Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive849

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Joan Juliet Buck[edit]

Such a minor issue but nevertheless escalating into an edit war. Could someone look at the recent edits to her categories by Johnparklambert? His deleting her from the general American journalists category in favor of American women journalists category smacks of the sexism that appeared earlier in categorization reported by Salon.com. thanks--Aichik (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this is a misunderstanding? Look at this diff, where he explains why, because it's in the subcat, so no need to list it again. Also, he left a note at your talk explaining as well.(talk) 00:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) From the edit history on that page, it appears that the user respected your objections and merely retagged it a different way that wouldn't be offensive to you. I don't see an issue here. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The box at the top of Category:American women journalists says it is a "non-diffusing subcategory of Category:American journalists". That means the latter is not removed when the former is added. Except there is an "out" which is claimed to mean that women should be shunted to their own category because of another category. There have been previous disputes regarding gender wars, and I would welcome a decision somewhere that no "women" categories should exist unless a corresponding "men" category is created, with both categories being populated in the same manner (actually, I would welcome a decision to delete all "women" categories like this). Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
People aren't actually doing it enough, I grant you — but ideally, all American journalists are supposed to be subcatted by the particular type of journalism they did (radio vs. TV vs. newspaper vs. magazine; reporters and correspondents vs. columnists vs. news anchors; fashion vs. sports vs. political; etc.), and Category:American journalists itself is supposed to be empty of individual articles. In addition, I see that 27 US states have their own subcategories of Category:American journalists by state, while the other 23 don't yet — but if that scheme were complete, it would also diffuse all journalists out of the undifferentiated "American journalists" category. Then Category:American women journalists wouldn't be causing a problem, because it wouldn't be pulling women out of any other category that they should be in.
As long as the parent category isn't actually getting diffused, however, I understand that this looks like a problem — but the point is that Category:American journalists can be fully diffused on grounds independent of gender. It isn't the final base category that any journalist, male or female, is supposed to be sitting in — the journalists are actually all supposed to be diffused into more specific subcategories, and are sitting directly in the parent category only because of simple editor laziness rather than because the category itself is nondiffusable in principle.
The ghettoization rule was always meant to preclude gendering categories that couldn't otherwise be diffused on non-gender grounds, which isn't actually the situation here. I realize that the current "gendered subcategories aren't diffusing of the parent, while nongendered location or specific-type subcategories still are" situation is causing a lot of confusion about how we are or aren't supposed to be handling gendered categories — but the only "violation" happening in this case is that people aren't actually doing the work of cleaning Category:American journalists up properly. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The underlying problem here is the promotion of the flawed concept of "non-diffusing subcategories". The default rule (WP:SUBCAT) is that an article should not usually be in both a category and its sub-category, and diffusion of categories is routinely done on that basis. The existence of a few rare exceptions to the general rule turns the process of diffusion into a minefield for any editor, who is now expected to check the contents page of every single category before diffusing. This massively increases the amount of work involved, because what would previously have been a simple exercise of using WP:HOTCAT now requires loading up a raft of new tabs.
    The idea of "non-diffusing subcategories" has been promoted in good faith as a solution to the ghettoisation problem (in particular by Obiwankenobi), but it ignores the practical reality of the means by which categories are populated and diffused. It is theoretical solution which doesn't work in practice, a point which I made repeatedly in this discussion and which Bearcat has made in a more recent discussion.
    Bearcat and I do not often agree, but we appear to take the same view in this case: that if a sub-cat can exist only by being labelled as non-diffusing, then it shouldn't exist at all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Nobody, male or female, is actually supposed to be filed directly in Category:American journalists; they're supposed to be filtered down into more specific subcategories for the specific type of journalism they did (fashion, sports, politics, etc.), the specific platform in which they did journalism (radio, TV, newspaper, etc.), the specific journalistic role they held (reporter, columnist, anchor, etc.), and on and so forth. The fact that people aren't actually doing the work, and are instead leaving thousands of journalists directly in the main parent category, speaks to editor laziness more than anything else — Category:American journalists isn't the end category that any journalist is actually meant to be sitting in. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This again? You'll never fix the category "system" without a fundamental rethink. You don't do it by creating every category you can think of as an answer to every question everyone might ever have. You certainly don't do it by having inconsistencies like "non-diffusing", then trying to use them willy-nilly as band aids to hide the gaping wounds in the "system". You do it by storing attributes then querying them.
Don't create a category "Fluffy pink bunnies living in France with white cars and 6 children", then put Foofoo the bunny in it, only to later move her to "Fluffy pink bunnies living in France with blue cars and 8 children". That's madness.
Give Foofoo the attributes: Texture=fluffy, colour=pink, species=rabbit, children=6, car owner=true, car colour=white, residence=France - etc - for anything you care about. Then categories are simply queries of attributes (which you can cache/provide links for).
Yes, it's a huge task, and a whole new system, and should have been addressed years ago - but the task won't get smaller, and what exists as a category "system" now is fundamentally useless in many cases, and utterly unscaleable. Honestly, if all the time that went into arguing about it was diverted into designing an attribute/query system that worked, you might be surprised how much progress could be made. Perhaps this was intended to be the point of WikiData, or one of them, but regardless, it's the only sane alternative. Begoontalk 10:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
This makes too much sense. I've often wondered why we stick with unwieldy categories when attributes would be more flexible and allow for much more powerful searches. --NeilN talk to me 13:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
That's actually been proposed many times by many editors over the years. You're absolutely correct that it's probably a better way than our current system, because it would indeed be more flexible and more powerful — we do occasionally have users who have legitimate and genuine reasons to want to see groupings that are either are either too overgeneralized (e.g. "all women" or "all American people") or too overgranular (e.g. "feminist organizations based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania" or "people in a particular occupation born in a particular year") for us to permit under the current method. (And as someone who devotes far more time than I'd wish to category cleanup, I can attest that we also have quite a few editors who do seem to think categories already work that way — I come across entirely too many articles where instead of adding the intersected Category:American science fiction writers, an editor has applied "American", "science fiction" and "writers" as three distinct standalone category declarations.)
Under a tag-based system, we could apply each individual attribute on its own as a standalone tag, and the user could generate the specific grouping he or she wanted to see by generating an on-the-fly intersection of tags X, Y and Z, instead of requiring us to actively curate that intersection as an actual category. As well, it would vastly reduce how much time we would need to waste on tasks such as arguing at CFD about categories, or monitoring categories such as Category:Writers or Category:Politicians for entries that have been directly added there instead of to appropriate subcategories. And I also believe that there could be ways to make such a system directly watchlistable, so that inappropriate or unsourced categories (e.g. the frequent use of "LGBT people" categories as a form of vandalism or attack editing against people who aren't LGBT) can be caught more promptly.
But despite the many times moving to a tag-based system has been proposed in the past, we're still working with the current flawed system. I don't know if the development team have tried in the past and found it to be unworkable for technical/programming reasons, or if they just haven't ever really acted on the proposals at all for some reason (e.g. as often as I've seen it bruited about among editors as a wishlist item, maybe nobody's ever actually approached the developers with a real suggestion for them to actually act upon?) Maybe one of the developers could speak to the situation, because I don't really know whether there's a specific reason why things haven't moved in that direction or not. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh, BEG...we've certainly had our disagreements over the years, I won't deny that. But we've had many times where we've agreed too, don't forget that. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Aichik, for the record, this isn't actually a problem. As I explained above, Category:American journalists is supposed to be fully diffused on non-gendered grounds, such as the subject of their journalism (fashion, sports, politics, etc.) or the platform in which they did journalism (radio, TV, magazine, newspaper, etc.). So she's not getting removed from that category on the basis of her inclusion in Category:American women journalists, but on the basis of her inclusion in Category:American fashion journalists. The "women" subcat may be marked as non-diffusing — but that's actually a moot point, because the by-subject and by-platform categories are diffusing and so Category:American journalists is actually meant to be empty of individual articles — the fact that people aren't actually doing the work is a different matter entirely. So JPL's edit here was actually exactly correct. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Gonna take me awhile to figure all this out. Thanks for your patience;)--Aichik (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
No worries. It's not your fault you're finding this confusing — the current situation results from a lot of conflicting imperatives that have collided without coherent resolution, and is absolutely a dog's breakfast. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I knew the way I was doing the diffusion was bound to be confusing, at least if people just read the individual edits, but it was clearly in line with the guidelines. For an example of why Category:American journalists is not going to get dispersed anytime soon look at Anya Kamenetz. I guess I should have put her in a more specific sub-cat. Is there Category:American magazine writers?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The number 1 program with categories is they are not effectively watchable with a watchlist. You have to periodically go to categories you want to watch to see what is there, and this means that if they have over 1000 entries, it is hard to know what is going on. On the other hand, Anya Kamenetz may show the draw-back to our current system. She is now in 4 sub-cats of Category:American journalists, and if we fully disperse that category, I would expect us to average even more, since she is not in a category based on the genre of journalism she does, just the medium. To make things worse, I would expect significant over-lap between magazines and newspapers. The journalists by state may also be a less than helpful way to break them down, since many journalists have moved between several television stations or newspapers, and thus been journalists in nearly half a dozen states.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Another question that we may want to consider, should categories for people at a specific newspaper be sub-cats of the by nationality categories, or not? I would say not, because a person can be a Los Angeles Times or any other newspaper correspondent without every actually setting foot in the US, let alone being a national of the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Have you removed any male journalists from Category:American journalists? Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
      • This whole question is based on a false premise that somehow being in Category:American journalists and not in some sub-category is some sort of badge of honor. It isn't, with 2 schemes in existence that should remove every single direct entry, and another scheme that should be able to remove most entries, it is a sign the article is under-categorized. If the answer is was no when you wrote it, it was mainly a reflection of the fact that some types of journalists (fashion journalists for example), have often just been classified as that, and not put in any by nationality categories for being journalists. On another note.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • A few more thoughts. Only my recent work has gotten Category:American women journalists to be slightly larger than Category:American female pornographic film actors. According to some commentators the fact that the later is larger than any chosen other category is a scandal that indictes Wikipedia as a horribly sexist place, etc. The reality is that it more reflects different methods of categorizing by gender in different fields, than the prevalence of articles on females in different females, let alone the prevalence of females succeeding in that field. On another note, we have even Category:Pennsylvania political journalists, to show there are all sorts of levels of sub-categories to Category:American journalists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Another example of multi-layers sub-cats is Category:American newspaper journalists has the sub-cat Category:American newspaper editors, which is further sub-catted into 19th-century and 20th-century sub-cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@Johnpacklambert: The number 1 program with categories is they are not effectively watchable with a watchlist. I assume you meant "problem". No, the number one problem with categories is that they are divorced from the mainstream of the encyclopedia, and don't work. As an offshoot, they attract obsessive and less than wholesome edits from those who would like to use them for less than lovely reasons. See above for how this can be fixed.
Now, one thing I'm not clear on, Johnuniq asked Have you removed any male journalists from Category:American journalists? Was that a "No", amidst the rambling dissembling? It was a simple question, I thought. Begoontalk 14:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The actual answer to the question is yes, but it is a question that misses the real issues entirely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. As Bearcat says above, then, I guess we need to find out from developers if there is some reason we need to keep this arcane, inconsistent, unscaleable "system", with all its attendant drawbacks and vagaries, or if we can indeed move towards a proper system of attributes and queries. Begoontalk 05:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Septate breaking his newly imposed editing restrictions[edit]

