Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive733

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:JohnMannV[edit]

I have decided to bring this here after a long time. There was originally a content dispute on article Tuples in association football. This was originally over whether Barcelona won a sextuple of cups in a season which wasn't the case and has now been proven and a compromise appears to have been reached to allow Inclusion. During this time the debate got heated and i am saying i am totally correct myself but ill let you decide. first of all he accused me and fellow editors of being against him for because we were scottish.[1]. I approached Bwilkins for advice who warned him he then said the same thing to bwilikins[2] and on the talk page of the article and was banned for 24 hours. Once unbanned he accused me of being a troll[3] accused bwilkins on his talk page of abusing powers and given him a 24 hour deadline to respond.[4] and accused me of being arrogant and part of a lexicon of editors against him.[5] He has since been banned for 60 hours for this by todds.

It should be noted he is a very new user who's first edits were on this article and was originally suspected of being a sockpuppet of User:Subtropical-man who appeared to act in a similar manner and stopped editing the article around this time. I have no proof of this it is just a suspicion that myself and another editor had..

Although he is currently blocked i suggest he is not here to help the encyclopaedia and is intent on attacks on other users. For this and above i would like uninvolved admins to review the case and decide what actions should be taken. If i have been in the wrong as well then i am happy to accept that.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

(I believe the word "banned" is used above where "blocked" is more precise -- not trying to pick nits but they have specific, different meanings on Wikipedia.) You may very well be correct but I think it would be best to let the current block expire before and observe the editors continuing behavior before having a discussion at ANI.Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 22:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)not an admin
Sorry do that all the time. I just felt given his further actions and way he approached Bwilkins which i don't think thats what he was blocked for an ANi was appropriate even to answer the sock puppet question once and for all. He may not be and i would hold my hand out if not but it may be worth a look.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I missed focus of your question -- possible sockpuppetry should reported at WP:SPI. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 22:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes but felt a review of the whole situation is appropriate. If not then thats what i will do.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I've advised Subtropical-man about this. GiantSnowman 23:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Edinburgh Wanderer, I'm not a sock-puppet of User:JohnMannV. Why did you write "who appeared to act in a similar manner"? I not act in a similar manner, I have only a similar opinion as User:JohnMannV about this topic. You offend me. Subtropical-man (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Not in the abusive way at all so shouldn't be offended and if your not linked at all then i will apologise but there is big picture here that i feel needs looked at to stop accusations and accusations of admin abusing powers. It wasn't actually me that thought it originally but Given you argued the exact same points and then stopped editing when he started as a brand new account with his first edit then it was seen as a possibility. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
...and there's never anything wrong with raising concerns ... indeed, Subtropical should not be offended - I once had the police drop by my apartment for something that slightly resembled me, but I wasn't offended. For the record, let's just say that User:JohnMannV has been rather, errm, abrasive? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── No additional action is needed right now: JohnMannV was rightly re-blocked for an extended duration following his belligerent response to his first block, and if he responds the same way when he returns following this block it's likely the same will happen. Despite the somewhat suspicious decision to kick his editing career off by diving into an edit war head-first, I'm dubious that this is sockpuppetry (or at least sockpuppetry of subtropical-man) due to the dissimilarity of editing styles. Let's see what happens when JohnMannV's current block expires. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Im Happy with that as long as the concern of further disruption has been noted. Im actually disgusted that he felt it was necessary to accuse me and others vying against him because we were scottish. That should never be any excuse for attacking anyone. The editing style are different per se and Subtrpical man has nerver attacked me or as i know off another editor. The only reason it was suspected was because they both argued the same points and John Mann arrived as Subtropical left and its a very obscure article to pick for your first edits. I would never have known of it prior to discussion at WP:Footy.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey Gu[edit]

Jeffrey Gu is a relatively new editor to Wikipedia but he is causing many problems, and in some cases, disruption, most recently by using his (likely) IP address to push his view that Hurricane Ivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) could be protected at WP:RFPP. This can be evidenced through the following edits:

The above edits were not disruptive (except for the last one), except for the recent edit the IP made that JG linked to in an attempt to get the article Hurricane Ivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) semi-protected. The edit is below:

Furthermore, JG linked to the edit just two minutes after the IP vandalized the page. This appears to be disruptive as it seems to be an attempt to push his own views on protecting the article. Could an admin look into this? Thanks. HurricaneFan25 — 23:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that I haven't provided the diffs for disruption under JG's account, will add upon request. HurricaneFan25 — 00:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
(non-admin comment) I recall reading on JG's talk page that he lives in Michigan. Well, an IP calculator reveals this. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't matter where the IP geolocates from, it's clearly the same editor. I'll note that the IP's edit filter log is quite interesting. And from a general look over the (registered) user's talk page and edit summaries, clearly there are some maturity and competence issues here. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Topic Locks[edit]

Please lock User:Blackmagic240843, User_talk:142.163.69.217, User talk:Kagome 85

User:Kagome_85 is constantly vandalizing them.


User:Blackmagic240843 clearly says This account is a suspected sock puppet of Kagome 85 and has been blocked indefinitely. And User:Kagome_85 keeps changing it to This account is a suspected sock puppet of Blackmagic1234 and has been blocked indefinitely.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.194.118 (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Trolling and disruptive behavior in discussion[edit]

After an edit war that took place, the article Yugoslav Partisans ended up protected. Discussion started at the talk page, however User:DIREKTOR has decided not to participate adequately in the discussion in order to archive consensus but has rather opted to disrupt the discussion and, in my view, wait for the protection to be lifted and reinsert the disputed material again.

At the discussion itself, at Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#mediation, after an initial attempt to discredit the mediation request done by another user, by seing that there was intention by my side to discuss the issues, DIREKTOR has derailed the discussion by making a series of big posts with a series of offensive personal remarks directed towards me which in nothing contributed to the dispute resolution, on the contrary.

As my first attempts of dispute resolution has failed, I opened a new subsection in which I asked participants to focus on article content only, however DIREKTOR has opted to add trolling this time, and continued with an attitude that was disruptive towards the dispute resolution process. My comments in which I analised the sources and cited adequate policies were ignored.

As I am lone there opposed by the other participants who boicoted my attempts to solve the dispute while the article was protected, I will ask you gentleman to please keep the article protected, as the current protection will finish soon and because there is evidence of a will to edit the article as soon as the protection is lifted without consensus being archived on talk page first; and also to take adequate actions towards the disruptive attitude User:DIREKTOR had in the discussions. The trolling can be seen trought the discussion and the inclusion of this image is the cherry of the cake. FkpCascais (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Judging by DIREKTOR's contributions, I think the user in question is apparently disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point and using personal attacks, both of which will not be tolerated. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
It should be known this discussion is somewhat the continuation of a failed mediation that went on for over a year and that DIREKTOR has been more than patient with Fkp's attempts to challenge the basics of the subject at hand and the reliable sources in use. There was no attempt at a proper dispute resolution on Fkp's behalf as he wants to make it appear, rather he was canvassed by LAz17, knowing his views on the matter, into the discussion. [6]
Fkp, mediation is something that is voluntarily agreed to by parties, it's not some tactic that can be used by one lone user, LAz17 (who couldn't be bothered to properly fill out the mediation form [7] and was indef blocked for breaching his topic ban with this very article [8]). DIREKTOR is well within his rights to object to it.
No one has "boicoted" anything, but what has happened is that the invalidity of your arguments have been pointed out. That being said, I fail to see how using an image could possibly qualify as disrupting Wikipedia, rather this looks like a case of WP:WOLF.-- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 23:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
PRODUCER is one of the participants who also boicoted dicussion. FkpCascais (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I have to say I'm not seeing disruption by DIREKTOR in this discussion. He's pointed out some flaws in your arguments and brought sources back up his position. You seem more interested in playing games to advance your position rather than using sources tomback up your claims. There is no violation by DIREKTOR and I recommend closing this complaint. AniMate 06:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
DIREKTOR has not brought any single source by the time you posted this comment here. Why are you missinforming at an ANI report? I will also like to provide evidence that you are a frequent admin that constantly intevenes to defend DIREKTOR´s disruption, and I will provide all necessary evidence for this claim if necessary. I refuse to be ganged-up over this. FkpCascais (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I've read the talk page. Sources were provided. One was to the BBC and the other was a scholarly work by a man named Velikonja and both appear reliable. You were also pointed towards sources on another article you and DIREKTOR are involved in. You dismissed the first two and pretended like you didn't know about the last group. Now that it looks like the editors who disagree with you have proven their position by using reliable sources, you have come here to try and get one of them blocked over something trivial. It looks like you're trying to gain an editorial advantage by getting those who disagree with you blocked. This should be a case of WP:BOOMERANG, and hopefully a brave admin willing to wade through all of this will apply some WP:ARBMAC remedies. AniMate 09:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
A brave admin should definitelly take action here, because you are lying for second time on this ANI report in order to discredit a complaint. The BBC source was analised, and it is not even considered a scholar source for such a hard claim such as "ethnic cleansing", and with regard to Velikonja, can you please show where the source is by time of this edit of mine? FkpCascais (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all noone "boycotted discussion", and I was only marginally involved in that article (I think I edited it only once before it was protected due to the dispute between other users). FkpCascais is merely frustrated that he is unable to counter numerous sources with his personal opinions and proclamations, which is, apparently, his perception of what discussion is: acknowledgement of his position as a counter to sourced materiel. Instead of conforming to sourced information, the user quotes unrelated policies, attacks established scholars (often on the grounds of his own perception of their ethnic background), and reports the users who brought the sources up.

The discussion had reached a dead point where the user simply refuses to accept that about a half-dozen references (listed in part on Talk:Chetniks) support the article edits. The grounds for dismissing sources are always different, but never based on any other authority than FkpCascais himself. There was literally nothing to do except to try and impress the need to bring up sources of one's own. I posted the flat earth image as an obvious good-natured joke, in illustrating the fact that ignoring sources can potentially make any discussion, even one about the shape of the Earth, run perpetually. I could not fathom at all that it would be perceived as an insult of any kind, on the contrary: I find FkpCascais's "troll" insinuations far more insulting than that humorous illustration.

