Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive865

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Joloimpat[edit]

We are having trouble reasoning with this user. He is editing disruptively in a couple of articles. Currently that means he is adding interwiki links where it has been decided that these are not helpful and we should instead be using {{ill}}. This user has been edit-warring in List of people declared venerable by Pope Francis and List of people beatified by Pope Francis and has refused to discuss. In fact this user has never, in 700 edits, ever used a Talk page or an edit summary. His talk page is littered with dablink notifications and warnings, including me asking him to use an edit summary and warning him about adding unsourced material to another Pope Francis article. Due to edits like this I believe he has begun to edit logged-out, perhaps because he's on his mobile phone, but it has the additional effect of avoiding scrutiny. 72.209.251.187 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has an active editing history since September up to two hours ago. I gave him a warning about going to ANI with, of course, no response. So here we are. Any suggestions? Elizium23 (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
He made several more edits after I posted this notice. I have tagged the article as it is in clear violation of WP:ELNO. Editor remains silent with no talk page or edit summary communication. Elizium23 (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree- I don't see where he's made an attempt to actively talk to anyone since he signed up in 2012 (although the bulk of his edits started in 2013), despite multiple posts left on his userpage and him getting pinged in the most recent discussion at Talk:List of people declared venerable by Pope Francis. I honestly doubt that any of us trying to converse with him would yield any more results, but I will try to drop a note on his talk page letting him know that some sort of discussion is required here. I can understand not really wanting to talk a whole lot on Wikipedia, but to go this long without responding to anyone is a little severe. If he ignores the post (which seems likely) then the only other way to get his attention would be a short block combined with a warning that he should not edit war and discuss things on the talk page if the edits are seen as contentious. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

User is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia[edit]

BLOCKED
Various socks indeffed.  Philg88 talk 06:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So there is this user - Troydevinny545 who was blocked for sockpuppetry. Since then he created numerous accounts to evade the block and vandalize Wikipedia. I re-opened his case and reported his new puppets. Later, an admin blocked all the accounts I reported. But that didn't stop him. After a while he created another account - User:FN712. An IP user re-opened the previous case again and added his newly created account to list of suspected sockpuppets. When I warned him about sockpuppetry he verbally attacked me. My question is there any way to stop this user from creating multiple accounts?. He might never stop and will create tons of accounts to vandalize Wikipedia. I really don't know the motivation behind any of this.--Chamith (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S.- I found this edit on another account of his. This user is a serious threat to Wikipedia.--Chamith (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:RBI ask for a checkuser. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Let's just drop a CBAN on them. It's obvious they don't have the competence to edit here. No, I'm not suggesting a ban for competence (although I'm sure there have been examples of this in the past) but persistent socking, repeated personal attacks, general disruption and vandalism should be more than enough to earn a ban. 218.106.157.150 (talk) 02:17, 5 December 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.

Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia[edit]

User:Yogisenact is trying to push a POV edit at Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia against a long-standing consensus. He is avoiding discussion on the Talk Page. This article is subject to discretionary admin action per WP:ARBMAC. He has reverted here and here. The Talk Page discussion is here. I have warned him on his Talk Page here. --Taivo (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

They seem to have stopped for the time being (despite their declaration at your talk page).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Bloom6132[edit]

Bloom6132 (talk · contribs) (I am not notifying him on his talk page, for reasons you will see shortly) was last blocked for aggression/personal attacks (in discussions relating to DYK and the WikiCup) in October 2014 by Fram (talk · contribs). Since then, his fratching/aggression on topics relating to the WikiCup and DYK have continued. For some examples from the last few days, see his general battleground mentality at RfA (the insistence that he's the real victim when he is told that his conduct is out of order is a common trait), refusal to assume good faith, endless wikilawyering (see this, for instance, where he defends his ludicrous claim that ThaddeusB had acted in violation of NLT). Eventually, I closed the discussion where most of this was going on on "more heat than light" grounds. He responded by turning up at my talk page, and, among other things, apparently accusing Adam Cuerden of fascism. I gave a final warning (several people have told him his conduct is inappropriate in the last week alone), in response to which he posted a message at the top of his talk page saying that I was "banned" from leaving messages there, due to my supposed lies and harassment. I am of the view that Bloom's conduct, if anything, has gotten worse since he previous block, and that he should be blocked again. However, I am not going to do it myself, as he has made clear that even my posting on his talk page "will be imputed as harassment and dealt with accordingly" (whatever that means) and because he will insist that I am "involved"- if he means that I've been putting up with this and/or have been the target of his ire for months, he is correct. J Milburn (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree with J. Milburn's assessment of the situation. The situation at the WikiCup talk page has been quite heated, but Bloom's gone a bit too far. Will block if consensus is for it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This editor looks like the whole package of problems. Support long block. SPACKlick (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Bloom6132 notified here The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support block This will be imputed as harassment and dealt with accordingly feels like its designed to have a chilling effect either at an individual or a wider range of editors. Personal attacks and accusations of breeching NLT seem to be at best unconstructive and at worst intentionally disruptive. Amortias (T)(C) 13:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • You've been here for six months, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know what an WP:IBAN is. It's a two-way street BTW, so I'm not giving a "chilling effect either at an individual or a wider range of editors" as you had implicitly accused me of doing. For example, the first person banned on my TP hasn't talked to me since October 22, and neither have I. Unfortunately, this IBAN had to be violated just 1h38m after I issued it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Except, Bloom, that you can't unilaterally "issue" interaction bans. Take another look at the banning policy. "Bans are a possible outcome of dispute resolution. They may be imposed by community consensus, by the Arbitration Committee or, in certain topic areas, by administrators." There is no interaction ban, here- there is you telling me that I'm not welcome on your talk page. J Milburn (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I am aware of what an WP:IBAN is and aware of how it works. I am also aware that you can request users not to post on your talk page. Nowhere have I implicitley accused you of anthing (and if I gave that impression it was in error) I gave my opinion on the matter as how the statements read to me. Could you provide an answer or explanation of the other points metioned above such as the accusation of fascism. Amortias (T)(C) 14:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, indeed I can. First off, calling for more transparency and openness in the WikiCup is not a refusal to assume good faith. If anything, I think we (except for Milburn) can all agree that having a more transparent and fair competition is something we should all strive for. Unfortunately, not only does Milburn not agree with me on that, it can be said that he's failed to assume the assumption of good faith. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
With regards to the comment pipelinked to fascism, what do you call someone who, as I put it, wants to "eliminate anyone who holds a different view to yours". Adam Cuerden implicitly called for Milburn to ban me from the Cup. This comes from the same person who went on a neurotic tirade against a fellow Cup competitor who dared to suggest that the points awarded for featured pictures be reduced. Coupled with personal attacks both behind my back and one insulting both me and Milburn, I can't think of another term to describe such behaviour. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you and Adam Cuerden should be blocked for personal attacks, calling people an "a**" is unacceptable. --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how I personally attacked Adam Cuerden. I never called him a fascist, and describing his actions as a desire to "eliminate anyone who holds a different view to yours" is not a personal attack – it's the truth. I definitely don't see eye to eye with either Milburn or Nergaal, and yet he's managed to attack all three of us with vile vitriol. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
You should be blocked not because of your behavior with AC, but for other reasons stated above. --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
You still haven't responded to the evidence I gave about the obvious baiting from you and others supporting Czar. Care to explain? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't bait, and I did not intend to. AGF. I don't know what you expect me to "explain". --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with this 100%. He has a battleground mentality as you can see in the discussions here. We (Me, Ritchie333, FreeRangeFrog, Secret, and others) were trying to have a civilized discussion, while Bloom was throwing accusations of "bagdering" and "abuse" at us. We were calm while he was getting worked up. --AmaryllisGardener talk 13:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course you were all "calm" when implicitly impugning my integrity, accusing me of "twist[ing] things around", and calling me the reason "why RfA is failing" (same diff). And it's not just me, it's the same treatment you guys gave to anyone who opposed. Chris troutman was also blamed for being "reason why RFA is broken", as well as for stack voting. Even supporters of Czar were reminded you guys not to corner those who voted to oppose. And yet you call this a "civilized discussion". More like baiting. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Those diffs don't make you look better Bloom, they show you over-reacting to civil discourse. SPACKlick (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, "civil discourse" made hand-in-hand with passive-aggressive behavior. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support block It's a shame, as I have evidence (from his GA and DYK contributions) that he's a good editor, but he hasn't assumed as much good faith as I would have liked in discussions, his beef with Czar over the WikiCup sounds like a grudge (and when I said I agreed I thought the WikiCup had problems it was ignored), and his talk page brings to mind WP:OWB #48 : "People who put lists of users they don't like on their user pages won't be around for long" I've got a nasty feeling as soon as he joins this thread he's going to run out of WP:ROPE, which is a shame. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
You called it. It is a shame. SPACKlick (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support block Whilst I agree with Richie333 that his content work is generally a positive, Bloom6132 really doesn't seem capable of conforming to community standards of behaviour - his inability to drop the stick in disputes and his apparent blindness to his own personal attacks on other editors (cf. this unblock appeal and my response) seems to generate conflict whenever he's required to interact with others. I don't see that positive content contributions balance out this kind of confrontational editing. (Caveat: it should be noted that I too am "banned" from Bloom6123's talkpage, for making attempts ([1],[2]) to curb his behaviour.) Yunshui  14:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
"For making attempts to curb his behaviour" – first off, enough with the patronizing paternalistic tone. Secondly, you were banned for gravedancing during and after my block and rubbing it into my face. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "you were banned for gravedancing during and after my block and rubbing it into my face" Banned? Gravedancing? Rubbing it into my face? What? Not what I'm seeing. --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "What? Not what I'm seeing" – says the person who has been baiting me non-stop over the past 2 days. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I apologise if you dislike my tone; that's simply how I talk (or write, at least). Like Amaryllis, I too failed to see any gravedancing or face-rubbing in those two messages, and I gave them extensive consideration after you posted your "ban" notice. However, I concluded that they read as I had intended them: one, an attempt to explain why your unblock appeal did not meet the requirements at WP:GAB and one to alert you to the fact that you were repeating the same behaviour that led to your block. At no point did I intend to demonstrate any levity over the fact that you had been blocked, but despite the fact that I do not consider the motives behind it valid, you'll note that I have complied with your talkpage notice ever since. Yunshui  14:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Apology not accepted. I know you're probably peeved at how I responded to your so-called "explanations". You may disguise it well, but the way you write to me (i.e. treating me like your subordinate as opposed to your equal) reveals how your support for blocking me is purely vindicatory. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I suspected that you (and possibly others) might see it that way, which is why I added the caveat to my original statement so that others could assess my actions as well as yours. However, although I am basing my support for blocking on my experiences with you in the past, I genuiniely believe, after reflecting on those experiences and looking at your interactions with others, that blocking you would in fact be in the best interests of the project. So far, you've said nothing that would convince me otherwise. I am sorry that you feel unable to accept my apology. Yunshui  15:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
"I am basing my support for blocking on my experiences with you in the past" – that's all we needed to hear. Your use of "However" and "although" together reveal it all. Move to strike out Yunshui's "support block" vote from the discussion – it's made in violation of WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE in order to retaliate against my previous interactions with him and to punish me for it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Strongly oppose striking Yunshui's support. I still see nothing wrong with what he said, and you keep overreacting. --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this isn't up for voting, especially not from you. Until you address the damning evidence against you and Czar's support brigade of baiting voters who oppose, you should be viewed as a biased baiter. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Here's the situation, Bloom. Two admins are considering blocking you (though I suspect Yunshui won't because he has declined a previous unblock request and could be considered involved). You have not edited any articles for a week, preferring to focus on disputes, which makes me question if you've actually been here to write an encyclopedia for that time. You can accept that things have got out of hand and a little heated, agree to disagree, and go back to article work with the dramah level reduced. That's my preferred option. Or, you can wind a few more admins up, get blocked, and watch your talk page fill up with declined unblock requests. I've seen how these things go - if a general consensus amongst admins is that you should be blocked, it is very difficult to extract yourself from the situation. I'm not saying that's good or bad, more that it's a fact of wikilife. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

