housekeeper and should not run a bot. Most bots have a stop and link from the author's page so if in any doubt a good faith editor can stop the bot; this one I have still not found the bot's page. Si Trew (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the bot's user page; I couldn't find it. I hit the emergency shut off button and it says permission error. That's wonderful. I thought Wikipedia was improved by individual editors trying to add little to little, now I don't even get a chance to stop a bot ruining my attempt to improve Wikpiedia. Si Trew (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure you're talking about the right bot? Bracketbot only ever posts notices to user talk pages and has never made a content edit, so you can't possibly be getting edit conflicts with it. Mogism (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Since according to the bot's stop page you have to have administrator permissions then what am I to do? I brought it here for you to stop it because I don't have them and don't want them. But a bot should be able to be stopped by a normal editor, just under the usual WP:BRD, and you can't discuss things with a bot, especially one that cannot be disabled except by an administrator. How did this ever get approved (in mid 2003) was someone nodding? Si Trew (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You haven't given a single example of this bot actually doing anything wrong, and you're accusing it of doing something (edit conflicting with you on articles) which it's literally impossible for it to do since it's never edited article space in its entire history. What exactly are you expecting the sysops to do? Mogism (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I may be mistaken. You are probably right that it just warns you rather than changes it. The thing is, the warning in itself when you are in the middle of editing is a distraction. I said at the top I am not going to give examples because there are kinda none, it is just a continual distraction when one is editing. I have asked the author of the bot if it could stay off for an hour or two after editing, kinda gasp of breath, before it puts its oar ian. That would be fine and I would be happy. As it is, as one is editing an article before one has even checked a referene BracketBot tells you you have missed a closing bracket (as if it knew the difference between a bracket, a parenthesis, a brace, a guillemet). That gets in the way. I am not asking for this bot to be deleted, it does good work: But i am asking that its author be responsible. I find it quite absurd I can't stop it myself, it seems all editors are equal, but some are more equal than others. Si Trew (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

So you're suggesting any editor can stop a bot like Cluebot and Sinebot? No thanks. Maybe add an per-user opt-out mechanism like other bots have. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It already has one; I linked the instructions up in my comment at the top. @SimonTrew: why not just opt out, rather than try to turn it off for everyone? That's why it's there. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, missed that, thanks. Maybe add a sentence to the bot's message like DPL bot has? "It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks,..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that is probably a good idea. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Instructions explicitly linked to by Writ Keeper, at User:BracketBot#Opting out, many thanks to him. Reproduced here for reference (and it's not just about the big red button at the bottom which is for administrators only):

* Opt out – the bot will ignore your edits.

• • Add [[Category:Wikipedians who have opted out of BracketBot messages]] to your talk page or your user page.
  • OR Add {{NoBracketBot}} to your user page or your user talk page.

If you need help putting this template on your talkpage, I can do it for you. Hope this information resolves your issue. Regards, TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, as a copyeditor I get my share of BracketBot messages on my talk page; they used to bug me, but they've also made me a lot more attentive about closing parentheses. Don't be too quick to opt out; it's pesky, but useful. All the best, Miniapolis 23:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that you can opt out on a per-edit basis, too, by adding "!nobots!" to your edit summary to make the bot ignore only that edit, rather than all one's edits. Really, the opt-out system for BracketBot is actually quite accommodating. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• If bots were opt-in, newbies would be starved of the very useful information they provide. It is always helpful to be informed when you've made an error, and I'm surprised that anyone would be so upset by what is quite a gentle nudge in the right direction - BracketBot even tells you exactly what to fix! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Let me add my kudos for Bracket bot which has warned me several times, and been right every time. I haven't yet understood the OP's complaint. The only think I can think of is that they get the message warning while working on an article, but I don't get why that is a problem.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Personally, I've always wondered why the bot doesn't just fix the errors itself. Then again, I don't know much about bots. -- John Reaves 16:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Because the bot looks for cases of people inserting opening brackets without a corresponding close bracket - it's not reasonable to expect it to work out where the closing bracket should be. Mogism (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, this is an excellent example of an edit easily made by a human, but far from trivial for a computer. In contrast, detecting that unbalanced brackets exist is trivial for a computer, but (as I can personally attest) painful to figure out for a human. We have the ideal match of strengths. The bot finds it, the human fixes it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Second opinion on an unblock

I'd like to unblock User talk:Texasgov14 based on the discussion we had on their talk page, but as the blocking admin is unavailable could I please get a second opinion? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course, per non-punitive. NE Ent 10:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring a 3RR warning is generally bad, but I can easily understand how it happened here. Getting a welcome template, with all the wide-ranging links and advice about how to edit Wikipedia, together with a warning, wouldn't make it easy for a new user to realize that, of the overwhelmingly long and link-rich post on their page, the second part was the meat, and was meant to set off an alarm bell. After reading the discussion on their page, I'd unblock. The conduct issue seems resolved. Bishonen | talk 11:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC).