If anything, it is FkpCascais's refusal to accept reliable sources that disrupts discussion(s), and this is a pattern that has been seen for months and years. The user insists on setting his own standards on sources, and faced with outright contradiction simply raises the bar. I did not insult anyone or post any real personal attacks, my references to FkpCascais' tendency to make unsourced claims can, in my opinion, hardly be construed as an "attack" of some sort. It was an honest-to-goodness effort to get the discussion rolling again. I mean, after you've brought-up six or seven sources that support an edit, and they're simply being "rejected" without any policy-related basis, what else is one to do than address the rejection itself? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

All PRODUCER, Animate and DIREKTOR said here is completely opposite to what happend in the discussion, and anyone can confirm that by seing what happend there. FkpCascais (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes its all lies. The complete opposite actually happened... How does one respond to that? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
By checking what happend there. For everyones information I must say that the sources which I spent 3 days asking for were provided just now, obviously the other users knowing we´ll have no necessary time to discuss them and analise them until the protection is lifted today in some hours. Knowing that this was just one of the several points that should have been discussed during the protection period and which did not reached any consensus, I repeat that is absolutely essential to please keep the protection of the article (URGENT), so the side gaming the system and disrupting the discussion while it should have taken place will not leave the content dispute favoured. FkpCascais (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Being a new user, I just read about gaming the system, and I don't see how what went on at Yugoslav Partisans talk could qualify. I too have been frustrated with Fkp's lack of interest in engaging with the sources, which he has demonstrated both in this recent discussion at Partisans as well as at Chetniks. Consensus will remain unachievable if Fkp continues with this behaviour. Specifically, the preceding editwar would have been clearer if PRODUCER had provided inline citations for his edits re: the Chetnik policy of ethnic cleansing, but half a dozen sources have been provided on the talk page fr the use of this description and Fkp's consistent response is to ignore the fact that they are reliable publshed sources, and resort to arguments about how harsh the words 'ethnic cleansing' are. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, so I am allegedly lacking interess in engaging with sources (while I was the only one there who actually read them in detail, analised them, and exposed their flaws), but just next, you admit that the article was missing inline citations (btw, inline, and any else)... Also important is the fact that the "half a dozen sources" where only presented after I complained here and exposed the case. Otherwise you were just happy as things were, and it is quite evident that you are all unhappy by my presence because if it wasn´t for me you would be able to freely add disputed unsourced content to the articles. Well, I am sorry to be stone in your shoe and demand things to be donne wright... FkpCascais (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Forwarded to admin Fastily. Please continue discussion after this.--Ankit Maity Talkcontribs 07:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


...and just as there was a chance of refocusing on the discussion of content, User:DIREKTOR has decided to restore the edit war. It´s incredible. I was absolutelly right by asking for the protection to be kept while discussion is not finished, however User:Causa sui beleaving in good-faith towards the users, denied my request and unblocked the article... User:DIREKTOR resisted it only 5 hours... FkpCascais (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Reviews Need Closing[edit]

Please could some kind Admin go through the outstanding deletion eviews and apply some clue to them? Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 05:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"Occupy" mess cleanup[edit]

The "occupy" protests seem to be basically over but, looking around, there are still scads of articles around for each individual protest in each little city, based on local media sources. Is it time to start deleting/merging articles, or should we wait until we're sure the SPAs have gone away? Kelly hi! 05:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This is hardly something administrators need to deal with. Send the articles to AFD and let the community decide whether the subjects are notable or not. --NellieBly (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • As an editor who recently tried to clean up one such small mess and got absolutely rinsed by a bunch of activists, I'd advise you to leave it, at least until it all dies down a bit more. See this debacle, and note the canvassing, SPAs, generally messy discussion, admin close, admin undo-close, and then re-close. Nightmare. Basalisk inspect damageberate 06:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It took ages just to delete an obvious copyvio photo from one of the articles. Kelly hi! 06:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
It's like an infestation, but there's nothing to be done about it whilst there are still so many supporters around making a massive noise about it all. But to return to the original question, you could always pick one of the smaller articles and suggest a merge on the talk page and see what reaction you get? Despite my sarcastic comment above, I would still encourage you to take an article to AfD if you think it's appropriate, reason may yet prevail. Basalisk inspect damageberate 06:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
This is just getting ridiculous. Wikipedia is being used by small groups for promotional reasons. Basalisk is 100% correct, OccupyMarines is a clear delete, the arguments point to that and the arguments for keep just don't stand up to scrutiny. The whole mess of Occupy articles needs to be sorted but it just won't happen because anyone who tries will have a ton of crap flung at them. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it's time to go the RFC - > Arbcom route then. Discretionary sanctions would go a long way towards cleaning up that walled garden. Jtrainor (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I would just add a little hemisphere based caution here. Here in Melbourne, Australia, it's lovely summer weather right now and the Occupy Melbourne protest, while not numerically huge, is still going strong. Saw 'em yesterday. I suspect some of the northern European and northern American protests have moved out of sight indoors or dispersed due to weather conditions, but not here. I'm not part of the protest. Just adding some purely WP:OR reality to consider. HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Not a hemisphere issue. Maybe moderate weather? They are still active in Vegas. Had a public protest this week. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I get the sneaking suspicion that the motivation of many are purely to purge any trace of Occupy from WP simply because it doesn't fit their worldview, not because of an actual desire to improve anything. -Kai445 (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to play my part, and of course got attacked. The issue was whether 5000 people were at an Occupy UC Davis protest, or whether it was an estimated figure. Noting that the original source said an estimated 5000, I put thousands, thinking this was a rather inocuous edit. [9] This was then changed [10], so I went with the article actually said in terms of the numbers [11], and was then accused of a copyright violation. [12] A warning was then placed on my page [13] (whjich I later removed), to which I responded with a warning regarding edit warring [14]. I'm done. When you can't even provide the correct figures for a crowd estimate at a protest meeting without getting attacked, the reward is simply not there. These articles have serious ownership and advocacy issues, to the point of alleging that criticism of the Occupy Movement is a form of "gray propaganda". [15] --Yachtsman1 (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Kai445. I would go so far as to almost hear a chortle about the double entendre in the section title above. And I agree with NellieBly -- Why is this thread continuing here? El duderino (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I've seen silly extremes from both sides over the Occupy protests. I've seen attempts to create articles about the tiniest protests, and I've seen claims that this is all just a flash in the pan caused by some pinko, leftie troublemakers and should therefore be ignored. The truth is obviously somewhere in between. The significance is not in any single protest out there, but in the total number there have been. It surely does constitute a movement. That's notable. What none of us knows is how long any of this will go on, and what the long term impact will be. Ultimately I can see Wikipedia having the article about Occupy Wall Street, another article about the movement it triggered, containing SMALL summaries of all the other protests around the world (i.e. a big merge), plus another article about long term impact. Obviously the last one cannot even be started yet. But there's no need to rush on any of this. I would be suspicious of the motives of anyone wanting to delete material now. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Why would you be suspicious?
And for those suggesting AfD, try it, you'll soon understand why this thread exists. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
It does need cleanup. AFD is an awfully difficult way to approach it. As is usually, some people on a mission combined with easily-misuable Wikipedia guidelines/structures combine into a nearly-impossible solve mess. What it really needs is a group of editors form the varying schools of thought on this to decide a good article-level coverage plan and then implement it. But Wikipedia makes such efforts too difficult/unusual. North8000 (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Wee Curry Monster - I would be suspicious because almost every attempt I've seen so far to delete material has chosen to ignore the larger movement that is obviously happening. This larger movement is hard to document in Wikipedia because local journalists tend to write about local events, such as the Occupy event in their town. I doubt if anyone here will disagree that Occupy Wall Street spawned a broader movement, but it's actually quite difficult to find reliable sources talking about it. To act as if it hasn't happened is unacceptable POV behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
If we can't find reliable sources to verify that the broader movement exists and is notable, then it's acceptable to keep articles on local protests that fail notability then? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
No, my suggestion was to ultimately merge all the smaller protests into the one article. But I say again, "I doubt if anyone here will disagree that Occupy Wall Street spawned a broader movement...". We have a dynamic situation here. The place of this movement in history obviously cannot be accurately described yet. Your thoughts? HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Funnily enough that would be my suggestion, if you actually cut most of the articles down to the encyclopedic content that would be most suitable. Good Luck. Wee Curry Monster talk 03:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────In one day, I've had 3 editors separately come to my talk page saying I shouldn't edit Occupy Marines. The first tried to threaten me with a 3RR report after 1 edit, no reverts [16]. The second tried a 3RR edit warring for restorint tags hightlighting problems with the article [17] and now threatening me with WP:ANI [18]. They're tag teaming to remove tags on the article and they're edit warring to keep some fairly contentious quotes in the article.

On the article talk page, this is the standard of debate:

Basically don't edit this article. What is Occupy Marines, its a facebook page and a Wordpress Blog - yet the claim is that it meets WP:GNG. This has been through 2 AfD already. Sod it, it can be someone else's problem I'm going to bed. Wee Curry Monster talk 03:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Wee, quoting me without attribution? I take pride in my comments to you, and I'm rather butthurt now. The reason I suggested you step away for a bit is because you're a bit obessesed with the Occupy Marines article.--Milowenthasspoken 04:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Milowent, you can't just tell someone to get lost and stop editing because you disagree with what they're saying on a discussion page. FWIW I agree with you about the spam tag, but Wee has every right to argue his case. Basalisk inspect damageberate 12:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
The Spam tag exists for articles that are overtly promotional in nature. Occupy Marines was one of the worst examples, its still pretty bad. The tag is perfectly valid. The feigned hurt feelings are not that persuasive since your clearing trying to stop the article being edited. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits mislabeled vandalism by User:Sottolacqua[edit]

Resolved: Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of trouble with Sottolacqua regarding two edits I made to the Press Your Luck page. The edits concerned something I had reworded on the page. This first edit was made to both reword and consolidate the information that was in the two paragraphs underneath it, and this second edit was to clean up the information below it. I wasn't adding anything to the page that hadn't been there before, just rewriting to make it a little easier to read. Sottolacqua reverted the edit and left this message on my talk page. I relayed my concerns to him and reverted to the previous edit, saying in the edit summary that I had not done anything to change the information on the page other than to rewrite the information. As you can see in the message below the one I just cited, that was met with a threat and an accusation of vandalism.