─────────────────────────"You can accept that things have got out of hand and a little heated, agree to disagree, and go back to article work with the dramah level reduced" – OK, I accept that completely. I'll disenfranchise myself and completely stay off RFA, for a time mutually agreed upon with the community. I will also not comment about "delayed updates" on the Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring page, except for a simple vote in favour of the proposal I made (or a modified form of it). Finally, I will have removed the talkpage ban I issued on J Milburn as a gesture of good faith. But if an admin still proceeds with a block, then I will rescind all these concessions. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Any other concessions you'd like me to make (within reason, and from anyone not involved)? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Nope, that sounds good. If you want an article to look at, personally I'd quite like Canterbury Cathedral to have some spit and polish. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal As their post above a three month self imposed ban on the above sections. Three months appears reasonable (to me) due to the low throughput of RFA's. As an adendum to the above I would be willing to (with the communities backing) to have Bloom6132 pass any issues they see with an RFA directly to my talkpage. I will then evaluate and discuss these with Bloom6132 and if in agreement raise them at he RFA myself (I dont believe this will be in breech of the self imposed ban as I am aware of other situations where users have been told to raise queries through another user). Amortias (T)(C) 16:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I said I would not comment on the Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring page with regards to "delayed updates". Any other matters such as voting on next year's rules are outside the scope of that promise. And since you actively voted in favour of my block, I will not deem you a neutral third-party with regards to RFA discussions. I'd prefer someone who I've had more experience working with and gotten along well with over the years, and a fellow content creator like Go Phightins! or Crisco 1492 (provided that either of them don't mind). —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
That seems reasonable to me. I put myself forward as an offer as part of the original proposal as it seemed an appropriate way of allowing you to express your concerns but can understand if their is another alternative that you would prefer.Amortias (T)(C) 16:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support Amortia's proposal, it'd be a shame to lose a good contributor like Bloom, despite his behaviour. So, I think this would be good, this would prevent most trouble, and blocks aren't intended as punishment. Sadly, I must support a block. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I like Amortias' proposal, as for Bloom's request for another point of contact. Your initial offer was for complete abstinence, Amortias is offering to be there for important things which need to be dealt with in that three months. Notice that you can still just entirely abstain for three months, there's no obligation to engage in that part of the deal. SPACKlick (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I take exception to your ES accusing me of "biting the hand that's kind". I'm offering a viable alternative, so please assume some good faith if that's what you expect of me. And while you're at it, why don't you do something productive and produce content like I do rather than sit at ANI demanding "long blocks" for those who actually work towards making WP what it is today. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
You're right to take exception and I unreservedly apologise (explanation but not an excuse. I opened the page, got heated, wrote a long snarky rant and put that as the edit summary. I stepped away, thought better of it, re-wrote the post and forgot to change the edit summary) That said, you then attacking me for my contribution pattern while spectacularly failing to realise that part of what you're "Making WP" is an uncomfortable place for other editors to work is exactly the sort of behaviour I saw that made me suggest a long block. I stand by the suggestion that you be blocked. I would be open to it being limited to RFA's and one narrowly construed topic ban (WikiCup delays) as you do good editing, however I wouldn't be hard to convince that it should be broader because of the way you interact with other editors. And just before you bring up Punative the reasons I suggest a block fall uner reasons 2 and 3 or preventative blocks to stop disruptive behaviour and encourage a more congenial style. SPACKlick (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Apology accepted. I'm, however, confused by your saying that you "like Amortias' proposal", but that you "stand by the suggestion that [I] be blocked". You can't have it both ways. Either you support blocking me and the proposal is irrevocably off the table, or I remain unblocked but adhere to the two topic bans and keep Milburn off my TP ban list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I thought the ban from posting at RFA except through one nominated editor would be a block. I would note, you're still acting like you're dictating terms here, I see it more as you trying to convince consensus for your proposal over other proposals. Also on the TP Ban thing, while you're free to request editors not post on your page, that's not a ban, it's a request. Unnecessary violation of that request could be harassing behaviour but posting some warnings and notices wouldn't be the sort of thing the community would take action against in the same way they would with say an IBan. SPACKlick (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not trying to dictate terms, and I'm sorry if I give you (or anyone else) the impression that I am. I only think that it's fair that if I were to adhere to the three conditions in Amortias' proposal (which would address all the root causes of this discussion), then I should not be blocked. If I am blocked, then I should be able to come back with a clean slate. In response to your TP ban concern, I've changed the wording to "blacklisted", not banned. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose block – Blocks are not punitive, and should be utilized only after every other avenue is pursued. There is another proposal on the proverbial table above that should be tried before a block. I have found Bloom to be someone who not only can, but does make strong content contributions to the encyclopedia on a regular basis. While this does not excuse potentially detrimental behavior, it does mean we as a community should make an effort to try alternate avenues before a "block because it's easier" course. Go Phightins! 16:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Block and work to find a way forward for Bloom6132. I'd like to see a couple of things though - firstly, obviously, that he drop the battlefield mentality and move on from this year's WikiCup, it's in the past and it's not worth getting blocked over and wrecking other bits of the project over. I would, however, strongly implore the organisers of next year's WikiCup to take onboard the complaint Bloom has raised and ensure similar issues are mitigated against in future, so something productive comes from this complete disaster area. Nick (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral - but agree with Nick, with however, strongly implore the organisers of next year's WikiCup to take on-board the complaint that has been raised all over the page here and insure similar issues are mitigated against in future, so something productive comes from this complete disaster area.- as he said above. Looks like strong words were flying around all over the place, maybe some neutral supervisors should participate next time? Looks like many harsh words were said on both parts, if blocks start to fall, they might be several that will be blocked. Hafspajen (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly agree with Hafspajen. Like I said previously, it takes two to start a fight. So if blocks are to be imposed, the other side must bear their share of responsibility for baiting, provocation and grossly assuming bad faith on me. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Amortias's proposal, including the part where Bloom6132 brings RFA issues to Amortias's talk page. Looks a reasonable compromise to me, it's worth a shot. --Richard Yin (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd be more in favour of Amortias's proposal if this thread wasn't full of more of the same nonsense from Bloom (some of the comments display a mind-boggling lack of understanding- I'm not going to quote, just look up). If we are going to go ahead with a "three-month-behave-or-else" proposal, then we would need a ban from RfAs, a ban from anything WikiCup-related and a ban from listing users who are "banned" from his talk page, with the explicit understanding that anymore of this kind of behaviour result in a block. That seems quite reasonable to me, especially given the large number of people who are all for a block outright. (As I side note, can I express my unhappiness with Bloom's claim that if he is blocked, he will "reinstate" my "ban" on posting on his talk page. He is simply ignoring anything resembling the banning policy, and his comments about me and Yunshui need to be removed from his talk page immediately, whether or not he likes it.) J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed, it requires co-operation from Bloom, the "If I'm blocked, then everything I have promised is void" behavior's not helping, and telling me that I can't comment on things because I'm supposedly under scrutiny by him isn't either. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @J Milburn – You have no right to dictate what I can do with my talkpage. It is, after all, my own talkpage, not yours. I retain the right to control every part of my own account and my own userpages, so unless you plan to take the unprecedented step of taking that right away altogether as part of the "compromise", I suggest you drop that unreasonable demand altogether. It doesn't bode well with the sprit of reconciliation started with Amortias' proposal. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Bloom, wrong again. Pages in a particular userspace "are not owned by the user". There is nothing in any policy or guideline that allows you "to dictate what [you] can do with [your] talkpage", nor anything that allows you to "ban" users from your talk page. I am not taking any "unprecedented step" in saying that you're wrong, I am just telling you what the Wikipedia policy on the matter is. J Milburn (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • You clearly haven't read WP:NOBAN – "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request". It is well within my jurisdiction to request certain individuals not to edit my talkpage. You have no right to ban me from requesting people not to edit my talkpage. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a shame that you cherrypick policies just to fit your argument. The comments you made above (i.e. "I've been putting up with this", "more of the same nonsense from Bloom", and "whether or not he likes it") clearly demonstrate that you are pursuing my blocking purely out of vengeance, made in violation of WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE in order to retaliate against my previous interactions with you and to punish me for it. If you were genuinely for a preventative block, you'd accept my major concessions, as voluntarily disenfranchising myself is not something I take lightly at all. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • You can request whatever you like to whoever you like. Depending on the request, they may or may not go ahead and do what you've asked. This is as true on Wikipedia as anywhere else. What I object to (among other things...) is you claiming that you have the right to "ban" people from your talk page, and especially listing people who are "banned" from your talk page for all to see. Concerning your second comment- the thought of you accusing someone of cherrypicking policies is hilarious. I see no reason to believe that you have any intention of behaving reasonably; as I've said (indeed, as you quoted), this thread is full of more of the same from you. If you want me to believe that you intend to change your ways, start right now. Drop the accusations. Stop playing the victim. Work on the assumption that other people are here/commenting for legitimate reasons. Stop being so confrontational. If you can't manage that, you seriously have to consider whether this is the project for you. J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No matter how you try to spin it, banning people from my talkpage has the same effect as requesting people not to post. Therefore, they are essentially the same. I see no problem in doing that, as it ensures no one will claim that they "didn't know" they weren't welcome on my TP. I'm sorry if my blunt and direct nature annoys you, but that's the culture I was raised in, and I'm afraid you'll just have to accept that. Addressing your second reply – since you're so keen on punishing me (in direct contravention of WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE), I'll offer to indefinitely disenfranchise myself by never commenting on RFA again. Ever, even through raising concerns by a third party. I, however, will not accept your plan to ban me from the WikiCup – I haven't violated a single rule in my two years of participation, so your proposal is heavy handed and arbitrary to say the least. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Banning" means something very particular on Wikipedia; see WP:BAN. Someone you have asked not to post on your talk page is not "banned" from posting on your talk page. If you think they are, you are mistaken. There really isn't anything to debate in that regard- if you still do not understand this, just take my word for it. Whether you "see" a problem with listing users on your talk page, there is a problem- your refusal to understand that your behaviour is inappropriate and your refusal to change it (and I really don't care what kind of culture you were raised in- inappropriate behaviour is inappropriate behaviour, and I am not going to "just accept" inappropriate behaviour) is precisely why I feel you should be blocked, and precisely why a block of you would not be "punitive" (no matter how many times claim otherwise). I have not suggested that you have violated any WikiCup rules- I am talking about Wikipedia's rules. Your conduct has resulted in an awful lot of unhappiness at the WikiCup, you have wasted a lot of people's time, and eaten up a lot of people's goodwill. This is why I don't want you anywhere near it, even if you're still going to be on Wikipedia, and this is why my desire to be rid of you is neither heavy-handed nor "arbitrary". J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Being blunt and direct with regards to listing users on my talk page is hardly "inappropriate behaviour" – it's quite simple, if you don't want to be on that list, don't give me a reason to put you on there in the first place. And "inappropriate behaviour" has nothing to do with the culture I was raised in – stop lumping them together as they are two distinct and separate issues. Being blunt and direct is part of my culture. Inappropriate behaviour isn't. So if you're not going to accept my blunt and direct nature, you're essentially condemning me not for what I do, you're condemning me for what I am. All this coming from the same person who started this thread because he thought I was not "assuming good faith", who then proceeds to say, "I see no reason to believe that you have any intention of behaving reasonably". Which makes me wonder – where's your good faith? —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I do not object to your being direct (in fact, I generally prefer people to be direct), but some of what you call direct, I call inappropriate. (You're the one who raised your upbringing, which is and was irrelevant, so please do try to throw it back in my face. On a similar note, I've no interest in getting into arguments about what you do vs who you are.) I trusted that you were acting in good faith for months, but there's only so far I can go. And, to repeat myself once again, I would be more willing to assume that you have an intention of behaving in a reasonable way if you started now. You are still arguing the toss, still trying to turn conversations around to make yourself look like a victim and still treating Wikipedia like a battleground. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
@J Milburn: could you post diffs or point us to diffs of anything in particular Bloom has done at WikiCup. Just for clarity. SPACKlick (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
All of the diffs in my original post were at least somewhat WikiCup related. The opposition to Czar at Rfa was due to Bloom's belief that Czar acted inappropriately in the WikiCup, many of my quotes were from this thread on a WikiCup talk page and comments from after this thread was closed (my talk page and Bloom's) concerned the WikiCup. J Milburn (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support outright block - user's combative posts here and at WikiCup, and placing a banner on their talk page instructing other editors that they are "banned" from posting there, are clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Wikipedia is not about winning; if the user is here to build an encyclopedia, their apparent history of quality editing will serve them well in a block appeal. Ivanvector (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Block - I was pretty disappointed at his childish tantrum at Czar's RFA. He needs to take it easy with his side Wiki-Cup stuff... Sergecross73 msg me 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Block Weakly, and sadly. His behavior has stayed the same, and after more thought, a block may be in everyone's best interests. :( Regards, --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Block In my opinion, the editor in question either is very likely trolling. We appreciate the contribs, but at this point - the editor does not appear to be editing to the benefit of this collaborative project. If you can't play well with others - you're going to have a bad time here. SQLQuery me! 07:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we all wind this down please?