Septate is now subject to the following restriction:

Septate is topic banned from all articles, talk pages and subpages of both which are related to religion, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 6 months.

I've reworded it slightly to make it clearer that it is a topic ban not an article ban, I've also removed the bit about enforcement as that is covered in the banning policy. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Septate (talk · contribs) is under a Community imposed editing restriction[1] placed indefinitely for all edits which are related to religion:

1) 1 revert per 48 hours per article (see WP:1RR for more information).

2) Before he makes any content revert (including vandalism), he is required to first open a discussion on the article talk page, to provide an explanation of his intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion.

Despite this he continues to revert at various articles dealing with the subject of Wahhabism. Eg [2], [3] (and in this case the article is also a religious one, Mawlid, a religious celebration) and [4]. Perhaps the topic ban would have been a better idea. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

That was so quick. I knew that he will break those restrictions, I agree that topic ban is probably going to help. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@Dougweller. You are seriously wrong and mistaken. Regarding [5], I made that edit after a simple discussion. See User talk:Vanamonde93#Thanks!. The problem was regarding the reliability of Apologetics.com, which was resolved when I provided BBC source. Although I am obliged to open the discussion on talk page per imposed ban on me, I don't find it useful because the dispute was resolved. When it comes to [6], I don't know why you mentioned it here. It is completely irrelevant. I have made no reverts neither another user has reverted my edits calling them vandalism or something else. Interestingly the dispute was not between me but two other users. My edits just came in the middle of there reverts of each others edits. See edit history of Mawlid. The same goes with [7]. I have made a simple edit. If some one reverts my edit then I am obliged to open a discussion talk page. Seriously, this is complete wastage of time.Septate (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, if I break the rule, I would prefer to get blocked for 2 day or week instead of topic banned.Septate (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@Septate: WTF? On Mawlid you reverted this edit by another user by making this edit. That's a revert of the change from Wahhabist to Salafist. Your restriction is crystal clear: "Before he makes any content revert (including vandalism), he is required to first open a discussion on the article talk page, to provide an explanation of his intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion." Also, on Al-Qaeda it is completely irrelevant that "Although I am obliged to open the discussion on talk page per imposed ban on me, I don't find it useful because the dispute was resolved". It's not you that gets to choose whether it's "useful" in any particular instance. On the ISIS article, I am puzzled by what Doug says there. Perhaps he could elaborate. But leaving that aside there are two clear breaches just a couple of days into the restriction - with justifications like you "didn't find it useful". It's definitely time for a topic ban. DeCausa (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't see how a discussion on a user talk page with an editor other than the one you reverted matters here. Furthermore, the discussion was about reliability of sourcing, yet User:Gazkthul's edit summary clearly indicated an objection based on POV issues NOT RS issues. If you had reverted User:Vanamonde93, based on the agreement to the edit, I can see us not acting to enforce the letter of the restriction, but that isn't who you reverted. There is no discussion on the article talk page, and you unambiguously reverted another editor. How is that not a violation of your editing restrictions? Monty845 14:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@Dougweller: While I agree with you on the first article, with regard to Mawlid, is there a clear edit that was reverted? Given the restriction was specifically on reverts, if something was only added to an article, in the absence of a recent removal for it to be reverting, I don't think it is obvious that the addition counts as a revert. Monty845 15:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@Monty845: as I pointed out above, on Mawlid an editor changed Wahhabist to Salafist and two hours later Septate changed it back. That's a revert and he should have gone to the talk page and waited 6 hours before he did the revert. DeCausa (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I follow now, I listed the wrong article in my above comment, but now clearly see the violations on both articles. Monty845 15:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for not making clear the problem at ISIS. P123ct1 "Removed "Wahhabist" - reliable sources do not say ISIS is Wahhabist (see Talk page discussion)"[8] 2 days ago. Septate restored it today, ie reverted the revert.[9]. As with the others, no discussion on the talk page first. His comment that following his restrictions is a waste of time suggests we aren't getting very far with this attempt at leniency. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm in agreement on both cases then. Afaik, we would need a new discussion to topic ban, so I think that just leaves a block, perhaps with an offer of a topic ban as an unblock condition? Monty845 15:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that he broke his edit restriction. [[10] this edit by Septate] was a clear revert of this edit by Gazkthul. When the edit restriction was proposed, I explained to him at User talk:Septate#July 2014 that "If you broke the restriction you could be blocked for a week for breaking the restriction. And if you kept on breaking it, the blocks might get bigger. (e.g. 1st time 1 week, 2nd time 1 month, etc.)" I think that he should have a 1 week block, and be told that if he breaks the restriction again after the block, then he will get a 1 month block.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal[edit]

(Outside opinion) I wasn't involved in the last discussion but followed it as is my wont. I believe this is just about the fastest I've ever seen anyone breach a community sanction and coupled with the attempt to wikilawyer around it, I'm going to boldly throw a proposal out there.

Septate is hereby topic banned from all articles related to religion broadly construed for a period of no less than 6 months. Violations of the topic ban will be met with extension of the topic ban or escalating blocks.