He did cite the "hyphen" rule (which I didn't even know existed, but admit I may have been in violation of), but I think his actions were a little overaggressive (especially the threat). I mean, I haven't been the best Wiki user (as you can probably tell) but I have made a good faith effort to not engage in as many disputes with other users since my posting privileges were restored and I really do not believe that Sottolacqua's behavior was justified and warrants some sort of intervention.

Ergo, why I'm here. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the vandalism template was inappropriate, and I've left a message on Sottolacqua's talk page to that effect. I recommend ChrisP2K5 remove the vandalism from their talk page, forget about it, and discuss the content issue on the Press Your Luck talk page. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Gwern and Lucia Black[edit]

Note: Unarchived from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive732. Goodraise 13:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither Gwern (talk · contribs) nor Lucia Black (talk · contribs), until recently known as Bread Ninja, are new to the community. They know about AGF, CIVIL, DR, and so forth. Another thing they have in common is that they consider it unnecessary to follow the community's behavioral guidelines. Add to that a strong inclusionism on one side, a strong exclusionism on the other, and a mutual desire to edit articles related to Neon Genesis Evangelion and you'll have a rough idea of what this is about. Edit warring, incivility, you name it. I could dig up diffs to prove what I'm saying (and will do so if it is requested), but I don't think that will be necessary. They won't deny it. They simply don't think they're doing anything wrong. As I see it, that is the key problem in their conflict. As disappointed as I am to find myself here suggesting this, I don't think they'll respond to anything less than a stern warning from someone capable of blocking them. They have to be made to understand that following Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines is not optional. Until that happens, all attempts to engage them in the normal consensus building and dispute resolution processes will be futile.

Finally a few diffs showing the recent events that led to this report, just the tip of the iceberg mind you: [19][20][21] Goodraise 20:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't attempt to own..the series needs a lot of standardizing and I (as I am sure many before) attempted to.Lucia Black (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about RSs? That is very rich coming from you, Drmies - or have you forgotten that I did that 'grand revert' because you removed a ton of standard RSs like Ex.org? --Gwern (contribs) 15:49 21 December 2011 (GMT)

Gwern takes discussions the wrong way and is nearly impossible to work with for me as I am the type to clean up/ summarize/ copy edit while gwern would not be satisfied by aid edits unless I add to the article. Responding in uncivil manner and often does not provide a good counter argument (instead adds insult). I'm trying my best at the moment not to be uncivil and I admit I've been uncivil in the past however these articles relating to Neon Genesis Evangelion are alone and the only ones who edit consistently are me, gwern, sjones, and some anonymous IP. Which in this case the others barely do much. Its nearly impossible at the moment to make any bold edits in which the article needs.Lucia Black (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I work fine with other editors - when those editors are basically competent, as they were in the past. You are not. You are unable to use Google; you are unable to write English worth a damn; you do not correct things when pointed out; you only wish to delete things, you never add material, even when material is suggested; you have repeatedly removed stuff, claiming it was not referenced in the citation, even when it was obviously in the citation to anyone who is able to read; and so on. And you seem proud of all this, because you have made no effort to improve that I have noticed. (You are also involved in a mediation at the moment.)
To paraphrase Patrick Henry, if this be incivility, make the most of it. --Gwern (contribs) 16:12 22 December 2011 (GMT)
that's not true, you can see previous arguments in NGE that have been there before I joined...I want to simplify and summarize, meaning the only thing being deleted is word count and there is a lot of trivial content. The constant english reason is annoying is getting annoying, you never ctually correct me on any of that you just complain about it, so being proud of it isn't true either because there's nothing to work on. and that's the thing, you are known for owning the NGE articles. It doesn't matter if I add material, you can't discredit the edits being done because I don't add material. And no, its not obvious , how would that be obvious? It was a quote but no source. You admit you're being uncivil. But what's the big deal of you providing what is challenged? You mustve done this simple google search right? You're trying to act as a spectator, and make the others do what you were suppose to do along time ago. Strong signs of WP:OWN. I want to beak that and get a lot more editors to contribute.Lucia Black (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I'll be able to edit during the next weeks, so I'll write this assuming it will be my last contribution to this discussion. As I predicted, they don't deny what I accused them of doing. They each only see the other's faults and not their own. I recommend blocking them both indefinitely until they acknowledge that they are not exempt from Wikipedia's guidelines and promise to follow them. Happy Holidays. Goodraise 08:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that your bias in this situation. I'm trying to be civil and there's enough evidence to show that gwern isn't even trying to be civil. Gwern does not even want to be civil and it is clear in his comments. Getting blocked indefinitely will not give much of a chance for neither of us and you know that. I just want civility, and gwern feels he has the right to find a reason not to. You can see it in his talkpage in the end. Youu yourself accused him of incivility in the past. I'm tired and want discussions to move smoothly or maybe have more editors pay attention. You barely said much goodraise. So when you return it would be good to be blunt, and if I or gwern deny, then what then? Not everything is black and white. I admit I've been uncivil in the past (distant past). I'm not going to stand for iincivility anymore. I will follow BRD rule, and if someone throws the first punch I won't throw the second. I'm just going to try to report it and if gwern feels like I'm entramping him, that's because he knows what the situation calls. All I want is civility. That is all...Lucia Black (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm not gone just yet and I didn't accuse you of incivility. I accused you of thinking you don't have to follow our guidelines. In previous discussions with me you already expressed the opinion that pursuing WP:DR or WP:DDE wouldn't work and instead resorted to edit warring. I must say I'm surprised, positively, that you no longer wish to edit war. But your general unwillingness to follow policy seems to remain. When you came to my talk page asking for help, I did what WP:CIVIL suggests and asked for Gwern's opinion on the issue. But that's not what you wanted. You wanted Gwern's incivility "reported". So that's what I did. I reported you both. That you are willing to follow BRD now is great, but it's only a first step. WP:CIVIL and WP:DR need to be followed too. You need to accept that following them is not optional as much as Gwern needs to stop belittling you in edit summaries and talk page comments. Until the two of you promise improvement in those areas, my recommendation stands. Goodraise 22:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That shows a sign of bad faitth on your part goodraise. And I promise, but if he doesn't, I can't be held responsible for his decision. Ou reported me along because I didn't want his opinion because I knew what would come of it and I got exactly what I predicted. Giving an opinion on why he was uncivil is like asking for an excuse for what he did and I'm done with it. The user is much smarter than he makes himself out to be. He refuses to be civil to someone who "can't accept a spade for being a spade". The user knows exactly what he's doing. To put me along in this is rather whimsical.Lucia Black (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of replying to BN's fresh comments, but looking over them, she's doing a pretty good job of hanging herself. --Gwern (contribs) 02:56 24 December 2011 (GMT)

I suggest you reread WP:AGF, Lucia, because I don't think you understand the concept yet. In fact, I find it harder and harder to believe that you ever bothered to read any of those guidelines and policies I so often referred you to. If you had, you should have realized by now that discussion with the other side of the conflict (be that conflict about civility, content, disruption, or whatever) is only the first step in an escalating process. For example an WP:RFCC can only be opened after two editors have tried and failed to resolve a problem with direct discussion first. That means you have to try talking to the other party even when you know for certain that it won't work. That is what you should promise, that you will follow WP:DR. Editors who are not willing to do that should be blocked. End of story. And Gwern, the way I see it, you're both—to stick with your metaphor—industriously building your own gallows. Goodraise 11:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

maybe you should look back in gwerns talkpage.Lucia Black (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

If you mean by that that you are now willing to follow the normal dispute resolution process, then I think we can allow this thread to get archived. In case you still want my help in doing that, you'll have it. But it will most likely have to wait until next year. Goodraise 18:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The user who cried sock[edit]

Blocked, possible socking + socking accusations = blocks in this case. Were done here, so lets keep the threads to one location. -- DQ (t) (e) 18:38, 24 December 2011 (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.

Kiftaan (talk · contribs) has been constantly accusing other users sockpuppetry with no evidence whatsoever, and has been doing so for quite a bit of time. The earliest I'm aware of is this instance of accusing me and PassaMethod of being socks of each other at Talk:Islam (despite some rather glaring differences), to which he denied having made any accusations of sockpuppetry despite having been given a diff of him making such an accusation. He also indicates that he accepts that PassaMethod and I are two different people, except he later accuses us of being sockpuppets again.

He has a serious problem of accusing users of being socks just to try and deal with his disagreements with them, even when those disagreements are well over (I haven't bothered with anything at Talk:Islam for over a week before he accused me again, and it was in partial disagreement with PassaMethod). Ok, after confronting him about it, he withdrew the remark, but still doesn't seem to get it.

When the user Mar4d did not support Kiftaan's weak sock accusations to deal with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrpontiac1, Kiftaan accused Mar4d of being a sock, and eventually came to accuse everyone involved of being socks, like some sort of mass sock conspiracy, including accusing User:TopGun of having been blocked repeatedly for socking despite TopGun never having been blocked once. He then took to vandalizing userpages of Mar4d, TopGun, and Raza2007, multiple times. He has also taken to hounding TopGun at User_talk:September88#SPI.