First of all, WP:WIKICUP says "The purpose of the Cup is to encourage content improvement and make editing on Wikipedia more fun." This does not seem like "fun" to me. Perhaps J. Milburn could disengage, "unclose" the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Scoring#adding_rule and let the other two judges address the scoring issue? I see that judge Miyagawa asked a reasonable question here [3] but the discussion was overwhelmed with all the back and forth.

Secondly, Czar's going to be an admin in a couple days (current tally 78/3/3) and a couple months from now no one is going to care about a few opposes on their Rfa.

Bloom has a common but significant misunderstanding about WP:OWNTALK -- while "NE Ent's talk page" seems to imply it's mine, it's not, of course, the page is WMF's and the content is CC-SA licensed. User talk pages are community pages for leaving messages to users. While normally requests not to post on a user's page are honored under courtesy, they should just be made in normal dialog. The "declaration" about Yunshui atop the page falls within the spirit, if not the letter of, prohibited conduct under WP:ATTACK and I hope Bloom will remove it soon. NE Ent 23:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"This does not seem like "fun" to me." Agreed, and this is why I don't think Bloom should be involved in the Cup. As I said in my closure of the discussion in question, if someone else wants to pursue a rule change in the spirit of Bloom's proposal, I have no objection to that, but there's very little chance that that discussion will lead to anything productive. J Milburn (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
And, for what it's worth, I think you've missed the point. This isn't so much about some comments on an RfA, or a particular WikiCup thread, it's about a continuing pattern of toxic conduct and a continued denial of wrongdoing. J Milburn (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support block I never heard of Bloom6132 before yesterday, but have now had the opportunity/obligation to read dozens of their comments, first at the Czar RFA, and now here. This editor is astonishingly combative about the most trivial of matters. There is no culture on Earth where this kind of behavior is considered appropriate or justified. This is a collaborative project to build a free encyclopedia. It is not a brutal, take-no-prisoners competition to win digital virtual "Wikicups" consisting of just a handful of electrons. Bloom seems to be out of control, and needs a "time out" to work on regaining appropriate human self-control. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree with Cullen328 on each of his points, but what exactly are we talking about here? Short term, long term, indefinite? Because if we're talking about indefinite, I'm not sure that's warranted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I am not arguing for an indefinite block at this time, NinjaRobotPirate, and would leave the duration in the hands of an experienced, uninvolved administrator. The last block was 24 hours so at least 48 hours, but am not sure that is enough time for the editor to disengage and calm down. Perhaps 24 hours for every tendentious, repetitive, aggressive post in this thread. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
        • A short block like that would seem alright, but I'm not sure that it's even necessary any more – unless he's actively continuing to disrupt conversations through confrontational/insulting language. Standard, progressive blocks seem reasonable. I hope we don't end up indefinitely blocking him. I never heard of him before his posts to ANI (and their tone greatly annoyed me), but I don't think we're anywhere near Niemti-levels of disruption/personal attacks... yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Perhaps 24 hours for every tendentious, repetitive, aggressive post in this thread. – clearly shows your support for a block is made solely for punitive and vindicatory reasons. Move to strike out Cullen328's "support block" vote from the discussion – it's made in violation of WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE in order to retaliate and punish. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
My suggestion was made in the hope that such a remedy might serve to "deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior" which you seem to be continuing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Engaging in genuine discussion is most definitely not "disruptive behavior" as you grossly misrepresent it to be. Dishing out 24 hour blocks for every post I make here demonstrates you are trying to shut down dialogue, and your "suggestion" is clearly punitive in nature (whether you want to admit it or not). If you were genuinely interested in a "remedy", you'd have suggested something constructive (like Amortias' proposal above) or a block that is completely unrelated to the number of edits I make. Mind you, I've already stopped editing on RFA, the WikiCup scoring talkpage and have taken down my blacklist. So your assertion that "disruptive behavior" is continuing from me is more like a fantasy to say the least. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose block : I think he should not be blocked, diffs only suggest that he is on the border, not that he violated the rules. He needs to be reformed and humbled. Per Go! Phigtins, we must remember that he is useful. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    • {{This is a collaborative project...}} True, but the WikiCup is a competition, and it is the human condition that tempers flare during competitive events. In the real world cup, Andrés Escobar was reportedly murdered as a result of competition; so a little perspective is in order. Although Bloom's conduct hasn't been stellar the reaction to the criticism hasn't helped; disengagement, especially between Bloom and J. Milburn should be the goal, not what appears to bordering on a punitive block. Bloom is an editor with 14,000 64% mainspace edits; while that in no way exempts him from expected standards of conduct, it should inform our thought process on the best possible way to deescalate the conflict. NE Ent 04:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I have very little interest in having further interaction with Bloom if I can easily avoid it, but there is no way that this is some personal dislike between the two of us. The RfA, the previous block and the other people he's lashed out at over the WikiCup (in this thread, I've mentioned Adam Cuerden and ThaddeusB, but there are others) show that this is his go-to mode of interaction. J Milburn (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The root cause of this entire fiasco boils down to the fact that I am calling for a more fair and more transparent WikiCup competition (namely, the institution of a rule against "delayed updates"). Milburn, Adam Cuerden and ThaddeusB (among others) are totally against this much-needed reform. However, if I'm so "wrong" (or if consensus is completely against me), then why have Snowmanradio and Nick (in his above post) express support for my proposal, which actually stems from Sasata's call for the rule back in October 2012. Two years, more than two years have past, and yet our pleas for this rule have gone unheeded and have been ignored outright. It's peculiar how those who support my proposal are all neutral third parties who don't participate in the Cup, while those who are so adamantly opposed to reform are stakeholders who participate in this comp on a yearly basis. Now, according to Milburn, demanding a more fair and more transparent competition (which is entirely reasonable) is now falsely portrayed as a failure to assume good faith. Milburn – you can continue your "Blame Bloom" campaign and claim I'm at fault for everything all you want, but it takes two to start a fight. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • If you actually look at the facts (as oppose to emotionally-charged calls by Milburn calling for my block), it's fairly apparent and obvious that I have absolutely no incentive whatsoever to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. My sole intention is to improve Wikipedia; in this case, by making the WikiCup more fair and transparent. Think about it – if I was genuinely acting in bad faith, why on earth would I call for a rule that puts me at a disadvantage as well. I don't benefit one bit from having this rule in place; in fact, introducing it would be detrimental to me as it's one less "tactic" I can use. But I believe in honesty and integrity; unfortunately, the way my actions and intentions have been misconstrued and distorted in every possible manner are the exact opposite of that. If Milburn didn't hold such a big WP:GRUDGE against me (no matter how many times he claims otherwise), he would have accept Amortias' proposal of in which I make three generous concessions that cover all the root causes of this discussion. I'm giving up integral rights here, and if that's not good enough for Milburn, I honestly don't know what will satisfy him. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