Blackmane (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. It's not only the rapid and blatant breach but also the bare-faced claims that he hasn't breached the restriction. He has a history of deceptive edit summaries to cover up his edits - which he's previously got a 48 hour block. His attitude here is consistent with that. DeCausa (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I was considering just blocking for a month, and offering a topic ban as an unblock condition, but this is the cleaner way to do it. Not the standard construction of a topic ban, we usually go to a permanent ban, with the option to request it be removed in 6 months, but it may be interesting to see how this version works. Monty845 15:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I agree this seems cleaner and going straight into a breach shows that the restrictions weren't sufficient. I'm pessimistic about it working though. Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Forgot, we should let User:Callanecc know as he was the one who closed the earlier discussion and notified Septate about the editing restrictions. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Against . Everyone here is just trying to find 'loopholes' to get me topic banned. User:DeCausa read this this edit again. Are you blind or just acting? I just made Wahhabis an alternative name for Salafis! Does this constitute revert? I have not removed Salafis at all. Interestingly I changed the word Salafites to Salafis. I have wasted a lot of time here. I was informed on previous ANI that if I break the the ban in future, I shall be blocked for one week instead of being topic banned. You can't go against it! I am going on a wiki break for one month. This should be enough for me.Septate (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@Septate: Drop the pretence. Rameshnta909 took out the word Wahhabis. You reinstated the word Wahhabis. Just because you added other things as well doesn't stop it being a revert. I don't think for one minute that you think that either - you just thought you could get away with it. You also thought that if you get caught you could get off with a block for a few days. that's why you thought it was worth trying it. Well, no. DeCausa (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Septate, you joined wikipedia in Feb 2014, you have over 1700 edits but you have never contributed even 100 words to any article because all you do is flip and switch words in religion articles. How you managed it? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, given how incorrigible Septate appears to be, I'm doubting the wisdom of the Tban just expiring at the 6 month point. Maybe the "traditional" approach is better. DeCausa (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
In the absence anyone stating anything to the contrary, I think the existing restrictions would remain in force indefinitely, so in the off chance the ban isn't violated, we go back to the current restrictions in 6 months. Monty845 16:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahhhhhh your explanations! DeCausa, Rameshnta909 removed Wahhabia because he thought that Salafis are more appropriate. Then I came and added Wahhabis along with Salafis because I thought that both are appropriate. Don't you get such a simple thing. This clearly shows that you are just trying to find loopholes!

Dear NielN, seriously speeking I was not conscious of those edits. I am not doubting the wisdom of the ban. I was not aware that so many users were waiting to see just a single little mistake. I just want to get last chance. Block me for one week. Furthermore I am going on a wiki break for one month. Septate (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Septate is going to separate from wikipedia? No issue. Little mistake and last chance? You said that dougweller is wasting time when it was proven that you are breaking editing restrictions. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Septate, if you think that's a "loop-hole" there's no hope of getting you to comply with the restriction. DeCausa (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@Septate:, when a proposal calling for a topic ban is started you have already lost all room for negotiation. When any editor is sanctioned, there will be many eyes watching. Recalcitrance is punished quickly, acquiescence to the will of the community results in relaxation of sanctions in time. You were sanctioned, you violated the sanctions thus your restrictions will be escalated. I proposed 6 months in the hope that at the end of it you can return to editing in that area after some reflection. You're a relatively new user and I've got enough AGF left after reading through this thread and the previous one that I didn't go for the indefinite topic ban. You should see this as a wake up call. If you go on one month now, then I would propose an amendment to to the topic ban proposal to come into force upon your return. Blackmane (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The rapid breach of the restrictions shows that a topic ban from all articles related to religion is needed. I share Dougwellers pessimistic outlook. JimRenge (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I've never seen this editor before, but the above evidence is unacceptable behaviour. Indeed, lest they get some idea of DIVA'ing, if they perform any additional reverts between now and when this discussion is closed, I'll block the panda ₯’ 16:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Given the continued disruptive nature of the edits within the subject area. A topic ban seems more than warranted, especially given the flaunting of earlier restrictions placed. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 17:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -The violations of the ban are obvious and the Wikilawyering is clear. BMK (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Every case is different, but the usual response to violating a topic ban is accelerating blocks. If there are multiple incidents, especially after being warned, then a lengthy block is in order, not just a broadened topic ban. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs It was proposed that Septate should be topic banned hardly 1 week ago. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive848#Proposal for a topic ban on Septate. It was not fixed that he should be blocked or topic banned for violating restrictions, it could be any. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Per BMK and Solarra. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 21:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Septate, you had De Causa's and my support for restrictions at the previous ANI despite all indications that you'd been interacting in bad faith. Given that you've violated the terms in such blatant manner within days of agreeing to them, a six month block is warranted. As I've recommended to you personally, and per my recommendation at the last ANI, this is a good opportunity for you to work on articles you don't have an emotional attachment to, thus giving you a chance to understand policies and guidelines and learn to be a constructive contributor. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - he should get a 1 week block. Septate was told when the edit restriction was proposed that if he broke the restriction, he would get a 1 week block first time, and probably a 1 month block second time, etc.[11] As this is the first time, he should get a 1 week block. This is only fair. It will also teach him to respect the restriction. This will be more effective than a topic ban. It will encourage good behaviours by Septate, and will not encourage bad behaviors.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
With all respect, Toddy1, that was a statement made by you alone on his talk page. It wasn't part of the community view as expressed at the ANI thread. I can understand that, as a result, you personally might feel constrained as to how you would !vote in this thread, but it can't have a broader effect. Nevertheless, I agree that what you said would be the "normal" way to proceed. However, the speed of Septate's breach and his attitude to complying with the restriction as shown in this thread takes him out of "normal", IMO. More generally, having seen how he operates over the last few months, I suspect that him believing that there was a limited "first offence" sanction led him to think that it was worth "trying his luck" (2 days in!) to see what wriggle room there is in the restriction. I think rewarding that behaviour with a limited sanction will not be good for WP or Septate. The best hope for him to become a long-term useful editor (which I actually think he could easily be) is for him to understand that it's not worth his while trying to pull these stunts - he will be caught out. DeCausa (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. And give someone a one week block who says he's taking a month off of Wikipedia? Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Time to close? Dougweller (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Irrespective of whether he gets a 5 month topic ban, I still think that he should get a 1 week block. So if you decide to give him a topic ban, please also give him a 1 week block. (Though I still oppose the topic ban.)--Toddy1 (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@Dougweller and Toddy1. Please tell me what is the overall outcome of this talk? For how long you are blocking me? Seriously I am extremely tired and exhausted. DeCausa please stop calling my edits stunts. I dont know why you hate me so much. In the past few days I have realized that reading wikipedia is more enjoyable then editing it. I have been using opera mini instead of chrome in order to stop getting notifications. I am not going on a wiki break because wikipedia is an integral part of my life and I love it.Septate (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Septate your reply is creating confusions. You can also read wikipedia without signing like millions of others. If you love wikipedia so much then why you can't contribute in non-religion articles? If you think that someone hates you then request a interaction ban at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, gossiping is not going to help. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Septate, if you believe that I hate you, make a complaint at WP:ANI. I assume that your complaint will be on the lines of "Toddy hates me so much that he repeatedly argues against my being given a topic ban..."--Toddy1 (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Toddy1, it was not meant for you! You have misunderstood it. How can I accuse you hating me?Septate (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Septate, to reiterate, this would be a topic ban which would not prevent you from contributing to non-related articles. I've suggested it to you, Bladesmulti has suggested it to you: why not take the opportunity to broaden your scope of interest and involve yourself with subjects that interest you, but without the emotional ties you have to religion? It doesn't need to be taken as a punitive measure, but as learning curve in order to improve your skills as a dedicated Wikipedian. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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

RFC needs your input[edit]