Unblocked, thank you both. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Improvement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Seeing that my relative Babe Ruth is somehow out of my reach as to make article edits about him according to this gang-mentality approach, I would rather be inclined to regretfully inform you of the nature of this exercise. In accordance to the grievance, make community "cards" to appropiate levels of distinction to help the unaminity of the legistlation. InternetHero (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

To the comment here: "huh?" *scratches head* What are you saying? As to your edits at Babe Ruth, they are not helpful. Chris857 (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You deleted most of the infobox and replaced it with the nonexistent Template:Grandpa. How could this be considered an improvement? Nyttend (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have blocked this user indefinitely for disruptive editing. Anyone should feel free to reverse this block if they think it warranted. –xeno^talk 22:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Hold on, did he say Babe Ruth was his relative? And he's editing on behalf of him? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 22:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Looking at their contribution history, a most cromulent block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• I concur, this block embiggens the noble spirit of the block policy. -- John Reaves 15:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy deletion tag overdue

I'm really unsure if this is the right place for this as I'm not posting about an already-deleted article, or an article at all for that matter. Anyway, a file I uploaded (File:Skullgirls screenshot 2.png) was tagged for speedy deletion on January 19. I refined the license status to argue my reasoning as to why it should stay. However, a week has come and gone quite a while ago and nothing's happened in terms of keeping or deleting the file. If an admin could take a look at it real quick and make a decision, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Antoshi ☏ ★ 23:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Taylor Trescott

The above user - unhappy at this discussion going against him, duly started another one in order to get rid of an image anyway. I feel this is unacceptable and against wiki practice. Will any action be taken? 94.194.111.16 (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I kinda wish I had seen this when it was an active discussion - in November. The case for keeping both images from the episode and pilot seems to be pretty clear. And the NFCR discussion did not have a whole lot of participation, so it's not the overwhelming consensus you'd need to close a discussion at ffd as "Procedural Close - this was just discussed at NFCR..." or some such. I'd recommend taking this to DRV and making your case for keeping both images - I can assure you that the image will not be restored just because an editor forum shopped a bit. You'll need to make a good argument on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, you're required to notify people you discuss here. I've done that for you. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm? I can't really see anything wrong here. When I first nominated the book cover, the only people who had commented were J Milburn and Masem who expressed support that the screenshots were OK but the book cover was not. Those "keep"s came in later. Also, WP:NFCR is not the same thing as WP:FFD. The action you should take here is filing a DRV. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• The IP's complaint is utterly spurious. Nothing seems to have been done wrong here. (Also, if DRV is worth its title, it'll find the deletion of the book cover legitimate. I wouldn't waste your time.) J Milburn (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Two new Marvelous AQL game pages

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Forbidden Magna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Judgementwolf/Forbidden_Magna

Harvest Moon: Connect To a New World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Judgementwolf/Harvest_Moon:_Connect_to_a_New_World I am requesting that the redirect privilege be instated for these two pages. sincerely, Judgementwolf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgementwolf (talk • contribs) 08:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking for here? Can you describe? ₆an⁶sh₆ 09:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Something I forgot to do

Could someone please change the block time for Rajpurohit-Veer to indefinite? Someone notified me that he was socking, so I blocked the socks and filed an SPI to look for sleepers, but I forgot to up the master's block to indef. Nyttend backup (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Extended to indef. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Admins who will block on request

Resolved

 – Thank you. Night Ranger (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I know there are a few admins who are willing to block accounts who self-request. Is there anyone here at the moment who does this? Night Ranger (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, you want to explain further? DP 20:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

They're probably looking for this list. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what I needed Writ, thank you. Night Ranger (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Justine Roi (talk · contribs)

Can an administrator please double check some of the contributions of this user? I have not been able to inspect closely at their contributions history to determine which article creations are good and which are bad, but they have received numerous warnings on their user talk page asking them to stop until they have better knowledge of Wikipedia policies. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 10:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

That looks a lot like User:Bertrand101 at a glance, but I'm about to go offline for a bit and don't have time to investigate fully. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty convinced now. Blocked as a sockpuppet. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)