Kiftaan's behavior is unacceptable, and when anyone tells him so he just accuses them of being a sock, denies accusing people right after being presented with diffs, and lies about accepting that people are not socks to accuse them later or just switches to accusations of meat puppetry (as he did at the Mrpontiac1 SPI). I don't think he's going to listen to anything but a block, if that. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

And just one more thing you forgot to add there, he himself is a sockpuppet account of the blocked User:Lagoo sab. Refer to the SPI comments. Mar4d (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I started a valid SPI on an editor who was editing from somewhere in India and it turned out that 3 different sockmasters were making socks and vandalising pages and eventually they all were blocked. One of the same sockmaster was reported by another editor.[22] [23] See ShanuAvtararit (talk · contribs)
About the SPI on PassaMethod, that is old news now. An admin determined that the suspected socks (Iwanttoeditthissh (talk · contribs) and Jigglyfidders (talk · contribs)), who were both lowering the percent of Sunni Muslims to as low as 70%, were stale and nothing could be done with that so I accepted the outcome and left it alone. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jigglyfidders. Ian.thompson has been also constantly supporting PassaMethod so I was led to believe that he may be a sock but again I left it for admins or other editors to decide. If anything Ian.thompson should have commented on that SPI.--Kiftaan (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • FYI: I'll like to mention here that I have never interacted with this user before. He came out of the blue added a sockpuppet tag on my user page accusing me of being a sock of a user I don't know later basing his so called 'facts' on the formal peer review (where he didn't even make an edit) of Pakistan article I'm involved in, along with the same blame on all the users who are fixing that article as per advices of uninvolved reviewers. He has one-tenth editcount as compared to me and seems to be well aware of all the policies which only puts every one's suspicion on him being a sock. Now I see that he has done the same with many other users. His comments on an unrelated SPI about me and other users call for a WP:BOOMERANG. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
    TopGun, you are also very familiar with Wikipedia policies as if you've been editing for many years. In fact, much more than me.
    There are clearly a lot of overlaps between you and banned uer:Ironboy11. [24] You actually began editing in October 2011 [25], not very long after Ironboy11 (talk · contribs) was indef-blocked, and before that your account was a sleeper. Now you took over his edits on the same isolated low very low traffic pages (i.e. [26]). There diffinately is indication that you are an experianced sockmaster.
    Even Mar4d who is confirmed sock [27] of sockmaster Strider11 (talk · contribs) from Australia[28], said that he knows you as an experianced editor[29] but you just began editing under this new name so how are you an experianced editor? Come on man who are you trying to kid here?--Kiftaan (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am familiar with policies and my editcount maintains that unlike yours. I've been here since 5 years and my regular edits started from July or before and there's nothing to keep me from stop editing again for a year and then coming back. There's no restriction on me from editing in the area of my interest. Mar4d never said that "I just began editing", stop spreading lies about every one. And you certainly can not tag users with sock tags as you drive by - next of that will go to WP:AVI. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Kiftaan, you are simply copy-pasting the same rant and rhetoric that you've been blowing up all over this Wiki. I've been here for three years and have 23,000 edits. You're a sockpuppet of a blocked user yourself who ironically has the cheek of filing fake SPIs against others; a classic case of pot calling the kettle black. I've already made my stance clear enough about your sockpuppet conspiracy-theory allegations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrpontiac1/Archive#23 December 2011. Same goes for the block on Commons, which was a result of an edit war and some hagiographic, unverified allegations on your part again via an email to the blocking admin. I have contacted the admin there and a review is pending, though I am certain that this recent hogwash of yours will speed up my appeal there. Your failed attempts to reignite the fire against a number of trusted users this time have boomeranged back. I think the only language you understand is an indefinite block. Mar4d (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Kiftaan should report suspicions regarding socketpuppetry only at SPI; the only possible exceptions in case there's suspicion of accidental logged out ip editing -- in which case a polite inquiry is appropriate -- or a possibly a new editor isn't aware of Wikipedia sockpuppet/meatpuppet policies, in which case polite education is appropriate. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 16:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, Kiftaan, of course I should comment on the SPI, so you can twist it around to be "proof," as you did when told Mar4d "If you weren't one of the sockmasters that I mentioned you wouldn't have even come to comment." And among those "confirmed" sockpuppets, you concluded that "User:Mar4d is already a confirmed sock of banned User:Strider11" with no evidence or investigation, and then accused others. As for the "old news" of the non-existent SPI of PassaMethod, it was only within the past two days that you accused me of being PassaMethod again, despite repeated clarification.
That is what we're here about, that is what is being addressed. Again, you don't get the point, and fail to even acknowledge that you're doing anything unacceptable, despite various editors pointing out problems. When they do so, you either ignore them or accuse them of being socks. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I see this has gone via user talk:HelloAnnyong. There are SPI cases open, right? When they're closed, if (as seems likely from the above discussion) there is no evidence found for socking on behalf of the editors Kiftaan is accusing then he can be admonished not to do it again. Yelling at each other over multiple different forums in not helping in the slightest. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

To make you aware of the background here, Kiftaan never filed an SPI as far as I can see. He simply flooded a closed SPI of a different case only irritating HelloAnnyong. He tagged atleast 5 users (including me) with suspected sock tags just on the go and hounded us on different pages as shown above. This report is mostly about that as Ian explains. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I also reviewed some of the cases and found the accusations wild speculation, more seems like were just picking users out of a hat. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FMrpontiac1&action=historysubmit&diff=467509778&oldid=467505069 investigation on Mrpontiac1 was closed and archived] before Kiftaan continued to spread his accusations here. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2011 (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.

Pmanderson violating topic ban[edit]

User:Pmanderson has been persistently violating his topic ban. His topic ban is listed on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. His restriction is encompassed in this extract: Topic banned from WP:MOS and discussions anywhere on the project concerning the Manual of Style or technical aspects of the use of the English language anywhere on the project, including his own talkpage, for a period of one year. It didn’t take long at all before he was testing the limits and outright flouting the restriction.

He was all over Talk:Yogurt, where he weighed in 18 times on this move discussion as to whether the article was properly “Yoghurt” or “Yogurt”. There, User:Kai445 in his 02:16, 7 December 2011 post wrote I didn't realize he was topic banned, or I would have just not acknowledged him from the get-go, and encouraged others to do the same.

Another place where he has weighed in on technical aspects of the English language (which brings out PMA’s less impressive behavior) was at Wikipedia talk:Article titles (∆ edit, here).

Most recently now, he has been on Talk:March of Moravia, where he started with a !vote (∆ edit, here), escalated things with Make that vehemently oppose. We are written in English, not German or Czech; and the meaning of "march" in English is not so limited (∆ edit, here), and then finished up with a pledge to make waves with If this article is moved, I shall dispute the accuracy of the title (∆ edit, here).

He has had a long and persistent pattern of this sort of stuff, which is why he was topic banned in the first place. Greg L (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I specifically restricted my comments to the questions of Wikipedia policy: that it is nice to have an occasional British spelling around. I did not discuss the technical aspects, although somebody really should have mentioned, say, the reason that yogurt can be spelled with a gh, which reflects the pronunciation of the original Turkic word. I did not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
{I refactored the position of this post by PMA. He originally placed this inside my above complaint, between the second and third paragraphs (making it appear as multiple, unsigned posts). Greg L (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)}
Concur that this is a pretty blatant violation of the topic ban. Is anyone up for doing anything about it? I'll pull the trigger if there is any proposal that has consistent support. --Jayron32 03:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Have there been previous violations? If not, then how about a one week block with the stipulation that another violation will lead to a much, much longer (if not indef) block? Noformation Talk 04:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Everything listed above has been a previous violation. His contributions shows he is particularly fond of WP:Article titles, which is squarely about technical aspects of the English language. His two most recent blocks were for one week each. He doesn’t respond in the typical fashion to admonishment from the community. I happen to more often agree with his positions, which would amount to “not putting mere wikipedians in the business of trying to change the way the English language really works.” And he has loads of energy. I tried to channel that energy to better serve the community by suggesting we team up (maybe I could leverage that profound persistence of his). But he has a very deleterious effect on others whenever he treads into his hot-button issues. Greg L (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I was viewing all of that as one "incident" more or less, but it can go either way depending on how harsh we want to be about it. Noformation Talk 04:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Question: Do move requests come under an MOS or technical aspects of the english language ban? For example, if the discussion pertains to whether or not X is the correct title of an article based, for example, on common usage, would that be covered by an MOS ban?--regentspark (comment) 04:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Its pretty clear to me: he is questioning the appropriateness of a title based upon technical aspects of the English language. His comments relate solely towards word choice as it relates to the English language; that seems pretty unambiguous. The manifestation of PMAnderson's conflicts are almost always about moving articles based on his own personal understanding of how the English language works, so this fits squarly into the pattern of behavior that led to that topic ban. --Jayron32 04:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. In both the Yoghurt as well as the Moravia articles the arguments are based on article title issues rather than technical English language issues. Technical issues would be stuff like whether or not to accent the e in a title. Arguing that a name is more common in Czech or German than it is in English doesn't seem like an MOS or a technical aspect of the use of the English language to me. I don't think the intent of the original topic ban was to ban pmanderson from all move discussions (but I will need to refresh my memory on this), which would be the practical outcome of a ban based on the above diffs.The diffs also appear to be a week or more old. --regentspark (comment) 04:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Jayron32 precisely captured my sentiments in a nutshell. I wish I could make a complex point in such a pithy manner. As for whether move discussions entail “technical aspects of the English language” (central to what motivates PMA), I will reiterate this quote of his from today: Make that vehemently oppose. We are written in English, not German or Czech; and the meaning of "march" in English is not so limited. That he sitting proud in the saddle on his hot-button topic seems sufficiently clear and well established. Greg L (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
As a point of order, the diff that I can find for the above statement is from 15 December, not 'today' (See this). I'm not sure why you think this is from the 23rd or 24th of December.--regentspark (comment) 22:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Did you read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson#Move to close which states "Motion to close, with acceptance of Alternative N+1, as expanded and interpreted in Alternative N+1b: Indefinite topic ban from Wikipedia:Article titles and any related discussion, construed broadly; perhaps with wider provisions added, according to the closing admin's assessment of earlier voting on this page." Alternative N+1b states "Pmanderson shall be subject to an indefinite topic ban from Manual of Style (e.g. WP:MOS & WP:MOSNUM) and any related discussion, construed broadly. This includes naming policies and guidelines (e.g. WP:TITLE), move (title re-naming) policies and guidelines (WP:MOVE) and any related discussion, construed broadly." Title issues were clearly explicitly included, per the community, at that discussion. I don't know how it can be any more specific than that. --Jayron32 04:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
(ec)You're confusing a motion to close with the actual statement of the ban (you'll need to scroll up to the top of the page to see Elen of the road's closure). That statement, which greg L has quoted above, says nothing about move discussions or title renaming. --regentspark (comment) 04:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And I believe you are confusing a statement made by one member of the community (Elen of the roads) and the bulk of community members that supported the terms of the closure. We aren't going to reach a conclusion between the two of us, so let's see what others have to say, since we have each stated our evidence; I have nothing further to add than what I already have. --Jayron32 04:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
(Noting that Elen of the roads has already blocked Pmanderson.) I think there is a difference between the closing statement and proposals or comments made by members of the community. The purpose of a closing statement, particularly in the case of a topic ban, is to clearly indicate the parameters of the ban. Otherwise there would be no need for closing statements and we would leave it to editors to figure out the consensus for themselves. To argue that a closing statement is just something made by a member of the community is, at best, disingenuous. --regentspark (comment) 22:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