I realize this isn't the place to post RFC's normally, however, I'm requesting experienced users input (at the moment ) for an RFC over here . I've already posted this same request on the three projects that cover this page, the village pump and the non-free image board and received no new responses. I'm looking to establish consensus on whether or not a second image ( this one * MAY BE NSWF * ) fails NFCC 3, 5 and 8. Whatever the consensus is, it's fine, however, at this time, there's not a consensus to speak of. Your input is appreciated. Kosh Vorlon    11:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think this is an appropriate place to advertise this RFC. I'm guessing that you're not getting comments on it because it's not formatted as an RFC and it's hard to parse what's going on. As I suggested over there, I think you should start a new RFC formatted as an RfC is supposed to be formatted, with a simple neutral statement. Perhaps you'll get more interest then. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 13:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
This still? TonyTheTiger has a long habbit of taking an article to good article and then to featured article. He has discussed the fair use rational extensively with you and met the policy concerns. Just let him improve the article, why you so against the use of this image even after he has brought it up to NFCC? Chillum 16:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Because there's no consensus on whether the image fails NFCC 3,5 and 8. There's TonyTheTiger (the article's creator) yourself and I, and that doesn't make for any consensus. I still believe using that image fails nfcc 3,5 and 8. I closed the original RFC as two individuals have advised me it's malformed and not neutral and have re-create it to be compliant. I'm looking for a consensus only, doesn't matter if it's for or against me. Kosh Vorlon    16:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Funny how when I agreed with you on this matter you said there was a 2:1 consensus, and now that I think it is up to our NFCC you are saying 2:1 does not make a consensus. I agree that 3 people don't make a consensus in either case. Chillum 21:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
That not just me saying that, I've seen caes in the past where 2 to 1 was not considered consensus. Also remember, since I'm involved (and I've said this on your talk page ) I can't declare any kind of official consensus, I can only state what the consensus of opinion is. I'm looking for a few more voices, that's all. Kosh Vorlon    10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T.R. Threston[edit]

AustralianThreston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is threatening action for slander/libel here. Also please note the open SPI investigation on this user. Thank you. --Finngall talk 21:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

FUCK OFF! I deleted the entire page. As I have repeatedly said I AM NOT T.R. Threston but if any of the slanderous things written by the staff on Wikipedia remain, I'm sure a law suit will not be far behind. And people wonder why Wikipedia isn't allowed as a reliable reference for REAL research. I certainly know why now!! --AustralianThreston (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threats by Future Perfect at Sunrise Chillum 22:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@AustralianThreston: You're not allowed to make legal threats here per WP:NLT. Please retract it or you will almost certainly be blocked from editing.- MrX 22:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Is WJRockford (talk · contribs) a sock, or is that user's single-purpose interest just an unhappy coincidence? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Probable sock. See the SPI link above. --Finngall talk 22:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Holy moly, what a crop. A classic case of trying to abuse Wikipedia to gain artificial notability. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs I would note that the COI/Promotional nature of the user's choices in editing coupled with their username suggested that they were trying to use wikipedia to make the family name seem notable. I was repeatedly smacked down for it by multiple users claiming that {{uw-coi-username}} is only supposed to be used for CORP coi usernames and not this kind of coi username. Just laying it out so that the opposers (WikiDan61xenoProtonk) at my thread at WP:VPI where I proposed forking the coi-username template to handle this type of POV pushing that isn't paid editing. Hasteur (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Hasteur, Permission granted to stop pinging me for this nonsense. Protonk (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Close review: Conduct unbecoming of an administrator[edit]