No Bloom, it's not obvious at all. You respond to the slightest question or criticism with aggression, it smacks of battle ground to me. The problem has been explained several times and you still don't seem to have cottoned on. Try re-reading this discussion as if it's about an editor you don't know it might help overcome the understanding issue. SPACKlick (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the talkpage blacklist naming Yunshui – there is no more blacklist on my talkpage. But if I'm ultimately blocked, I will most definitely reinstate it (with more names of course). I've accepted the three conditions and went above and beyond what I had initially promised. The ball's in your court now – I either remain unblocked while adhering to those three sanctions, or block me and the deal is irrevocably off the table. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
In response to a suggestion I made [4], Bloom has also indicated [5] they'll be finishing up a DYK and then taking three weeks off. NE Ent 13:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
[JM here, I can confirm later if necessary.] Bloom, at no point have I suggested that you should be blocked because you support changing a rule in the WikiCup. In fact, as you know, I have repeatedly said that such a rule could potentially be useful, I just struggle to see quite what it would look like (and I have also said that I have no objection to another user opening up a new discussion/making a proposal concerning said rule). To suggest that I am after you because you're some kind of WikiCup critic is disingenuous. Just as this discussion is not about your upbringing, it's not actually about a WikiCup rule- it's about your combative and aggressive attitude. I have repeatedly explained that you are wrong to say that I am calling for a punitive block, and now that accusation seems to have turned into a claim that I have some kind of grudge, or that my request is "emotionally charged" (presumably meaning "irrational"). I agree that you have no good reason to be combative; my claim (which I have defended by pointing to diffs) is that you are overly combative (this whole "accept my terms or the deals off, and a load of new people are blacklisted from my talk page" stuff is yet another example). 143.117.85.213 (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Not sure whether I should even be interacting with an IP claiming to be Milburn. But judging from the same consistently patronizing tone telling me that "you are wrong", this seems to pass the WP:DUCKTEST. Once again, you misconstrue my words and intentions (not surprising though). I never said "accept my terms or the deals off" – don't put words into my mouth, that's simply unfair. Fact of the matter is you guys have a choice. Two options. I never said "you must pick option A, or else …" But each choice has its own consequences, and its up to the closing admin what that will be. I will accept either punishment, but I will certainly not accept both. Either a block or the 3 topic bans/conditions achieve the WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE. But calling for both is punitive and vindicatory, and only serves the purpose of fulfilling – as you had unintentionally revealed above – "[your] desire to be rid of [me]". —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I endorse what User:NE Ent has said above, let us make sure that Bloom6132 has really got some reasons and the statements of the IP above proves him/herself to be a Wikipedia:DUCK. We can move further, Czar is probably going to become an admin and as for wikicup, it can be sorted without remembering about any of these conflicts. I would have originally supported the block for Bloom6132 if he was causing any kind of error on main pages or talk pages, but he is not doing so. I will refrain from talking about any other sides as our topic is Bloom6132 only. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:DUCK is irrelevant; the IP said he's JM. Bloom continues to be combative in their posts here, saying they'll remove the battleground-y notice from their talkpage only if there is no block, but promises to put it back otherwise. That's not how it works here - they're defending their treating of the talk pages as battlegrounds and declaring that they intend to continue - that is not acceptable. There is no deal to be made here; the deal is: abide by community standards or be blocked. Reaffirming support for an outright block per WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE #2 and #3. No conduct issues have been resolved here. Ivanvector (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
JM needs to confirm that he is that IP, before anyone makes any assumptions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
"the IP said he's JM" – yeah, just like many people will say they aren't engaged in sock puppetry even when they are. Point is, how do you know for sure – are you going to take a person's word as being the truth just because they said it is? Addressing your quote, "There is no deal to be made here" – you clearly didn't read my statement. I'm not proposing a deal. It's a choice that the closing admin will make, and – like everything else in life – there will be consequences for each of those choices. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@IP who claims to be Milburn – "[A]t no point have I suggested that you should be blocked because you support changing a rule" – no, but you have equated my legitimate request for reform with refusing to assume good faith (a blockable offence). Hence, you are essentially calling for me to be blocked because I demand fairness and transparency (no matter how many times claim otherwise), which you are only now jumping on the bandwagon expressing lukewarm open-mindedness to the idea of having a rule that enshrines both. Delaying updates in order to deceitfully hiding points from other competitors is gaming/abusing the system. I'm simply calling a spade a spade, and I never implicated anyone in particular as being guilty of such malpractice. So your claim that I am "overly combative" is puzzling – to whom am I being overly combative there with that statement? Is demanding fairness and transparency really too much to ask for? —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Bloom a legitimate request acting in good faith wouldn't imply other users were gaming the system it would say that users were disadvantaged by the lack of information without implying people were doing it deliberately. It wouldn't call them or their actions deceitful. They wouldn;t imply, as you did further up the thread, that anyone who disagree supports unfairness, and has no integrity. It's not the rule you asked for that lacked good faith it was the way you asked. SPACKlick (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
SPACKlick – My comment implied any hypothetical competitor who engaged in behaviour such as delaying updates in order to hide points would be gaming the system. Calling these actions anything but deceitful would be utterly dishonest on my part (and I'm not the kind of person who tells lies – I say it as it is). A "lack of information" is therefore irrelevant if hiding points from other competitors is done deliberately. There's no lack of good faith in the way I asked, because there is no good faith to be assumed in such a hypothetical situation. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The anonymous poster claiming to be me was me. I stand by what I said. I consider my characterisation of Bloom as offering an "accept my terms or the deal[']s off" proposal as perfectly reasonable- to quote Bloom himself: "I either remain unblocked while adhering to those three sanctions, or block me and the deal is irrevocably off the table". J Milburn (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal[edit]

