Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

RfC of interest[edit]

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[edit]

(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'sPonyobons 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[edit]

Too complicated. See my comments at the bottom. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 27 January 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: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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Blocks enforced by Bbb23. (NAC) Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 06:40, 27 January 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.

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[edit]

WP:IAR applied by Drmies. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 25 January 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.

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[edit]

No stalking or "adminpuppetry" here. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:18, 25 January 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.

Just wondering how do users prevent Admins from stalking them? In particular ones with possible multiple admin accounts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talkcontribs) 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'sPonyobons 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[edit]

I don't fully understand what's going on here, but it appears to have been taken care of. (NAC) Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 06:37, 27 January 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.

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. Face-grin.svg -- 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (TC) 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[edit]

Forget it. Looks like we love the drama. See you guys next week, when someone else reports her issues again. And then the next week. etc. Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 27 January 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.

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[edit]

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, — ΛΧΣ21 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[edit]

  • 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!...Face-tongue.svg 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[edit]

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[edit]

Socks have been put away. (NAC) Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 08:36, 29 January 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.

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)[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

(