First, I'd like to state that none of the following is my opinion, as I haven't even read the original text. Looking through this, the community at large feels that this particular discussion is done. While the close may have been too soon to observe a proper consensus (not my opinion, again), the community seems to think that nothing effective or important from dealing with this at the community level. That said, it goes without saying that Wikipedia is not a 24/7 community, and consensus takes time, and closing admins should remember this. I'd also like to note, this is not the thread to discuss the larger issues an implications, as the scope of this is defined by the incident. With this, the next step for members wishing to continue this should head for the doors of the Arbitration Committee. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am opening this closure review of the ANI discussion Conduct unbecoming of an administrator per WP:CLOSE. The closing admin has declined to re-open the discussion, and an attempt by another editor to re-open it was reverted by an involved admin. Please indicate you views on reopening this discussion.- MrX 03:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Support - Reopen
  1. As nom. Let the people speak. - MrX 03:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. This is exactly why we can't have nice things. It is impossible to address systemic issues when we handle them in this manner, where initial discussion is loudly disrupted by a few drama mongers, then the discussion is relatively quickly closed under the rationale that there's "too much drama", so thoughtful editors are unable to steer the discussion in a productive direction because it was closed before they even noticed it. (Also, it was very inappropriate for an involved admin to re-close the discussion. If there's anywhere you can find an uninvolved admin, it's here, so there is absolutely no reason not to leave it to one of them.) Gamaliel (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support as stated. It's clear some users want to continue the conversation. Whether or not we continue it here shouldn't be subject to a majority vote. There are clearly some longstanding issues at hand and these need to be dealt with. If we sweep this under the carpet, again, no problem will be solved. The conversation should continue as long as several users are contributing. This is also unfair to users who did not contribute in the first 36 hours, particularly as this issue is likely to surface again and again and this conversation will be used as precedent in some future date. The users who are not interested shouldn't have the right to gag the users who want to continue participating. 101.116.116.59 (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC) 101.116.116.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  4. Re-open. For better or for worse...this is what this noticeboard is for and no one is immune. The community seems to be getting shut out of this and that is rather disturbing. It appears the community can very much make these determinations and this is likely to come to some determination. --Mark Miller (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Re-open - There was obvious momentum towards a community consensus on a block of editor Eric Corbett by admin BrownHairedGirl, with six editors in succession, in a space of just a few hours, !voting to support a Good block, bad unblock position that by extension condemns the unblock by admin Dangerous Panda. The sudden closure of the above ANI discussion by admin TParis gives the appearance of an attempt to derail that seemingly emerging community consensus. This goes to the very heart of rank-and-file editor complaints of autocratic administrator abuse. When you add in the fact that an active discussion was in progress, of a high-profile request by Jimmy Wales on Dangerous Panda's talk page to reconsider the unblock, you get a situation that calls for a review of Admin TParis' actions across the board. Many of us feel there is a cancer on Wikipedia. Closures like this one are why. Opposes below that attempt to dismiss the gravity of this matter are deeply unconvincing. Jusdafax 05:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Jusdafax I understand this is an emotional issue, but you cite the "growing consensus" for "Good block, bad unblock". Would you please have a look at the last three !votes above the subsection "Where do we draw the line between incivility and personal insults?" ? Each of them, including Mark Miller's, who is also here saying "re-open", didn't understand what happened - who did the unblock and/or what BHG's block of Eric was for. (It was not for 3RR, it was for a PA on Jimmy's page, in an edit note.) So how would those three !votes even factor into anyone's consideration of whether the unblock was appropriate? (real question, not rhetorical) Too much emotion and confusion all around, I think. I also want to say that TP closed because the discussion was unfocused and confused. So... a real question for you - for those who are still upset about any matter that arose from that teratoma of a discussion that TP closed -- is there that something that would prevent generating new discussions in appropriate venues, focused separately on any one of: review of BHG's judgement in blocking, review of Panda's judgement in unblocking, review of TP's judgement in closing (as opposed to reversing the close itself), review of Dennis Brown's judgement for the OP, an RfC/U on Eric, or any other matter? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    First of all, you got it wrong in regards to me. I knew who made the unblock and I also knew that the ANI was about multiple issues. I also know it wasn't Dennis Brown that made the unblock. That is why I said to leave him alone. I also knew that Eric was blocked over a different issue and if you look at the last reply on the 3RR report you will see that I make the comment to block...for that issue ONLY. Then that 3RR was closed as stale within minutes of my comment.
    To answer your question: "is there that something that would prevent generating new discussions in appropriate venues"...that would be because all the venues are being closed. But I am not that concerned if the outcome is to remain closed. At least it was asked in the proper manner--Mark Miller (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for answering Mark! On the first thing, I just double checked (and had double checked before I saved my edit). you wrote "Good block, bad unblock. This has nothing to do with Dennis. I think Eric deserved this 3RR block. I saw it pop up, I looked and the report was valid. Eric is about the last editor to be "roped into a revert" he knew very well what he was doing.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)" So... 3RR. not PA. I don't understand. Also,you didn't answer the question, if anything prevents new discussions from being opened. You don't have to answer, of course. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Nope, you are right. I actually remember that very well now and did indeed believe (at that time) that the block was the 3RR violation. I have no excuse. You made a truly good call and I was wrong there. But I did answer the question. Although it should state that because all of the other venues were being closed I am guessing any new one would be as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    thanks very much, Mark. And thanks for completing the answer. I am not fully aware of protocols on these boards and wasn't sure if it would be appropriate to open new threads after one had closed that had so many open items. So thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Re-open: The appearance of bias and manipulation is too great to ignore. The discussion was ongoing, Jimbo encouraged just such discussion, and another of Eric's sizable, WP:INVOLVED fan club did the closing. Open it back up! --Drmargi (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Re-open per Jimbo Wales: "I'd like to invite kind and reasoned discussion based on the fundamental premise that we do have a problem, and that some people should be banned for it." -A1candidate (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Since when is it a fundamental premise that whenever there is a problem someone should be banned for it? Thomas.W talk 17:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    How does "we have a problem, and some people should be banned for it," become "whenever there is a problem someone should be banned for it"?
  8. Support. This is a problem. Lightbreather (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  9. Reopen - This is a conversation that needs input and consensus. We can't keep on saying it's okay to attack other editors and get away with it, because we think it's too hard to find a solution. The gender imbalance thing is something that concerns me greatly. Are we becoming a monstrous community where women are not welcome unless they fart and curse along with the lads? A bit of scuffle and stoush is fine so long as we keep on cranking out articles on obscure border wars and loud cars and porn stars? --Pete (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  10. It looks like something will actually come of discussion. Chillum 03:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - Remain closed
  1. As I believed when I closed it the first time, nothing productive is going to come from the discussion. Editors are just getting more and more worked up, and its very unlikely enough consensus to do anything will arise. (One of the points was that there was movement towards consensus on the block/unblock question, but they are supporting a block for a reason other than the one that triggered the block, which just doesn't make sense in a block review) Rather than continue to get madder at each other, this should remain closed, and we should just wait for someone to take it to WP:ARBCOM. Monty845 03:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, because this is supposed to be an online encyclopaedia, and this endless exercise in drama-mongering has nothing to do with improving article content... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose- the entire thing was an unproductive dramalanche, never had the remotest possibility of solving any actual problem, and should remain closed. Reyk YO! 03:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. I'm watching (on TV) a bunch of Nubian ibexes fight. It's the mating season in the desert, you know. If they lose a fight, they may never mate. We're not Nubian ibexes. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    On the internet, no one knows you're a Nubian ibex. moluɐɯ 12:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose— Those who are interested can have a far more productive conversation at arbcom. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Oh, I don't know. Seems that we're getting a lot of views out in the open here. Let's not inflict unformed discussion on ArbCom. Let's see what emerges here and give them a fair chance at ruling on something structured. There's enough clever and experienced Wikipedians here to generate something worth pushing forward. --Pete (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - as this is ANI. It is not an RFC, a usertalkpage or arbcom. The "incidents" in this thread (Dennis v Scottywong, and EricCorbett's block) are not likely to lead to future admin action. The discussion of various people's conduct, or the ongoing debate over civility enforcement, may be worthwhile ongoing topics but they belong on the pages designed for them. Euryalus (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Oppose reopening the ANI thread and support bringing this debacle to ArbCom. This is the fourth time in little over a year that Eric Corbett has been blocked and subsequently unblocked, and the nth time I have seen calls for desysopping admins involved in it. This was a common pattern on the previous account as well. A binding resolution on this is overdue, and I can't see that coming from AN/I. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  8. Oppose reopening. ArbCom is thattaway -----> /// Carrite (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    BTW, I feel this is a case of Bad Block (involved party in the heat of a debate), Bad Unblock (non-consultative reversal of action). There are plenty of mistakes that have been made by all. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  9. Scottywong's unbecoming use of casuistry is adequately documented in the user's own contributions to the discussion as it stands—an instructive outcome. As for what triggered the expressions of outrage that in turn spawned this and all the other Eric-centric drama, the real toxicity in the editing/discussion environment comes not from the straight talker but from the milquetoast, the prig, the liar, the officious little twerp, and the pompous ass. In the words of Hell In a Bucket, "Pull up your big boy pants or panties . . . and move the fuck on." Writegeist (talk) 06:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  10. Oppose reopening, as per all those above me — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, everyone's time would be better spent actually editing articles instead of watching personal vendettas being played out. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per Writegeist. Nicely said. --John (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per Carrite, or as one of my local judges supposedly stated, "the road to Richmond (where the appeal courts sit) runs right outside the courthouse." I am sure ArbCom will welcome having this case. Someone remind me of how many arbs have resigned or been defeated over previous Eric/Malleus cases, I've lost track.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Cut the drama and get back to creating an encyclopaedia, that's what we're here for. Thomas.W talk 09:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Good gods, people. Encyclopedia. Remember? That's what we're working on... not a social utopia. Go write, not run with the drama llamas. (No insult intended to any llamas...) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - The discussion was quickly devolving into ad hominem, even about irrelevant tangents. Arbcom was suggested multiple times both there and here, and, given the behavior and remarks of some of those involved, that seems like the best choice now. I mean, because, obviously they can't interact civilly here at ANI. moluɐɯ 12:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. This is clearly not going to lead to intervention regarding Scotty Wong, Dennis Brown, Dangerous Panda or Eric Corbett, or to making a major change in the editing environment. Anyone who wishes to achieve any of those things is going to have to find another way, because this maelstrom is impassable and pouring more energy into it will just make it wider. NebY (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  18. Oppose - With all respect it's gone on for long enough - Reopening won't solve anything. –Davey2010(talk) 13:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  19. Oppose - everyone knows that anything to do with EC is basically kryptonite. Let's put it back in Pandora's box and move on, at least until the next poor soul opens it. Blackmane (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  20. Oppose - this is a remarkably dull thread; once one could rely on Corbett for fireworks but this is the merest squib. Oculi (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  21. Oppose -the thread was a mess, and folks (as I understand it) are free to open new discussions on any specific matters they still have concerns about it. Hopefully, well focused discussions.Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. Scottywong got his money's worth of drama by stirring the pot. Keeping it close is the best possible outcome at this point. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  23. Oppose - No good will come of this. WP:CIVIL = WP:PERENNIAL. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  24. Oppose - messy walls of text will not result in anything apart from being disruptive in and of itself. Per WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Alternate option[edit]

I'm not opposed to discussion. I close the thread because it lacked direction and progress. As Gamaliel says, reasonable editors should be able to address systematic issues without drama mongering and I agree. Address systematic issues - systematically. Address them with structure, guidelines, and direction. That thread, and ANI in general, are not the place to do it. Besides lacking structure, ANI attracts those who like to treat Wikipedia like a mid-day drama tv show. Please please feel free to discuss any issues you want to. It is far from my intentions to chill discussion. But do it in a way that does more good than harm.--v/r - TP 04:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It isn't your fault TP. Seriously. A number of us have closed the discussion, me included. But I did so because there were other venues...then suddenly all those venues were shut down but Jimbo's talk page discussion. That will remain open and I am sure if the outcome here is no consensus or to keep closed...the sky will not fall and Wikipedia will survive.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there any point in discussing "Eric Corbett" (the quotes meaning not just the user but the topic that swirls around him) in any venue? The community and ArbCom have shown itself/themselves consistently incapable of definitively resolving it one way or the other. It's just too polarizing. BrownHairedGirl on Jimbo's talk page, on the linkage of civility and the so-called "gender gap" proposed that WMF intervene to put in place standards rather as they did with BLP. I don't think I agree with that. But given (a) the nature of the disruption of this civil war and (b) the WP community's clear incapability of reaching anything approaching consensus (c) ArbCom having previously not been able to provide a final resolution, is the only hope of a long-term resolution to ask Mama WMF to rescue us from ourselves and impose something (one way or the other)? Jimbo on his talk page seems to have taken up the idea of WMF staff monitoring civility generally. But, IMHO, it would be preferable for it to be just a one-off solution: I don't see any other issue around with quite the same characteristics as this one. DeCausa (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
You seem to proposing having WMF ban Eric when you say "one-off solution". In what way does that advance us towards having a quality encyclopedia which I understand is the point of this exercise? And is it really worth tearing down the community structure we have so painstakingly built to get to Eric?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't suggested that at all. Why do you say that? A one off solution imposed on the community could be anything, including (off the top of my head) no admins allowed to block him, maybe only WMF staffers? I'm actually fairly on the fence about EC generally: I can see both sides. My point is how does seeing dozens of the most prominent users tear this place apart for days at a time every now and then "advance us towards having a quality encyclopedia". Take it out of our hands; we're not grown up enough for it. (And btw, this particular part of the "community structure we have so painstakingly constructed" is an enormous pile of crap that needs to be torn down.) DeCausa (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