  • regentspark, “technical aspects of the use of the English language anywhere on the project” would clearly cover Make that vehemently oppose. We are written in English, not German or Czech; and the meaning of "march" in English is not so limited. This sort of conduct is precisely what the ANI was all about. Greg L (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • That is correct. User:Tony1 warned him on his talk page about his persistent violations at move discussions, only to have PMA delete his warning without comment (nuke with disinterest). So the community resorted to warning him on the talk pages of the affected articles. Naturally, other editors inquire as to why we are admonishing him there instead of on PMA’s talk page. So we then find ourselves explaining the gory history of it all. (*sigh*) Greg L (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Tony was also involved in the original discussion. He brought the same argument here]; nobody bought it. Some of the discussants at the original discussion would have liked a more expansive ban; some would have liked less or none. The first party has persistently tried to read the clear wording, to which I have adhered, as though it meant much more than it does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: *I think it is a stretch to argue that a particular title choice is more English while another article title choice is more German or Czech is a technical aspect of the use of the English language. But I'm off to bed. In my opinion, this is not a violation of Pmanderson's topic ban.--regentspark (comment) 04:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the third or fourth time that PMA has tested the limits of his ban, and so far he has gotten away with it. If comments like this are not comments on "technical aspects of the use of the English language", it's hard to see any line that he won't be allowed to cross. A one-week block is all it takes to let him know that he's over the line. The narrow limit of his ban to comments on MOS and technical aspects of the use of the English language was supposed to be enough to keep him from vehement title arguments; it will work if we don't let him violate it (please review the ban discussion if there's any question about the intent in terms of the behaviors that were to be restrained by this mechanism). As for his particular point in this RM, I have no opinion, except that other editors can work it out. Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thus is the third or fourth time the same small bunch of editors have attempted to redefine my ban, which is expressly worded to not discuss "technical aspects of the English language" to mean discussing anything and everything on Wikipedia. That English is not Czech is not a technical aspect of either language. The last time, they were shot down in this ANI discussion; they persuaded nobody other than themselves. I am glad to see that this is happening again; but does it have to happen every two weeks? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Can I just reiterate (again) that when I closed the original topic ban discussion, it was based on reading the entire extensive subpage. Consensus is not quite the same concept as "last man standing", and he's not banned from either move discussion or article title discussion in general. Having said that, I do agree that PMA is keen to establish what the boundaries of the topic ban are, and while discussing whether Czech, German or English best reflects the sources is permitted, arguing about what 'march' means in English, and whether this tract of land constitutes a 'march' in English definition, is firmly into the technical use of English. He's hit the boundary now. I am therefore on my way to administer that one week block. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully this will be sufficient to make him reflect on his actions, and be more cautious about his editing in the future. He got one warning on this topic ban, he knows that if he repeats the breach he will be blocked for the duration of the topic ban. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


Jayron32[edit]

Resolved: Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayron32 threatens above to block me, to implement a topic ban in which he was intimately involved. If I count correctly, he commented demanding a ban 9 times; he does not admit this involvement. In so doing, he refers to the wording imposed by the closing admin (Elen of the Roads, an Arbitrator) as the statement of one editor.

Is this the current standard of adminship? If not, should he be taking admin actions with respect to me at all? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED only pertains to an administrator's direct use of admin tools; there's nothing wrong with them advocating specific interventions as they see appropriate as long as the interventions are executed by an uninvolved admin. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I was involved. I've never edited the same article as this editor, never been in conflict with them before. I am certainly familiar with him, and his background, but that doesn't make me "involved". Secondly, I have not used any administrator tools, so I don't see why I cannot express an opinion for the community. And I quote from WP:INVOLVED: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." I don't have a dog in this race, I don't have any benefits from the outcome of the discussion. So I don't see where I could not use my administrator tools to enact the will of the community, if it came to that. --Jayron32 15:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
While I certainly would not fault you for using them it would be wiser if you don't; then it is simply something that doesn't have to be discussed -- you won't have to waste time defending yourself unnecessarily. Not all that is allowable is wise. One reason I've never been tempted to Rfa is I've always been able to find an admin to quickly intervene when any situation warranted it. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Have I used my tools, ever, against PMA? Not only have I never been involved with him, I've never done anything which would have been disallowed were I involved, even if I had. Which I have not. Coming from both directions, I completely fail to see the point of PMA's comments here, unless he is merely trying to deflect attention away from himself. --Jayron32 15:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Concur; it's a bogus complaint, best ignored. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Expand ban[edit]

It is pretty plain that the existing language of the existing ban was insufficient to curb PMA's unacceptable behavior. I propose the following addition to the ban:

  • PMAnderson is hereby banned from any discussion regarding the title of any article, or the move of any article to a new title. The ban's time limit is to run concurrently with the prior ban. It does not supplant or replace the prior ban, but adds to it.