  • Question - Right now it looks like there is enough of a consensus to block, but I am wondering if the people who gave their opinions earlier think that a topic ban will be more effective in preventing further disputes/troublesome behaviour. Tagging Ritchie333, Cullen328, AmaryllisGardener, Ivanvector, Sergecross73, and Yunshui. I should note that, if a block were to be implemented, it would be first and foremost to prevent further disruption. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Disrupting what? Bloom's current activity Special:Contributions/Bloom6132 mostly consists of editing What Child Is This and some DYK stuff. They've been asked to disengage on the Wikucup stuff and they have. NE Ent 12:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • A topic ban from what, exactly? This is about the user's combative attitude everywhere they go on the project, here, at WikiCup, and especially on their own talk page. Behaviour for which they were recently blocked, and which they resumed when the block expired. No, I don't think a topic ban is preferable in this case. In the discussion above, I don't see a user who's understanding that their actions are viewed unacceptable by the community and agrees to change for the better, I see a user who's trying to bargain to avoid a block. Furthermore, the previous block didn't apparently encourage the user to check their attitude at the login screen, thus I see no reason at all to believe the user's simply going to step away from it now. I once again reaffirm support for a full block, which prevents the user's disruption from continuing, and which they can appeal by convincing an administrator that they genuinely understand the reason for the block and understand that they cannot continue that behaviour. Ivanvector (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • After much thought, I must oppose this also, it seems that Bloom has problems with his attitude wherever he goes. --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Ivanvector describes the situation well. I agree completely. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This is another example of his inappropriate behaviour, assuming bad faith, somehow thinking a section break was a reference to his wikibreak. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I didn't know what a "convenience break" meant until NE Ent kindly explained it to me. I thought Ivanvector meant that I was conveniently taking a wikibreak at this time (which is not what I'm doing). It's unfortunate how you had to assume bad faith here by labeling my honest misunderstanding as "inappropriate behaviour". If you're going to demand that I assume good faith, why don't you demonstrate the same too. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You assumed that Ivan added that section in bad faith, you should have assumed good faith, but you did not. There is no question about whether you assumed good faith or not IMHO. --AmaryllisGardener talk 04:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I didn't. He didn't provide any explanation as to why he added such a heading. I've assumed good faith but – to paraphrase Milburn – Ivanvector has sure as hell "eaten up a lot of my goodwill". The way he deceitfully characterizes me as "trying to bargain to avoid a block" in the same edit that he adds the heading makes it very difficult for me not to assume that the two were linked. On the other hand, there is no question about whether you assumed good faith towards my misunderstanding – you clearly didn't. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • So, you misunderstood, I misunderstand things often, but that's not the problem. Saying things like "stop lying about my intentions" when you misunderstood is the problem. --AmaryllisGardener talk 05:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Saying things like "stop lying about my intentions" is part of my misunderstanding, for which I apologize. The real problem here is your inaccurate characterization of my honest misunderstanding as "inappropriate behaviour", as well as dismissing it as me "somehow thinking" that – no, I actually thought that. Your claim that there's an assumption of bad faith is true – albeit it's coming from you, which you have still failed to acknowledge or apologize for. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I can see how the use of a section break titled "convenience break" at roughly the same time as Bloom posts a wikibreak notice is bad optics, but I assure you the addition of the header was merely for my convenience; the timing is an honest coincidence and any meaning read into it is a misunderstanding - I'm not sure if "good-faith" is the right word for it here but I don't find Bloom's assumption to be malicious, given the circumstances. I have changed the title to be descriptive to the proposal at hand. Apologies all around for the confusion. Ivanvector (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Ivanvector's hit the nail on the head - RFA and WikiCup are not the underlying problem here, and so I don't see that a topic ban from either is an effective solution. I would hope that an editor whose behaviour is the subject of an extended ANI thread like this would be willing and/or able to take a step back and reflect on whether that behaviour is appropriate on Wikipedia, and perhaps make some adjustments to how they interact with other editors. Last night (when I saw this section, but didn't have time to compose a response), my gut feeling was that Bloom6123 was starting to make some progress in this direction; however the above exchange and diffs have convinced me that they still retain an intractable attitude that is not conducive to productive collaboration. I regretfully stand by my earlier recommendation. Yunshui  08:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from WikiCup and other contest related pages. Bloom has repeatidly (over multiple years) shown he takes the WikiCup way too seriously. It is not in his own best interest, or anyone else's, for him to participiate. I am certainly concerned about the general attitude shown as well and imagine it would carry over into a content dispute. However, since no eveidence of such as been shown at this time, removing the problem area (contests) should be tried as a less harsh solution to blocking. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

break[edit]

This thread opened with the perfectly reasonable request for assistance in getting Bloom to stop their inappropriate combative attitude on the WikiCup and OP's talk page. That has been achieved. Furthermore, some neutral editors (e.g. Nick and Hafspajen) have indicated they see underlying problems with the Cup the should be considered. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the subsequent discussion has lived down to ANI's WP:PITCHFORKS reputation. We should be here to seek the least harsh solutions, not some sort of "justice." (We just, rightfully, don't do justice as explained at WP:NOJUSTICE.)

Unfortunately, the standard edit counter is down, but using this script User:Ais523/editcount, I get:

Edit count for User:Bloom6132
Counted at 10:40, Monday December 1, 2014 (UTC)
Article >5000
Talk 773
User 1390
User talk 717
Wikipedia 1050
Wikipedia talk 283
File 11
Template 602
Template talk 183
Category 5
Portal 39
Portal talk 4

(The script stops counting at 5000). Blooms' first edit was in 2010 [6]. They never had an issue I'm aware of before this wikicup stuff. While Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy, let's not be like American tobacco companies (hey, correlation doesn't prove smoking causes cancer). Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative, Wikicup makes it competitive. In the US, major sporting events include a large, visible police presence. The UK used to put fans in "caged in enclosures" [7]. Stories of crazed parents at kid's sporting events abound in the US.

Bloom had already removed the "banning" statement from the top of their page and pretty much agreed to disengage, as they need to prepare for finals in real life. Certainly in the US, it's the right time on the calendar for that. In this post [8] Ivanvector at least implies Bloom is fibbing a bit: "I don't see a user who's understanding that their actions are viewed unacceptable by the community and agrees to change for the better, I see a user who's trying to bargain to avoid a block." Is it any wonder Bloom, in a really boneheaded move, misinterpreted a fairly standard break?

Some editors see that as just more evidence of his 'combative attitude.' I see that as evidence this editor has spent four years mostly editing mainspace, and has so little experience on "dramaboards," they don't even recognize a standard discussion break. That's probably not a bad thing.

So, could we possibly just let Bloom walk away unblocked and gain little perspective? NE Ent 12:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, NE Ent is correct, that was a very boneheaded move on my part for honestly misinterpreting that break. And though I already apologized above for that, I'll take this opportunity to do it again and say that I am sorry to anyone offended. That'll be all from me here. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Block, with comments. - I could not agree more with NE Ent's comment immediately above. Yes, Bloom has exhibited a combative attitude; yes, he indulged in a personal grudge "oppose" vote in a recent RfA; and, yes, he needs to drop the stick regarding the recent Wiki Cup. I have several points to make ---
1. If Bloom did not understand the community's increasingly low tolerance for treating RfA "oppose" votes and comments as a forum for score-settling, he certainly does now. I see no history of prior problematic behavior at RfAs, so the proposed topic ban is a solution in search of a non-existent problem.
2. Bloom has been a productive content-creating member of the community. Yes, he has been involved in several small dramas. Yes, he has placed far too much importance on the outcome of a meaningless "Wiki Cup" competition. No, Bloom would not be the first productive community member to wander into the weeds and lose sight of the forest. This is not a reason to block him; blocks are supposed to preventative, not punitive. Blocking him at this stage serves no valid purpose.
3. To the participants in this discussion, I say that the ANI pitchforks brigade also needs to drop the stick and gain a little perspective, too. The solution to every dust-up is not topic-banning and/or blocking productive registered editors who have wandered off the path. Sometimes, the best solution is issue the warnings and let the dust settle. There will be plenty of time for topic-banning and blocking later -- if necessary. As things stand now, topic-banning or blocking would serve no useful purpose.
4. Finally, to Bloom6132 I say: be careful, my friend. Law students are supposed to be smart; lawyers are supposed to be dispute resolvers, not the perpetuators of petty disputes. You have bigger things to do in life than getting involved in on-wiki conflicts and raising your frustration level/blood pressure. Treat this as a learning experience. A substantial number of your fellow community members see your recent conduct as problematic. Your best solution is to drop the stick, let go of the grudges, and modify your own behavior. It is not a sign of high-functioning intelligence to believe that your own opinion and behavior is correct when everyone else sees various levels of problems with your opinions, attitudes and behavior. If you continue to act as if you are right and everyone else is wrong, this is going to end badly -- now or sometime in the future. And something far more important than your participation in Wikipedia may be at stake. Please consider this carefully.