When *this one* gets closed "prematurely", can we have another section where we discuss re-opening it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Ah yes, the old "close review review", which is just lawyer talk for "I didn't get my way and won't shut up about it". Reyk YO! 12:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
TP, I think you were completely justified in your closure. I might even go far as to suggest renaming that section to "Conduct unbecoming of multiple admins". moluɐɯ 12:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I for one agree with TParis's closure and there closure comment which was completely justified and clearly needed. –Davey2010(talk) 18:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Obviously I disagreed with the closure and reverted it, but TP was right at the time..that there were other venues that this could be discussed at. So, at his good faith request to self revert...I did. Then, when I went to check out the other venues they were closed..accept for 3RR...until I commented that editor in question should receive the block for that violation and then it was immediately closed as being stale. That is why I support the re-opening.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Should we transfer all of the !votes from the sub-thread More to the above (without doubling !votes of course)? Then again...I would hope we are counting them towards consensus even without moving them.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pretty sure this has other venues discussing this now. At this point I formally retract my support to re-open.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate tagging; edit warring; uncivil behavior[edit]

Editor blocked per AN3 report. EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On July 26, 2014, I started an article about the Broadway theatrical producer and entertainer Frankie Grande.

The article is thoroughly referenced. It has 25 footnotes, some of which have more than one ref in them. Most of the references are to national newspapers and magazines, or other recognized sources, as discussed on the Talk page and on the AFD. A few of them are based on non-controversial WP:SELFPUB sources. At this point, I believe that this editor is simply trying to make a WP:POINT and should be asked to stop tagging the article and to wait for action on the AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have left some thoughts on the editor's talkpage, prior to the latest round of tagging. At this point I have to agree that this editor should be asked to step away from this article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I will not edit article anymore until the AfD discussion is closed. It's just that simple. I cannot believe you went so far as to start a WP:ANI discussion. I really feel that was inappropriate and uncalled for. ~~JHUbal27 21:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The WP:ANI is totally called for. When I warned you that you were edit-warring and suggested you take any issues you had to the Talk Page you reverted the edit again and wrote "You take it to the Talk Page" (see here [12]). In my opinion you have been editing and tagging in an aggressive manner while lecturing very experienced editors like Ssilvers and others on how things are done on Wikipedia. Jack1956 (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I am disappointed to note that the same editor has re-added a manifestly inapplicable tag to the same article, after having promised above to stop for awhile. Perhaps someone else could counsel him to desist, as I have plainly been ineffective. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Update[edit]

JHUbal27 just restored a "conflict of interest" tag on Frankie Grande for absolutely no apparent reason. I've removed it again and asked him for an explanation as this conduct is not acceptable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

An IP deleted the article and redirected the Frankie Grande article. Can an admin investigate, please? [13] . I have reverted twice. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
It has been deleted and redirected again. Can an admin help, please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but I've got my eye on it as well. Quite a persistent little bugger isn't he.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Eight reverts in the past hour. Can someone block/fullprotect? --Carnildo (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
(ec)By my count, he's at 8RR and still willing to edit war, I'm at 2RR and I'm not. He is obviously going to be blocked and the article will return.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
User:JHUbal27 has continued to revert on August 1, so they are now blocked 48 hours per a 3RR complaint (permalink). Another admin has semiprotected Frankie Grande to stop the possible sock IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Anon on a category and simple fact deletion rampage[edit]

Non-admin closure by original editor: anon made himself look worse than he was, and is working towards consensus now. Choor monster (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

‎89.139.184.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) is removing material at a fast rate in numerous articles, mostly related to sadism/fascism/bondage in books and fiction. It began with questionable category deletion, borderline vandalism. When I reverted them, he restored them with mostly lame explanations in his edit summary. Since then, he's been deleting more things, obviously incorrect, like removing several famous works from Sadism and masochism in fiction [16]. Anyone want to deal with this? A brand-new IP, he seems to know exactly what he's doing, perhaps a banned user. Choor monster (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the equivalent of a genre warrior for literature. Several of the works were by the Marquis de Sade, from which he's removed from BDSM categories. I don't know enough about the works to know whether these are good edits. I'm not sure why no warnings were issued to the IP. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Initially I didn't, since they were borderline vandalism. Then I noticed he kept going, so I think it's a little out of hand. Anyway, all the works of the Marquis de Sade, and American Psycho and Gravity's Rainbow definitely belong there. Choor monster (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not intend any of the edits as vandalism nor am I a banned user evading the ban. In fact, I am mostly deleting edits I have myself made in the past but am now seeing as erroneous. 89.139.184.192 (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that includes your removal of Category:BDSM literature from Gravity's Rainbow, you made this edit [17], and are thus a sockpuppet of banned sockpuppet 109.186.234.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Certainly your use of Edit Summary for discussion purposes appears identical. Choor monster (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I was indeed banned once but I believe that this ban has long ago since been revoked due to the passage of time. Also, as my computer changes IPs from time to time without me asking and without my control (this is rather common I believe), I am not a sockpuppet. Anyway, take it easy. I am not here to pick up a fight. You can retain those categories if you wish so with such vehemence. I simply believe I have read somewhere that editors have a right to delete everything that they have ever wrote. I may be wrong. But, yes, that includes the edit you mentioned. 89.139.184.192 (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're wrong. Once you press SAVE you no longer own the text or whatever that you have contributed. Thomas.W talk 15:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I believe what I read was that [r]everting your own actions ("self-reverting") is counted among actions [that] are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR over at WP:RV and may have overgeneralized from here. Again, no malice whatsoever intended. 89.139.184.192 (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
That 3RR-exception has nothing whatsoever to do with what you wrote about "editors having a right to delete everything they have ever written". Thomas.W talk 16:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Once again, a little misundestanding and nothing more. There really is no reason to get worked up. 89.139.184.192 (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not getting worked up. I'm just telling you that you're wrong, and why you're wrong. Just friendly information from a fellow editor. Thomas.W talk 16:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand perfectly now and I am promising that I will not do so again. Now, I am not getting banned, am I? 89.139.184.192 (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I have no intention of getting involved in that part of the discussion... Thomas.W talk 16:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The IP address 89.139.184.192 is not banned as such. If the user wants to get un-banned, he should convey his personal information (specificially, his former user ID or IDs) to a trusted admin and see how or if he can get reinstated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
As my computer changes IPs from time to time without me asking and without my control (this is rather common I believe), the IP under which I was previously blocked for a limited amount of time is both irrelevant (being inactive and irretrievable) now and, regardless, the block was long ago since then revoked. What I am interested in is knowing I will not be blocked again for this misunderstanding. It would be nice if someone could help me at [18]. 89.139.184.192 (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Were you banned or blocked? They are not the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
It was temporary, for a month or so I think. This means blocked rather than banned, right? 89.139.184.192 (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment)@Baseball Bugs: The block log above indicates that there were 3 blocks, the most recent of which being in August 2013 for a duration of 1 month for edit warring. I don't think any circumvention or sockpuppetry is taking place, based only on this thread. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 17:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
So, would it be possible for you to help me not get blocked again over at the aforementioned link? Thanks. 89.139.184.192 (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────── (Non-administrator comment) I doubt you'll get blocked for sockpuppetry, so I wouldn't worry about it. They'll look at the block log and see you aren't evading blocks. There's no rule that says your IP isn't allowed to change. You might still get blocked for these vandalism accusations, but I only looked briefly at this, so I can't predict really what's going to happen with that. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 17:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Again, I wasn't trying to vandalize, it was all a misunderstanding. By the way, they won't attempt to block my previous IP or something, right? It's completely inactive. 89.139.184.192 (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Inactive IPs are (almost) never blocked, so you should be good. (FWIW, this is because blocks are to prevent further damage and if nothing else is being done, there's nothing to prevent.) —LucasThoms 17:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Would it be possible for you to help me avoid being blocked again in that aforementioned link? 89.139.184.192 (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Unless I'm misreading something, it doesn't look like anyone is trying to block you. Didn't see that link You explained everything here, the SPI links here, it looks to me like you'll be fine.—LucasThoms 18:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you kindly write an opposing position there? 89.139.184.192 (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Already done. You'll be fine.—LucasThoms 18:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again! 89.139.184.192 (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Update: User is now actively cooperative, so I believe there's nothing worth talking about anymore. Choor monster (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Would it be possible for someone to kindly close down now this discussion? Thanks! 89.139.184.192 (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