The rationale is simple. There was a ban designed to stop a behavior. That ban did not work. The ban needs to be expanded. Furthermore, per Alternative N+1b in the prior ban discussion, there was significant support for this to be part of the ban, though some people feel that this was not formally enacted. This should remove ambiguity.--Jayron32 15:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Support as author. --Jayron32 15:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support withdrawing from discussion not worth the drama. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not know why you keep tacking this N+1 thing on. If you wish to start a fresh discussion about whether PMA should be topic banned from a wider field, then focus on why his edits since then are still problematic, not just why they were in breach of the topic ban that should in your opinion have been imposed. In that respect certainly, threatening to cause trouble if a discussion does not go his way is definitely problematic. If there are similar problems with other discussions, then this would support for a wider exclusion, as it could indeed be adjudged that the narrow one has been tried without success. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Move discussions are yet another venue (BATTLEGROUND) for PMA and his hot-button issue as he makes his one-man stand against what he perceives as foreign erosion of his beloved English language. His stridency and militancy inevitably leads to escalation (I am even less persuaded is followed minutes later by Make that vehemently oppose is then followed by If this article is moved, I shall dispute the accuracy of the title). It is not enough for him to simply identify the shortcomings in *bad* arguments and counter with a *better* argument, state his opinion, and move on to build the project elsewhere. He postures himself as a roadblock around which all others must navigate. Simple move discussions become unnecessarily protracted and there is too much vitriol. Greg L (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per the users actions concerning the yogurt fiasco. Greg is right, PMA creates a battleground. Hot Stop UTC 16:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose No person should be unilaterally banned from expressing his/her opinion. It would be different if PMAnderson was initiating these move discussions, but there's no reason to keep him/her from expressing his/her opinion and taking part in simple move discussions, even if his/her opinion is given many times on many article move discussions. The only reason I would see for Jayron asking for this ban is to keep PMAnderson from voicing opposing opinions to his/her own.--JOJ Hutton 16:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
    • JOJ, you have sooo misjudged the motivations of Jayron as well as the nature of how it is that PMA can be so disruptive. No one wants to see PMA muzzled for the shear enjoyment of silencing a voice with which one disagrees. The worldview I hold dearest is that The proper response to “bad” speech is “better” speech. When we all saw PMA testing the waters over the last month, we reminded him (well… tried to, anyway) that he needed to moderate his conduct. He didn’t take kindly to the gentle persuasion and exhibited an attitude of “I’ll do things the way I want to.” FYI, I agree with his basic mission (raison de l’existence) of not having mere wikipedians in the business of trying to use Wikipedia as a platform to change the English language. So for me, this has nothing to do with silencing him. I personally saw his ban as a tool for reforming PMA’s behavior so he could weigh in on discussions and RfCs constructively—to leverage his energy without the disruption. Without anyone baiting him there on the latest move discussion, he once again reverted completely to his old ways by escalating and posturing himself to be a roadblock of intransigence with which all comers must reckon. Greg L (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
    • @Jojhutton: I've never, as in not one time, been involved with a discussion with PMA. I have no dog in this race. If you are going to oppose this (I have no objections in principle to your opposition), please revise your opposition rationale so it doesn't include reasoning based on something that misrepresents my involvement here. --Jayron32 20:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose None of the examples presented above warrant a further restriction. I see no personal attacks or particular disruptiveness. An alternative explanation is that PMA genuinely thought they were complying with the topic ban. Whether discussing the English meaning of a word is "technical use of English" (and I dunno, I wouldn't call definitions all that technical myself, whereas spelling with a cedilla or en-dash would be technical) or not, that limitation has now been made clear, with a block no less. No further action is required. Save the knives for next time. Franamax (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • He was warned by admins during the yogurt discussion that he might be stepping over the line. He simply blanked the warnings. Hot Stop UTC 17:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Notwithstanding the fact that editors are free to remove content from their own talk page, which simply indicates that they have read the material and do not wish to reply, which admin warnings were "simply blanked"? Diffs are often useful when making assertions. Franamax (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I thought this was linked in the above sections. Here's the first by Tony1 (talk · contribs) (I thought he was admin, but I was wrong on that; it was also about a different move than yogurt).[30]. PMA removed it with [31]. Elen then warned PMA [32] Hot Stop UTC 18:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Could you strike your comment above then, as it's a misstatement of fact? A good restatement might be "asked by an admin to be careful". Franamax (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Why? My clarification below is fine. Hot Stop UTC 19:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It's generally considered best practice when you make an untrue statement to go back and correct it. But that's fine, the closing admin can note that you make untrue statements and even when challenged on them prefer to leave them be so that the first thing other readers see is the way you wish things were and only if they read deeper discover that you acknowledge you invented reality - and assess your own support for this proposal in the appropriate light. 'Sup to you... You can even leave your last comment standing, even though it may mislead the reader into thinking they will eventually find your "fine" clarification below. Franamax (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It's a clarification below the original statement. Hot Stop UTC 20:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Have to agree with Franamax; a further restriction would require a clear demonstration of blatant violations of editing rules. Even if he was getting heated at the Yoghurt discussion, being "warned by admins that he may be stepping over the line" isn't a behaviour which would warrant a ban. Basalisk inspect damageberate 18:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unnecessary drama. PMA may not have been very cautious and diplomatic, but I see no behaviour that clearly crosses the line of acceptable community standards.  --Lambiam 22:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is nothing disruptive or unacceptable in the comments made by pmanderson in the diffs provided. --regentspark (comment) 22:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support – I am already on record at the ban discussion and at Elen's talk page favoring extension of the ban to title discussions in general, as that seemed to be the clear consensus at the time and the effective way to get him away from where he causes the most trouble. Dicklyon (talk) 23:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Can someone explain to my why the existing ban is not sufficiently explicit in this respect? It matters nought whether the discussion of the technical aspects of the English language are in an RM: the wording of the ban covers every place on the site. Regentspark, which part of "the meaning of "march" in English is not so limited" does not fall within the ban? It's one of an increasing number of flagrant violations by Mr Anderson, and I'm surprised that a community ban is being treated so loosely at ANI. A ban is a ban, and the slippery slope is very much an issue in this case. Now, I don't want to lose Mr Anderson's contributions to his fields such as the classics and mathematics; but should expect that the remedies for breaches laid out by Elen in the first place be applied every time a violation of the ban is reported here. Otherwise, people will lose faith in ANI as a process. The ball has started rolling belatedly on this occasion. Tony (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Topic banned from WP:MOS and discussions anywhere on the project concerning the Manual of Style or technical aspects of the use of the English language anywhere on the project, including his own talkpage, for a period of one year (my emphasis) would seem to be sufficiently explicit. If PMA wants to participate in move discussions such as Mountains of southern YugoslaviaMountains of Herzegovina (the latter being a new country, formerly part of Yugoslavia), then that is fine under the current restriction.

There was disagreement in the first ANI that lead to his current restrictions as to whether he should be broadly prohibited from move discussions; some editors pointed out that not all moves involve technical aspects of the English language (pointing to examples like my above ‘Yugoslavia’ example). I find it to be pure wikilawyering to try to argue that (March of MoraviaMargraviate of Moravia) and PMA’s argument (We are written in English, not German or Czech; and the meaning of "march" in English is not so limited) weren’t solidly venturing into technical aspects of English. Elen saw his latest violation for what it clearly and rightfully was, properly groked the mix, and homed in not on the venue, but on the hot‑button issue (technical aspects of English, no matter where they occur). Ergo, she blocked him for a week for violating his prohibition.

Those who are !voting “oppose” here apparently believe PMA’s latest block will reform him and he will from hereon abide by his restriction without further need for additional white-picket-fence borders in plain view, beyond which PMA must not cross. We’ll see… I am skeptical. Greg L (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User:Chanakyathegreat[edit]

Resolved: Materialscientist (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Chanakyathegreat (talk · contribs) is an indef-blocked sockpuppeteer, who has a habit of creating groups of sockpuppets, each of which edits a specific area of Indian-related articles (sometimes only for one or two edits). See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Chanakyathegreat. Recently he seems to have stepped up his activity - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chanakyathegreat - and has been serially creating new accounts to edit-war on articles after each previous account is blocked, with several new accounts created (and blocked) just today. I'd like to propose that a WP:BAN be enacted on him and his sockpuppet army, the better to be able to deal with his activity. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Support This seems a no-brainer. Nick-D (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Two blocked in the last few hours, with attempts to harass other editors through spurious reports to AIV. Acroterion (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • One of the worst things to happen to Wikipedia in the past several years was when someone changed the language at WP:BAN which removed the statement that said something like "Users that have been indef blocked and which stand no chance of being unblocked are defacto banned". I find discussions like this a complete and total waste of community time, so FWIW support except to note that, as far as I am concerned, a user like this banned themselves a long time ago, and we don't need discussions like this, since it doesn't actually do anything with regards to how we handle users like this. --Jayron32 05:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Except that a formal ban allows regular editors to go to WP:LOBU and see if the unusual behaviour they're noticing from another editor fits any of the editors listed there. De facto bans are worthless for this purpose and stuff gets through that otherwise wouldn't. --NellieBly (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Agreed - that's why I brought it here. Also, even an indef can be unblocked by a single admin upon a good-faith-assumed request, whereas a community ban requires the consensus of the community to overturn. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Jaron32. The user is indeffed, right? So until or unless xe submits an unblock request and passes it (which is very unlikely given their history), all and any reincarnations should be treated as block evasion and do not require any ban discussion. Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support see he/she has turned up again in some articles on my watchlist. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
    Report socks if you see them. Materialscientist (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT - the offender has a long history of disruptive editing and habit of WP:CPUSHing on a number of Indian military-related article pages, with no remorse whatsoever. Enough is enough, we cannot let this lame duck carry on with his hurting of the project anymore, let's just ban him and then we can apply WP:RBI after that. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Disruptive editor who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Let's formally ban him and get him on the WP:LOBU list. --NellieBly (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson violating topic ban[edit]

User:Pmanderson has been persistently violating his topic ban. His topic ban is listed on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. His restriction is encompassed in this extract: Topic banned from WP:MOS and discussions anywhere on the project concerning the Manual of Style or technical aspects of the use of the English language anywhere on the project, including his own talkpage, for a period of one year. It didn’t take long at all before he was testing the limits and outright flouting the restriction.

He was all over Talk:Yogurt, where he weighed in 18 times on this move discussion as to whether the article was properly “Yoghurt” or “Yogurt”. There, User:Kai445 in his 02:16, 7 December 2011 post wrote I didn't realize he was topic banned, or I would have just not acknowledged him from the get-go, and encouraged others to do the same.

Another place where he has weighed in on technical aspects of the English language (which brings out PMA’s less impressive behavior) was at Wikipedia talk:Article titles (∆ edit, here).

Most recently now, he has been on Talk:March of Moravia, where he started with a !vote (∆ edit, here), escalated things with Make that vehemently oppose. We are written in English, not German or Czech; and the meaning of "march" in English is not so limited (∆ edit, here), and then finished up with a pledge to make waves with If this article is moved, I shall dispute the accuracy of the title (∆ edit, here).