Unless someone else has something constructive to add -- beyond chastising Bloom6132, that is -- I suggest that it is time to close this thread and move on. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @NE Ent: I strongly disagree that Bloom's combative attitude has been dealt with; if anything the thread above is evidence to the contrary, they're simply being combative here instead of where the problem was reported, and they're defending their combativeness, not understanding that it's problematic. Your comment on their talk page that they're digging themselves deeper by arguing with everyone here is exactly the point: their evidenced style is arguing with everyone, and it doesn't bode well for the user's participation in other topic areas if we ban them from this one. However, you seem to be quite passionate about letting this editor away with only a warning. I don't find your theory that the user is inexperienced on the drama boards all that convincing, given their goings-on at WikiCup and their recent battles at RfA (the ultimate drama board) but in the interest of resolving this I will take you up on it.
@Bloom6132:, the thread above is very strong evidence that your combative attitude is viewed unfavourably by the Wikipedia community, and there is consensus here per Crisco 1492 that you should be blocked for it, but since you are away for most of this month anyway a block would be mostly symbolic. So please consider this thread the strictest of warnings: your contributions are of high quality and very much appreciated, but if you continue to treat Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND you are on a short path to a long block. I would encourage you to consider staying away from WikiCup as it seems to be a source of consternation for you, but I will not support a topic ban. I hope that you do take the advice contained in this thread to heart and continue to be a valued contributor for a very long time. Best of luck on your finals. Ivanvector (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Ivanvector. Also, I think this essay (which I cowrote) might help explain the problem with the talk page blacklist. Origamiteis out right now 17:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Dirtlawyer1: I think you are almost entirely right, but there is one thing I want to pick up on in what you said: "Sometimes, the best solution is issue the warnings and let the dust settle. There will be plenty of time for topic-banning and blocking later -- if necessary." While I certainly agree, Bloom has received many warnings (and generally took them exceedingly badly) and, indeed, Bloom has been blocked before (recently). The reason I started this thread is that minutes after I posted a "final" warning on Bloom's talk page, he was up to the same stuff (then, given the fact that some people may consider me too "involved" to block and given the fact that I was "banned" from Bloom's talk page, I got cold feet and didn't actually block him myself). @NE Ent: I agree that competitive editing seems to have brought out the worst in Bloom. How do you feel about Thaddeus's suggestion of a topic ban from competitive editing (the WikiCup is just one on-wiki competition among many), given that Bloom signed up for next year's WikiCup on Thursday? J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I think imposing a topic ban now would be hasty. I've found nothing puts Wiki stuff into proper perspective like time and real life. Let's see how things are when Bloom returns to editing. NE Ent 14:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Letting the dust settle and waiting is all fine but from the above I doubt doing so will encourage Bloom to look at how they communicate with other editors when they disagree. I just hope then next nomination, if it regretably comes, doesn't shy away like this one did. SPACKlick (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: This thread seems to have run its course now- can I suggest that you close it as appropriate? It seems to me that there are several mutually exclusive more-or-less reasonable proposals in the mix, so gauging consensus may be difficult; I am happy to consider whatever closure you make binding (allowing, of course, that any future problems may warrant a different response). J Milburn (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Perhaps its the jetlag, but I'm not seeing much consensus for anything more than a stern warning. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    Yep, a "stern warning" seems to be the consensus, which is utterly meaningless in the scheme of things. But away you go! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    While "utterly meaningless" is not an overstatement, such results do serve to help productive, reasonable editors to understand that the community has found their behavior to be unacceptable. Good faith editors in this situation will change their behavior. If they don't, then we can come back here, cite WP:LASTCHANCE, and bring out the pitchforks and torches again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Several Removals of Copyvio template from articles[edit]

NO ACTION
Nothing actionable here.  Philg88 talk 07:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Shevonsilva has been deleting several copyvio tags and has been creating nonsense articles repeatedly. Please reference pages Standard metre and Standard kilogram. Already warned to stop removing. War wizard90 (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you please provide a diff to edits where Shevonsilva removed a copyvio tag? All I've found so far are a few removals of speedy deletion tags on self-created articles like [9], [10] but none of them were about copyright infringements. And none of the stubs created recently by Shevonsilva are nonsense, but valid additions. Perhaps we should have a List of obsolete units of measurement or some such but there's nothing wrong with creating a stub about an old unit of lenght or weight. De728631 (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I made an error, the complaint was not for removing copyvio templates, but rather removing speedy delete templates, sorry for the confusion this caused. War wizard90 (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@War wizard90: it is probably advisable to inform Shevon of WP:IINFO and WP:N, rather than tagging articles as nonsense, when they are not. —Dark 06:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@DarkFalls: I didn't tag anything as nonsense, I tagged two of Shevon's articles for being duplicates, she has created several other articles that other users tagged as nonsense, which when considered separately it seemed that they may be. In retrospect, apparently the user is creating several articles about measurement, which may or may not be notable. Either way like I said my original complaint was "supposed" to be for removing the SD tags on multiple occasions. Anyhow, I've moved on from it, back to patrolling, have a nice day. War wizard90 (talk) 06:45, 5 December 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.

Intensive stalking and disruption of behalve of an editor[edit]

I am being intensively stalked by User:Bobrayner. I have to say that he just lost it. He has been hunting me for couple of years now but after one recent case at Kosovo War now has intensified.

  • He follows me and removes from a comment of mine a link I added at talk-page just to indicate a subject I was referring to (I intended only to ask about it, and then search for more reliable sources, I used whatreallyhappened.com just because it talked extensively about it). diff
  • He follows me again, here, where I was asked by Smartskaft to help him on this and another article. I started with this one and I am having immediately bobrainer with his stuff on me.
  • And then this, which just shows how much he is unable to keep calm on this matters. He removed the categories, the notes and references, everything, and not only once, but twice! Not to mention that he is edit-warring there while disrupting the article. No excuse.
  • The he removes comments of IP just because they disagree with him, with the excuse of socks... yes right... even here at ANI! diff, diff, and on article talk-pages diff, diff then he lies and basically makes fun of it diff.
  • Here reverts an experienced editor on the same sock excuse he always uses and abuses without ever presenting any evidence of someone being a sock. EdJohnston waned him already about it at here at ANI.
  • Then he has childish anti-Serb edits such as these where just because a Serbian Olympic basket player has also Greek passport so he would not play as foreigner while in Greece, now as he is doing charity now he is not Serb, but Serb-Greek, its all so crazy and nonsensical.
  • Not to mention the huge problems he has been creating at WP:MOSKOS which was archived trough long negociated consensus, and each time he noteces the users opposing his views are editing other things, he goes there and makes changes. And then has the indecency of acusing others of making changes when revert him! Just see the MOSKOS edit history. Even editors such as IJA who were on his side started reverting him as seen there or on this discussion.