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

Disruption on AfD and the article that is up for AfD[edit]

Jose Cuello (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is disrupting both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Multiverse (2nd nomination) and the article in question, Miss Multiverse (one of a number of articles about a minor beauty pageant that have been repeatedly created, and equally repeatedly deleted), posting walls of text and various accusations against other editors on the AfD and repeatedly both adding non-applicable templates and blanking the article. So could we perhaps have a block, to prevent further disruption, on Jose Cuello for the duration of the AfD? Thomas.W talk 09:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Or just collapse the walls of text beyond an initial !vote. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 10:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Which would make the Afd easier to read, but wouldn't prevent disruption on the article or on the talkpages of other users. Thomas.W talk 10:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, how about mentioning your rude comments why is that not addressed here? or is that what you wish to have collapsed and removed, Some administrators should remember what it was like when they where new and also know that just because some one is new does not mean he will not eventually master the use of wikipedia Jose Cuello (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Rude comments? What rude comments? Everyone has shown remarkable restraint, considering both the disruption on the AfD and the repeated blanking of the article... Thomas.W talk 18:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Air Algérie[edit]

186.18.194.54 (talk · contribs) has become disruptive by altering Air Algérie without either providing edit summaries for their changes or replying to my comments at the article's talk. All the necessary diffs can be found here. It's been almost a day since I've requested semi-potection for the article but it hasn't been handled yet (As a sidenote, the number of requests at WP:RPP has become somewhat large). Can someone please take care of the situation? Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 02:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

RPP has been declined ([19]). Anyone here?--Jetstreamer Talk 19:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I have left a note on 186s talk page to explain that making unexplained changes could be seen as disruptive and encouraged them to use the talk page, we just need to wait and see how the IP responds. MilborneOne (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Timewave P2[edit]

User is confirmed sock and CU blocked. Sleepers also blocked. ♥ Solarra ♥TC 02:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could do with a talk page block and some rev-dels. Abusing talk page after a block for WP:SOCK. Appears to have turned their focus on me for now so at least their not knitting more socks. Amortias (T)(C) 17:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Monty has blocked him and I've rev del'd the rest.--v/r - TP 17:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
They now appear to be going through the talk pages of previously blocked socks that have not had talk page access revoked and spamming abuse. Monty845 17:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Logged in then back out appears to be one if not spotted already. Amortias (T)(C) 18:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
These are User:Evlekis. All socks now reblocked with talk page access blocked. Please block talk page access for future Evlekis socks. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppet vandalism of candle[edit]

Resolved: 7 sock accounts blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Set this up for archiving. ♥ Solarra ♥TC 02:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Over the last couple of days there has been repeated vandalism to candle by a number of editors whom I suspect are the same person. All the names have the form The***nerd where the *** is variously "leader", "sky", "underground" or "floor". Generally there are just two contributions listed, both to candle, changing some aspect of it to food. A couple of the puppet names have been warned but the putative vandal just changes name. Could an administrator investigate please? Thanks, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Martin, sure, I'll have a look. Just so you know, request for sockpuppetry investigations normally are done at WP:Sockpuppet Investigations. PhilKnight (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Ta, WP:AIV didn't seem right. I'll note the link in case it's needed again. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I've blocked the following accounts: Thefloornerd (talk · contribs), Theskynerd (talk · contribs), Theundergroundnerd (talk · contribs), Thecorenerd (talk · contribs), Thespacenerd (talk · contribs), and Theleadernerd (talk · contribs). Also blocked is Dfvdfvb (talk · contribs) who has a different type of name, but who's edits otherwise fit the pattern. PhilKnight (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Please block my IP range for 24 hours[edit]

Not really willing to go into why, but please block my ip range for 24 hours. It is nothing to do with me as such, it is just what I know about. Alternatively, if you are not willing to do so, then please keep an eye on it. Thanks. 217.43.5.168 (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@217.43.5.168: Requests such as this are generally not fulfilled without good reason, as a large range block could affect many unintended users. Would you be willing to elaborate on your concern in a more private manner? Depending on the situation there are different venues. For general matters you could send a message to the OTRS team or if it's a severe privacy matter you can contact the oversight team. Best, Mike VTalk 03:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
For anyone that would like an easy way to monitor the range, Contributions from 217.43.5.168/16 Since 2014-08-02. Also 217.43.5.168/24. (requires /16 CIDR range gadget be enabled in your user preferences) Monty845 03:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Malerooster[edit]

During an ongoing, peaceful and collaborative Good Article review by User:Moisejp of Paul Conrad, an article I nominated for GA, Malerooster (talk · contribs) showed up and began making a series of unfounded deletions, reversions, and personal attacks on Paul Conrad, Talk:Paul Conrad, and Talk:Paul Conrad/GA1.[20] [21] I've asked him to stop and he's refused. As a result, I've asked him to leave the article alone and stop disrupting the reivew. He's refused and he's strangely accused me of "bullying". I would like administrative attention in the matter so I can get back to collaborating with the nominator and working on the review. Malerooster's behavior is making it impossible to edit. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Reviewing the back and forth - Malerooster appears to be only on that article to be disruptive. At least one of his suggestions is directly opposed by the MOS. A block may be appropriate if he does not disengage.--v/r - TP 03:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Open proxy[edit]

Me - safenfree.com 23.252.109.229 (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Above user appears to be the "Maria Sharapova's fanny" user that's popped up here at least once before... - Purplewowies (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
@Purplewowies: You mean Evlekis?—LucasThoms 05:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's late, and while I could remember that the person was a sockmaster, I couldn't remember who the sockmaster was. - Purplewowies (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

uas2.com too 23.252.110.47 (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Outstanding unblock request[edit]

Would someone please accept or deny the unblock request of Joe Bodacious? Two kinds of pork (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Derogatory comments and false accussations[edit]

This is a baseless report and might result in WP:BOOMERANG if continued. John has remained reasonably restrained in the face of aggressive WP:BLP violations, attacking comments, and refactoring. The IP is strongly advised to let it go and edit and behave constructively, or they risk being blocked for disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recently while editing I have received much abuse from User talk:John from Idegon. Please look int the matter. I have posted several warnings and removed the offensive material to only face further abuse. He has also posted defamotory wording on the James Stacy:Talk page which I reverted due to his uncivil post.208.54.45.227 (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

John placed the following diatribe on my talk page: you are acting in extreme bad faith. i don't care what kind of a crusade you are on, even criminals have rights and we will not be adding a ref that's only purpose is to get the subject of the article's address into the article. It is coming back out. You made an edit i disagreed with. I removed it. justify it and come to a consensus with the other editors before replacing it. you have sent me a level 2 warning, dude that doesn't even have a talk page til I hit the damn save button here. I've made close to 30,000 edits. You are wayyyyy out of line. WP:AGF is not optional and Wikipedia is not the place for your crusades.