He has had a long and persistent pattern of this sort of stuff, which is why he was topic banned in the first place. Greg L (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I specifically restricted my comments to the questions of Wikipedia policy: that it is nice to have an occasional British spelling around. I did not discuss the technical aspects, although somebody really should have mentioned, say, the reason that yogurt can be spelled with a gh, which reflects the pronunciation of the original Turkic word. I did not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
{I refactored the position of this post by PMA. He originally placed this inside my above complaint, between the second and third paragraphs (making it appear as multiple, unsigned posts). Greg L (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)}
Concur that this is a pretty blatant violation of the topic ban. Is anyone up for doing anything about it? I'll pull the trigger if there is any proposal that has consistent support. --Jayron32 03:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Have there been previous violations? If not, then how about a one week block with the stipulation that another violation will lead to a much, much longer (if not indef) block? Noformation Talk 04:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Everything listed above has been a previous violation. His contributions shows he is particularly fond of WP:Article titles, which is squarely about technical aspects of the English language. His two most recent blocks were for one week each. He doesn’t respond in the typical fashion to admonishment from the community. I happen to more often agree with his positions, which would amount to “not putting mere wikipedians in the business of trying to change the way the English language really works.” And he has loads of energy. I tried to channel that energy to better serve the community by suggesting we team up (maybe I could leverage that profound persistence of his). But he has a very deleterious effect on others whenever he treads into his hot-button issues. Greg L (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I was viewing all of that as one "incident" more or less, but it can go either way depending on how harsh we want to be about it. Noformation Talk 04:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Question: Do move requests come under an MOS or technical aspects of the english language ban? For example, if the discussion pertains to whether or not X is the correct title of an article based, for example, on common usage, would that be covered by an MOS ban?--regentspark (comment) 04:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Its pretty clear to me: he is questioning the appropriateness of a title based upon technical aspects of the English language. His comments relate solely towards word choice as it relates to the English language; that seems pretty unambiguous. The manifestation of PMAnderson's conflicts are almost always about moving articles based on his own personal understanding of how the English language works, so this fits squarly into the pattern of behavior that led to that topic ban. --Jayron32 04:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. In both the Yoghurt as well as the Moravia articles the arguments are based on article title issues rather than technical English language issues. Technical issues would be stuff like whether or not to accent the e in a title. Arguing that a name is more common in Czech or German than it is in English doesn't seem like an MOS or a technical aspect of the use of the English language to me. I don't think the intent of the original topic ban was to ban pmanderson from all move discussions (but I will need to refresh my memory on this), which would be the practical outcome of a ban based on the above diffs.The diffs also appear to be a week or more old. --regentspark (comment) 04:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Jayron32 precisely captured my sentiments in a nutshell. I wish I could make a complex point in such a pithy manner. As for whether move discussions entail “technical aspects of the English language” (central to what motivates PMA), I will reiterate this quote of his from today: Make that vehemently oppose. We are written in English, not German or Czech; and the meaning of "march" in English is not so limited. That he sitting proud in the saddle on his hot-button topic seems sufficiently clear and well established. Greg L (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
As a point of order, the diff that I can find for the above statement is from 15 December, not 'today' (See this). I'm not sure why you think this is from the 23rd or 24th of December.--regentspark (comment) 22:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Did you read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson#Move to close which states "Motion to close, with acceptance of Alternative N+1, as expanded and interpreted in Alternative N+1b: Indefinite topic ban from Wikipedia:Article titles and any related discussion, construed broadly; perhaps with wider provisions added, according to the closing admin's assessment of earlier voting on this page." Alternative N+1b states "Pmanderson shall be subject to an indefinite topic ban from Manual of Style (e.g. WP:MOS & WP:MOSNUM) and any related discussion, construed broadly. This includes naming policies and guidelines (e.g. WP:TITLE), move (title re-naming) policies and guidelines (WP:MOVE) and any related discussion, construed broadly." Title issues were clearly explicitly included, per the community, at that discussion. I don't know how it can be any more specific than that. --Jayron32 04:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
(ec)You're confusing a motion to close with the actual statement of the ban (you'll need to scroll up to the top of the page to see Elen of the road's closure). That statement, which greg L has quoted above, says nothing about move discussions or title renaming. --regentspark (comment) 04:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And I believe you are confusing a statement made by one member of the community (Elen of the roads) and the bulk of community members that supported the terms of the closure. We aren't going to reach a conclusion between the two of us, so let's see what others have to say, since we have each stated our evidence; I have nothing further to add than what I already have. --Jayron32 04:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
(Noting that Elen of the roads has already blocked Pmanderson.) I think there is a difference between the closing statement and proposals or comments made by members of the community. The purpose of a closing statement, particularly in the case of a topic ban, is to clearly indicate the parameters of the ban. Otherwise there would be no need for closing statements and we would leave it to editors to figure out the consensus for themselves. To argue that a closing statement is just something made by a member of the community is, at best, disingenuous. --regentspark (comment) 22:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


  • regentspark, “technical aspects of the use of the English language anywhere on the project” would clearly cover Make that vehemently oppose. We are written in English, not German or Czech; and the meaning of "march" in English is not so limited. This sort of conduct is precisely what the ANI was all about. Greg L (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • That is correct. User:Tony1 warned him on his talk page about his persistent violations at move discussions, only to have PMA delete his warning without comment (nuke with disinterest). So the community resorted to warning him on the talk pages of the affected articles. Naturally, other editors inquire as to why we are admonishing him there instead of on PMA’s talk page. So we then find ourselves explaining the gory history of it all. (*sigh*) Greg L (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Tony was also involved in the original discussion. He brought the same argument here]; nobody bought it. Some of the discussants at the original discussion would have liked a more expansive ban; some would have liked less or none. The first party has persistently tried to read the clear wording, to which I have adhered, as though it meant much more than it does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: *I think it is a stretch to argue that a particular title choice is more English while another article title choice is more German or Czech is a technical aspect of the use of the English language. But I'm off to bed. In my opinion, this is not a violation of Pmanderson's topic ban.--regentspark (comment) 04:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the third or fourth time that PMA has tested the limits of his ban, and so far he has gotten away with it. If comments like this are not comments on "technical aspects of the use of the English language", it's hard to see any line that he won't be allowed to cross. A one-week block is all it takes to let him know that he's over the line. The narrow limit of his ban to comments on MOS and technical aspects of the use of the English language was supposed to be enough to keep him from vehement title arguments; it will work if we don't let him violate it (please review the ban discussion if there's any question about the intent in terms of the behaviors that were to be restrained by this mechanism). As for his particular point in this RM, I have no opinion, except that other editors can work it out. Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thus is the third or fourth time the same small bunch of editors have attempted to redefine my ban, which is expressly worded to not discuss "technical aspects of the English language" to mean discussing anything and everything on Wikipedia. That English is not Czech is not a technical aspect of either language. The last time, they were shot down in this ANI discussion; they persuaded nobody other than themselves. I am glad to see that this is happening again; but does it have to happen every two weeks? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Can I just reiterate (again) that when I closed the original topic ban discussion, it was based on reading the entire extensive subpage. Consensus is not quite the same concept as "last man standing", and he's not banned from either move discussion or article title discussion in general. Having said that, I do agree that PMA is keen to establish what the boundaries of the topic ban are, and while discussing whether Czech, German or English best reflects the sources is permitted, arguing about what 'march' means in English, and whether this tract of land constitutes a 'march' in English definition, is firmly into the technical use of English. He's hit the boundary now. I am therefore on my way to administer that one week block. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully this will be sufficient to make him reflect on his actions, and be more cautious about his editing in the future. He got one warning on this topic ban, he knows that if he repeats the breach he will be blocked for the duration of the topic ban. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


Jayron32[edit]

Resolved: Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayron32 threatens above to block me, to implement a topic ban in which he was intimately involved. If I count correctly, he commented demanding a ban 9 times; he does not admit this involvement. In so doing, he refers to the wording imposed by the closing admin (Elen of the Roads, an Arbitrator) as the statement of one editor.

Is this the current standard of adminship? If not, should he be taking admin actions with respect to me at all? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED only pertains to an administrator's direct use of admin tools; there's nothing wrong with them advocating specific interventions as they see appropriate as long as the interventions are executed by an uninvolved admin. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I was involved. I've never edited the same article as this editor, never been in conflict with them before. I am certainly familiar with him, and his background, but that doesn't make me "involved". Secondly, I have not used any administrator tools, so I don't see why I cannot express an opinion for the community. And I quote from WP:INVOLVED: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." I don't have a dog in this race, I don't have any benefits from the outcome of the discussion. So I don't see where I could not use my administrator tools to enact the will of the community, if it came to that. --Jayron32 15:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
While I certainly would not fault you for using them it would be wiser if you don't; then it is simply something that doesn't have to be discussed -- you won't have to waste time defending yourself unnecessarily. Not all that is allowable is wise. One reason I've never been tempted to Rfa is I've always been able to find an admin to quickly intervene when any situation warranted it. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Have I used my tools, ever, against PMA? Not only have I never been involved with him, I've never done anything which would have been disallowed were I involved, even if I had. Which I have not. Coming from both directions, I completely fail to see the point of PMA's comments here, unless he is merely trying to deflect attention away from himself. --Jayron32 15:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Concur; it's a bogus complaint, best ignored. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Expand ban[edit]

It is pretty plain that the existing language of the existing ban was insufficient to curb PMA's unacceptable behavior. I propose the following addition to the ban:

  • PMAnderson is hereby banned from any discussion regarding the title of any article, or the move of any article to a new title. The ban's time limit is to run concurrently with the prior ban. It does not supplant or replace the prior ban, but adds to it.

The rationale is simple. There was a ban designed to stop a behavior. That ban did not work. The ban needs to be expanded. Furthermore, per Alternative N+1b in the prior ban discussion, there was significant support for this to be part of the ban, though some people feel that this was not formally enacted. This should remove ambiguity.--Jayron32 15:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Support as author. --Jayron32 15:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support withdrawing from discussion not worth the drama. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not know why you keep tacking this N+1 thing on. If you wish to start a fresh discussion about whether PMA should be topic banned from a wider field, then focus on why his edits since then are still problematic, not just why they were in breach of the topic ban that should in your opinion have been imposed. In that respect certainly, threatening to cause trouble if a discussion does not go his way is definitely problematic. If there are similar problems with other discussions, then this would support for a wider exclusion, as it could indeed be adjudged that the narrow one has been tried without success. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Move discussions are yet another venue (BATTLEGROUND) for PMA and his hot-button issue as he makes his one-man stand against what he perceives as foreign erosion of his beloved English language. His stridency and militancy inevitably leads to escalation (I am even less persuaded is followed minutes later by Make that vehemently oppose is then followed by If this article is moved, I shall dispute the accuracy of the title). It is not enough for him to simply identify the shortcomings in *bad* arguments and counter with a *better* argument, state his opinion, and move on to build the project elsewhere. He postures himself as a roadblock around which all others must navigate. Simple move discussions become unnecessarily protracted and there is too much vitriol. Greg L (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per the users actions concerning the yogurt fiasco. Greg is right, PMA creates a battleground. Hot Stop UTC 16:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose No person should be unilaterally banned from expressing his/her opinion. It would be different if PMAnderson was initiating these move discussions, but there's no reason to keep him/her from expressing his/her opinion and taking part in simple move discussions, even if his/her opinion is given many times on many article move discussions. The only reason I would see for Jayron asking for this ban is to keep PMAnderson from voicing opposing opinions to his/her own.--JOJ Hutton 16:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
    • JOJ, you have sooo misjudged the motivations of Jayron as well as the nature of how it is that PMA can be so disruptive. No one wants to see PMA muzzled for the shear enjoyment of silencing a voice with which one disagrees. The worldview I hold dearest is that The proper response to “bad” speech is “better” speech. When we all saw PMA testing the waters over the last month, we reminded him (well… tried to, anyway) that he needed to moderate his conduct. He didn’t take kindly to the gentle persuasion and exhibited an attitude of “I’ll do things the way I want to.” FYI, I agree with his basic mission (raison de l’existence) of not having mere wikipedians in the business of trying to use Wikipedia as a platform to change the English language. So for me, this has nothing to do with silencing him. I personally saw his ban as a tool for reforming PMA’s behavior so he could weigh in on discussions and RfCs constructively—to leverage his energy without the disruption. Without anyone baiting him there on the latest move discussion, he once again reverted completely to his old ways by escalating and posturing himself to be a roadblock of intransigence with which all comers must reckon. Greg L (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
    • @Jojhutton: I've never, as in not one time, been involved with a discussion with PMA. I have no dog in this race. If you are going to oppose this (I have no objections in principle to your opposition), please revise your opposition rationale so it doesn't include reasoning based on something that misrepresents my involvement here. --Jayron32 20:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose None of the examples presented above warrant a further restriction. I see no personal attacks or particular disruptiveness. An alternative explanation is that PMA genuinely thought they were complying with the topic ban. Whether discussing the English meaning of a word is "technical use of English" (and I dunno, I wouldn't call definitions all that technical myself, whereas spelling with a cedilla or en-dash would be technical) or not, that limitation has now been made clear, with a block no less. No further action is required. Save the knives for next time. Franamax (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • He was warned by admins during the yogurt discussion that he might be stepping over the line. He simply blanked the warnings. Hot Stop UTC 17:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Notwithstanding the fact that editors are free to remove content from their own talk page, which simply indicates that they have read the material and do not wish to reply, which admin warnings were "simply blanked"? Diffs are often useful when making assertions. Franamax (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I thought this was linked in the above sections. Here's the first by Tony1 (talk · contribs) (I thought he was admin, but I was wrong on that; it was also about a different move than yogurt).[33]. PMA removed it with [34]. Elen then warned PMA [35] Hot Stop UTC 18:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Could you strike your comment above then, as it's a misstatement of fact? A good restatement might be "asked by an admin to be careful". Franamax (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Why? My clarification below is fine. Hot Stop UTC 19:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It's generally considered best practice when you make an untrue statement to go back and correct it. But that's fine, the closing admin can note that you make untrue statements and even when challenged on them prefer to leave them be so that the first thing other readers see is the way you wish things were and only if they read deeper discover that you acknowledge you invented reality - and assess your own support for this proposal in the appropriate light. 'Sup to you... You can even leave your last comment standing, even though it may mislead the reader into thinking they will eventually find your "fine" clarification below. Franamax (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It's a clarification below the original statement. Hot Stop UTC 20:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Have to agree with Franamax; a further restriction would require a clear demonstration of blatant violations of editing rules. Even if he was getting heated at the Yoghurt discussion, being "warned by admins that he may be stepping over the line" isn't a behaviour which would warrant a ban. Basalisk inspect damageberate 18:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unnecessary drama. PMA may not have been very cautious and diplomatic, but I see no behaviour that clearly crosses the line of acceptable community standards.  --Lambiam 22:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is nothing disruptive or unacceptable in the comments made by pmanderson in the diffs provided. --regentspark (comment) 22:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support – I am already on record at the ban discussion and at Elen's talk page favoring extension of the ban to title discussions in general, as that seemed to be the clear consensus at the time and the effective way to get him away from where he causes the most trouble. Dicklyon (talk) 23:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Can someone explain to my why the existing ban is not sufficiently explicit in this respect? It matters nought whether the discussion of the technical aspects of the English language are in an RM: the wording of the ban covers every place on the site. Regentspark, which part of "the meaning of "march" in English is not so limited" does not fall within the ban? It's one of an increasing number of flagrant violations by Mr Anderson, and I'm surprised that a community ban is being treated so loosely at ANI. A ban is a ban, and the slippery slope is very much an issue in this case. Now, I don't want to lose Mr Anderson's contributions to his fields such as the classics and mathematics; but should expect that the remedies for breaches laid out by Elen in the first place be applied every time a violation of the ban is reported here. Otherwise, people will lose faith in ANI as a process. The ball has started rolling belatedly on this occasion. Tony (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Topic banned from WP:MOS and discussions anywhere on the project concerning the Manual of Style or technical aspects of the use of the English language anywhere on the project, including his own talkpage, for a period of one year (my emphasis) would seem to be sufficiently explicit. If PMA wants to participate in move discussions such as Mountains of southern YugoslaviaMountains of Herzegovina (the latter being a new country, formerly part of Yugoslavia), then that is fine under the current restriction.

There was disagreement in the first ANI that lead to his current restrictions as to whether he should be broadly prohibited from move discussions; some editors pointed out that not all moves involve technical aspects of the English language (pointing to examples like my above ‘Yugoslavia’ example). I find it to be pure wikilawyering to try to argue that (March of MoraviaMargraviate of Moravia) and PMA’s argument (We are written in English, not German or Czech; and the meaning of "march" in English is not so limited) weren’t solidly venturing into technical aspects of English. Elen saw his latest violation for what it clearly and rightfully was, properly groked the mix, and homed in not on the venue, but on the hot‑button issue (technical aspects of English, no matter where they occur). Ergo, she blocked him for a week for violating his prohibition.

Those who are !voting “oppose” here apparently believe PMA’s latest block will reform him and he will from hereon abide by his restriction without further need for additional white-picket-fence borders in plain view, beyond which PMA must not cross. We’ll see… I am skeptical. Greg L (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User:Chanakyathegreat[edit]

Resolved: Materialscientist (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Chanakyathegreat (talk · contribs) is an indef-blocked sockpuppeteer, who has a habit of creating groups of sockpuppets, each of which edits a specific area of Indian-related articles (sometimes only for one or two edits). See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Chanakyathegreat. Recently he seems to have stepped up his activity - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chanakyathegreat - and has been serially creating new accounts to edit-war on articles after each previous account is blocked, with several new accounts created (and blocked) just today. I'd like to propose that a WP:BAN be enacted on him and his sockpuppet army, the better to be able to deal with his activity. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Support This seems a no-brainer. Nick-D (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Two blocked in the last few hours, with attempts to harass other editors through spurious reports to AIV. Acroterion (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • One of the worst things to happen to Wikipedia in the past several years was when someone changed the language at WP:BAN which removed the statement that said something like "Users that have been indef blocked and which stand no chance of being unblocked are defacto banned". I find discussions like this a complete and total waste of community time, so FWIW support except to note that, as far as I am concerned, a user like this banned themselves a long time ago, and we don't need discussions like this, since it doesn't actually do anything with regards to how we handle users like this. --Jayron32 05:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Except that a formal ban allows regular editors to go to WP:LOBU and see if the unusual behaviour they're noticing from another editor fits any of the editors listed there. De facto bans are worthless for this purpose and stuff gets through that otherwise wouldn't. --NellieBly (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Agreed - that's why I brought it here. Also, even an indef can be unblocked by a single admin upon a good-faith-assumed request, whereas a community ban requires the consensus of the community to overturn. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Jaron32. The user is indeffed, right? So until or unless xe submits an unblock request and passes it (which is very unlikely given their history), all and any reincarnations should be treated as block evasion and do not require any ban discussion. Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support see he/she has turned up again in some articles on my watchlist. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
    Report socks if you see them. Materialscientist (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT - the offender has a long history of disruptive editing and habit of WP:CPUSHing on a number of Indian military-related article pages, with no remorse whatsoever. Enough is enough, we cannot let this lame duck carry on with his hurting of the project anymore, let's just ban him and then we can apply WP:RBI after that. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Disruptive editor who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Let's formally ban him and get him on the WP:LOBU list. --NellieBly (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Correction Needed in Today's DYK on the Front Page[edit]

Hello, in today's DYK on the Front Page, the first DYK reads as follows:

... that President Bill Clinton said he would personally pay the bill to keep the White House Christmas tree (pictured) lighted during the government shutdown resulting from disagreements on the 1996 federal budget?

Now, I would like to believe my English is as good as any American, but I am pretty sure "lighted" should be "lit" as in "...to keep the White House Christmas tree lit during the government shutdown...". Perhaps I am wrong, but if not, I think that change should be made on the front page ASAP. - NeutralhomerTalk • 16:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

They're interchangeable, though American English tends towards one common usage while those other English types lean the other way. :) Tarc (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Mm - depends how he meant it. Maybe he meant "to keep the physical decorations known as 'Christmas lights' on"? DS (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, this probably should have gone to WP:ERRORS - anyway, "lighted" does look rather odd to me, but I think it can, technically, go either way. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Saying your English is as good as any American isn't saying much (I'm American). :-) Lighted describes Xmas tree decorations, and lit describes someone who's intoxicated. Happy holidays.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I said "as any American", cause I speak American English. :) We always did talk weird in Norfolk, Virginia (where I grew up and home of the Tidewater Dialect), so that's probably where I picked it up. :) Okie Dokie, my goof. :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Professional copy editor here (though you'd never know it by my own English :-)) - American usage differs between the verbal form and the adjective. The most common adjectival form is "lit" when the item in question is actually on fire (a candle, an oil lamp, a Yule log) and "lighted" when the item is electric (Christmas lights, the dreaded electric menorah, etc.). --NellieBly (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Not-so-professional copy editor here. I'm from the UK, and I don't think the word "lighted" is ever used here. Not sure what the grammatical situation is in the US, but if both are acceptable to Americans then perhaps we could change it to "lit" to make it more accessible to English speakers elsewhere? Or perhaps we can use a new NPOV version, "litted"... Basalisk inspect damageberate 10:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Another limey here, and if my two English degrees are anything to go by, I think it should be "lit" - but I'm more than happy to trust NellieBly on this one. GiantSnowman 10:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Hate to complicate matters, but I would write "alight" rather than lit or lighted. In my experience of (British) English, "lighted" is only ever used as in the past perfect, ie the completed act of lighting, and never in the continuous present.