I have no idea what crusade he is claiming nor do I care how highly he thinks of himself. I placed a warning for this nonsense he posted above as being uncivil and derogatory. On the James Staccy talk page he posted this after my post:

Added current credible, verifible links[edit]

Many of the references have been updated with some new ones added. The sources are now current. Many of the links were dead, did not contain information cited or unreliable. JamesStacy.com did not contain any information it was supposedly citing and it is an unreliable source. Multiple publications and government sex registries demonstrate he is a convicted child molestor of a child under 14 (specifically an 11 year old girl). It is verifiable by many credible sources and he is convicted so it is suitable for the lede. There may be future attempts to remove his convictions by fans and those promoting child molestation. This type of vandalism must be guarded against. 208.54.45.227 (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No one will be entering into this discussion with you. When you start a conversation with "Do you enjoy beating your wife?", there really isn't any way for a person to dialogue with you. WP:AGF. WP:CITELEAD certainly applies. This is a short article and the lede is doing its job nicely summarizing the facts. There is no need to reference the facts there. A unique reference was added by the tactful fella above to a commercial aggregrator of sex offender data, but that is not a reliable source. Even if it was it references nothing that isn't already referenced. I think what we have here is someone trying to backdoor in some information that is there that we should not be linking to. John from Idegon (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC) I subsequently removed his offensive diatribe and warned him agin to remain civil. He replied with an accussation of disruptive editing for removing his uncivil post. See WP:Civilhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:208.54.45.227&oldid=619529222 208.54.45.227 (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If you start out by calling other peoples edits "vandalism", you should not be that amazed people do not react very positively. If you subsequently remove talk page contributions calling them "uncivil, accusatory and derogatory" you might want to be wary of a few boomerangs hovering menacingly in the vicinity. Kleuske (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry guy, but when you start out a discussion stating that you are going to presume anyone that disagrees with you is a promoter of child molestation, you are not going to get the kindest answers. You have sent me a total of three totally false warning templates and redacted my comment from the article talk page. If stating that you are going to assume anyone who changes the page away from your version must be promoting child molestation, then you have to expect most people will assume you are on a crusade. There has been no incivility whatsoever in my dialouge with him. It hasn't even been all that harsh. I really need to get to bed, so have fun guys. Happy editing. John from Idegon (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Calling John's comments uncivil and derogatory was correct. Here are his own word's: "you are acting in extreme bad faith. i don't care what kind of a crusade you are on" and "I've made close to 30,000 edits. You are wayyyyy out of line. WP:AGF is not optional and Wikipedia is not the place for your crusades." Warning an editor to refrain from uncivil behavior is policy in WP:Civil. A close look at his own edit history also shows he has used the term vandalism frequently. Also what is the purpose of bragging about his number of edits? Is he counting them for some reason. Hasty editing can be very disruprtive.

I have remained Civil[edit]

All during this time that I have faced John's abusive comments I have remained civil and grew tired off his abuse and gaming the ssytem with his cherry picking alphabet soup policies while ignoring the five basic pillars. Assume good faith and remain civil among two of the most obvious. A thorough check of his editing history and comments may be in order as well. 208.54.45.227 (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Here are Jon's comments on the Talk Page in Question:

No one will be entering into this discussion with you. When you start a conversation with "Do you enjoy beating your wife?", there really isn't any way for a person to dialogue with you. WP:AGF. WP:CITELEAD certainly applies. This is a short article and the lede is doing its job nicely summarizing the facts. There is no need to reference the facts there. A unique reference was added by the tactful fella above to a commercial aggregrator of sex offender data, but that is not a reliable source. Even if it was it references nothing that isn't already referenced. I think what we have here is someone trying to backdoor in some information that is there that we should not be linking to. John from Idegon (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow is all I can say. "No one will talk to you" Wow that's pretty presumptive! Then John states: "Do you enjoy beating your wife?" I have no clue were he is going with this. Where did that come from??? Then he ridicules me as a tactful fella here: A unique reference was added by the tactful fella above to a commercial aggregrator of sex offender data. Why not just say you believe that one of five citations I listed is not reliable. I would of had no problem with that. Then he attacks my motives with this accussation: "I think what we have here is someone trying to backdoor in some information that is there that we should not be linking to." How did he determine all of this and why such hostility and uncivil behavior? This further directed ridicule and accussation was not something for a talk page. He was directly accussing an editors motives and was very uncivil as well. And his refusal to show any concern for my concerns about his uncivil bahavior led us here. He since posted a complaint after I notified him of this one on his talk page. 208.54.45.227 (talk)

He has also reposted the above derogatory post to the articles talk page. I would apreciate if he removed the post that ridicules another editor ad make false statements concerning another editors intentions. 208.54.45.227 (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

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

James Stacy[edit]

Enough attention has been brought to this matter (see topic above). I see no reason to leave this open.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could some eyes be added to the above page and talk? Appears we have a rather "committed" editor who does not understand the process at all. Been getting templated, had my comments removed at the article talk page, etc. Will notify. Not looking for sanctions, just other voices to explain things to him. Thank you. BTW, I will be offline for a while. John from Idegon (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Additional: the ip (208.54.45.227) has posted a notice of action on my talk page saying there is a discussion about this at WP:AN. At last look there wasn't. John from Idegon (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah there it is., right above here! John from Idegon (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2014

(UTC)


I am running down here to write because I can't tell where to answer anything above. He's writing in the middle of my and the other editors comments, randomly jumping back and forth from bullets to indents and throwing in random subheaders besides. I am just gonna stay here, duck and wait for the boomerangs. John from Idegon (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Just a couple quick observations:
  1. Telling anyone who mayy oppose your viewpoint that you are going to consider them a vandal and pro-child molestation is about as univil as it gets.
  2. telling someone that has reached that level of uncivilness that they are uncivil is not uncivil.
  3. telling someone whose reactions to being told that were way out of line is not way out of line. John from Idegon (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Possible sock puppet of David Beals[edit]

I came across this today. User talk:98.221.93.96. The latest unblock request is a link that redirects to a Youtube video of a ceiling fan. I have a feeling this might be David Beals. Can someone take a look at this? The Newspaper (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

David Beals it is, and they weren't blocked (yet), but are now, with talkpage access removed and the IP hard-blocked. I assume we'll be seeing his socks this evening. Acroterion (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
When he feels like it, Beals can create socks at an amazingly rapid clip. It's often more effective to semi-protect any articles he frequents.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Violations of WP:Civility, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:BLPGroup by User:Serialjoepsycho[edit]

I am asking for an administrator to please review the following, and take remedial action against User:Serialjoepsycho for violating policy, including WP:Civility, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and Wikipedia:BLPGROUP#Legal_persons_and_groups. I closely reviewed the aforementioned policies before bringing these incidents to ANI, a decision I made with some reluctance, but I am concerned the taunting and other policy violations will not stop without administrator intervention. I apologize for the length of my report, but I had no choice considering the time involved and number of violations.

Serialjoepsycho has clearly exhibited several of the named incivility behaviors Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility. The following diffs demonstrate his taunting, false allegations of me being racist, attempts to malign me in Talk page discussions, and repeated incivility despite my asking him to please stop, even after I refrained from responding directly to him, and tried to ignore him. [22] [23]

This issue has been on-going since March 2014, beginning with our differences over the inclusion of the Islamophobia template in the Investigative Project on Terrorism stub which was little more than a WP:Coatrack for the template when I first began my attempt to expand it into an article worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Serialjoepsycho continues to bring up our past disagreements from Talk:Investigative Project on Terrorism to other discussions, and has repeatedly misrepresented my position in a taunting manner over an extended period of time - see following May 2014 diff for more taunting, and another false and misleading allegation of me having a "systemic bias". [24]. In the latter discussion, I even tried to make peace with him by apologizing for my out of character comments, but to no avail. I have tried to ignore his taunting but his behavior is so disruptive it has become a distraction to three different projects I've been editing in good faith, including User:Atsme/Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism_Foundation, The Investigative Project on Terrorism, and the ongoing discussion at Template_talk:Discrimination_sidebar.

Not only is Serialjoepsycho violating WP:Civility policy, he has violated WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and Wikipedia:BLPGROUP#Legal_persons_and_groups. I am not the only editor who has seen some of the problems with the IPT article as evidenced in the following diffs, one dating back to March 2014, [25], and another more recent: [26].

A recent ANRFC review by User:Sunrise regarding my merge-delete proposal is here [27], but it did not resolve the ongoing issues of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. The reviewer kindly suggested the following: Note that this close does not evaluate whether the articles are compliant with policy (e.g. WP:NOR); it would be a good idea for the editors here to resolve these issues. Diffs: [28]. After he archived the opinion of the reviewer a few days later, he continued with his disruptive behavior toward me. [29].

The WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR are evident throughout the IPT article, but are most evident in the grossly inaccurate infobox Serialjoepsycho edited in the sidebar. To date, the only information good faith editor's have been able to confirm about IPT using what some may consider reliable sources is that the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation was organized by Steven Emerson in 2006, and is controlled by Steven Emerson who is the Executive Director. See [30], [31], [32].