Now he will probably say how he is fighting millions of socks, how I am nationalist Serb, however I am not nationalist and I have been contributing along people from all nationalities peacefully for many years now, with unfortunate clashes with POV-pushers like this case. I am really asking for the community to at least warn bob for this behavious or possibly sanction him of topic ban him. For the years I have been around I have to say that he is totally incapable of editing neutraly Balkan-related subjects, he is a very tendentious editor, who uses and abuses the sock excuse, and who is now an intensive obsessed stalker (he allwas was a stalker, but things have gone out of hands now). And I mentioned here only the most recent episodes, because this kind of things are a constant in his pattern on Balkans. He cannot even respect a consensuses which are reached. He may be productive in some other topics, but on Balkans he is extremely tendentious and he just lost it. FkpCascais (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Just another day in the Balkans...
1. FkpCascais has some copyright problems. In this particular case, adding a link to obvious copyright violations offsite. I don't understand why FkpCascais does things like this - WP:COPYVIO and WP:ELNEVER are perfectly clear - but the best course is to remove links to infringing content. That's not censorship, and it's hardly stalking, since that article has been on my watchlist for years, as a cursory look at the edit history will show.
2. Having tried to fix that problem, I noticed that FkpCascais' most recent edit was to add unsourced (and somewhat contentious) content to a WP:BLP. FkpCascais partly reverted me, but has curiously failed to provide a source for the claimed nationality that he's twice added to the article - and which is still there, because I'm not interested in a revert war. FkpCascais has been repeatedly sanctioned for editwarring on ARBMAC topics.
3. A little while ago I made a futile attempt at bringing March 2004 unrest in Kosovo in line with WP:V and WP:NPOV. I removed a bunch of stuff which has been {{citation needed}} for years, and tweaked some other wording so that it followed sources closely. For instance, I changed "attacks on the Serbian people" to "clashes with Serbian people", since it cites a news article whose headline is about "clashes". I don't doubt that FkpCascais is enraged that I removed controversial claims that he hasn't been able to find a source for in the last four years; but don't blame me for that problem.
4 212.178.243.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is an obvious sock. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. It's the same editor as 212.178.240.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who @Paul Erik: previously blocked for block-evasion. This sock canvassed Vanjagenije and FkpCascais to remove well-sourced content from the article; FkpCascais happily coöperated - as he has with other socks - and in this case used completely spurious excuses to remove the content which doesn't quite fit the Serb nationalist story. Strangely enough, the same story that FkpCascais' other edits have pushed. In this case, FkpCascais only made two reverts, whilst the sock made eight. Thankfully, there were other competent editors around to limit the damage, and then @EdJohnston: semiprotected the article. This was already discussed at length in the previous ANI thread that FkpCascais started a few days ago, at WP:ANI#Insistingly_adding_contentious_material_without_adding_a_proper_sourcing. In that thread, three other editors (@AndyTheGrump:, @The Banner: and @Biblioworm: all pointed out that the content which FkpCascais and the sock were editwarring to remove as "unsourced" did actually have a perfectly good source. Since that thread didn't deliver the result that FkpCascais wanted, he simply started a new thread here.
... and so on. This is getting tiring. Why do I bother? FkpCascais has a nasty habit of adding contentious unsourced content to BLPs, copyright violations, ARBMAC pov-pushing &c but I've barely tried to fix a fraction of them, and those I do try to fix are met with automatic reverts, deeply misleading dramathreads that FkpCascais posts here, and of course the everpresent socks. More recently, FkpCascais has taken to sniping at me on completely unrelated pages, but apparently I'm the stalker... bobrayner (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I swore to myself that I wouldn't waste any more time on this, but...
Peja Stojaković Children's Foundation was an article mentioning a "Serbian-Greek" basketball player, without proper sources. A new editor removed the "Greek" bit. I reverted, and added a source which mentions the basketball player's Greek nationality. Any uninvolved editor can see this is simple, harmless, and benevolent: I reverted a deliberate factual error, and added a source to hitherto-unsourced BLP content. Yet FkpCascais comes here and starts another thread attacking my edits as "crazy", "nonsensical", "childish anti-Serb edits". This says more about FkpCascais than about me. How long do we have to tolerate these Balkan pov-warriors? bobrayner (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Funny how Serbian-born Serbian Olympic player for him suddenly becomes Serbian-Greek, but Šarplaninac which is registered as Serbian at FCI with no mention of Kosovo suddently becomes Kosovar :) Funny how he starts an entire section at Kosovo War about morale just to add the content he was very interested in highlighting (which was btw agreed by all editors at this discussion not to be used in a separate section as he insisted, and soon after he edit-wared again to insert it without discussion. Funny how he failed to get WP:MOSKOS reworded his way, but he still edit-warred there and went on in many articles removing it despite consensus to use it. Funny how he distorts things saying I was repeatedly sanctioned for edit-warring when any admin can see the truth. Funny that he accuses me of trying to find a source for years of an article I didn't ever edited (here is a nice exemple of how he clearly lies) and I simply used here as exemple of his disruption (diff and twice!). Then he talks blabla about me but has brought the hardest evidence here. Anyone can check my edit-history and confirm my reputation. Just to finish, I was using the word "funny", but it was ironic, as none of this dealing with this user is funny at all, but rather disturbing. FkpCascais (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── FkpCascais, stop lying about me and about your edits. Stop it now. Your personal attacks stalking, drama-threads, pov-pushing, copyright violations, and endless tag-teaming and coöperation with sockpuppets are not welcome. I'm tired of the walls of text, but if anybody else would like diffs or more details on any of the concerns I've raised in either of FkpCascais' AN/I threads, I would happily oblige. bobrayner (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I never lied about my edits, you are the one pulling them out of context here. The first diff was after cleaning a mess that banned User:James Lindberg and his IPs do. Only users such as Favonian and Jingby know the mess he makes in obscure articles and how stubborn and disruptive he is trough new accounts/Ips ever since. The second diff was at my talk page to a user who came saying Albania deserves to become Greater Albania and how it shrinked because other nations took their land (anyone can see the discussion). But interesting that you brought it here, because that may be a good exemple of how I have good and cordial relation with editors even after such disagreements as seen in a conversation I just had with that same user just days ago (see: User_talk:Eni.Sukthi.Durres#Kosovo_league). The third diff, well, I beleave all senior admins knows pretty well how Direktor can be hard to deal with in discussions, so what is your problem with an issue that had nothing to do with you? The Serbian Empire issue is because I added sourced text which you would like to see removed, but a good-faith editor would rather assist me there. But your point is clearly different: you fail to understand that a kings title is not the same as country name...
Regarding your "cooperation2 accusation, anyone can see what I suggested to that user at Jimbo talk-page and here.
What happends here is that Bobrainer is a hard-line Albanian POV-pusher on Balkans related articles. His interests obviously coincide with editors of some other nationalities Serbs had troubles in the past, so they often tag-team. Troughout the years they have done its best to remove Serbian editors so they could freely edit the controversial issues in an anti-Serbian POV, and often succeded. There are only 2-3 Serbian editors left plus me. None of us (User:No such user, User:Vanjagenije, or User:Zoupan) is nationalist or anything similar but we became targets of this POV-pushers for an obvious reason.
Also, I know pretty well bob you scrutinize all my edits constantly, and this diffs you presented here are my worste "crimes" you could get, so don't pretend this thread is about me, its about you, so better start explaining things like this and the others I pointed out. FkpCascais (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban FkpCascais[edit]

This is now the second time that I see FkpCascais misusing AN/I to get rid of an inconvenient user. For the best interest of the neutral encyclopaedia, I propose a rather long topic ban ( a year or more) for all subjects related to Kosovo and the Kosovo War. The Banner talk 09:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course you do, in revenge for having reported you for edit-warring and refusing to add a page number to a controversial edit which you were reinserting despite having been agreed in a previous discussion not to have it included the way you and your college were doing. I opposed it, so I must be removed :) so the two of you can freely do whatever with those articles. The two of you behave disruptively, and you propose me to be topic banned for reporting you? FkpCascais (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
As said before: you used the missing page number as a rather lame excuse to remove a perfectly valid but inconvenient piece of information. And now again you go on the attack with the same excuse. Enough is enough, sir. The Banner talk 12:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Slow-motion 3RR[edit]

RESOLVED
User warned. Please report at WP:AN3 if the problem persists.  Philg88 talk 16:44, 5 December 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.

Hi,

Мехтех (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is engaged in a slow-paced edit war over Airborne aircraft carrier. They insist on adding material which does not belong there, repeatedly doing so on [13 Nov],[15 Nov], [22 Nov], [26 Nov], and now on [4 Dec].

This is effectively a slo-mo breach of 3RR.

We have discussed this on the talk page at Talk:Airborne aircraft carrier#Carrier aircraft and aircraft carriers, and warned the user both there and on their talk page:User talk:Мехтех#November 14.

This user is clearly unwilling to play by our rules. Can somebody block this account for say 1 month to try and get the message across? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

He's now been fully warned. He's repeatedly adding something about a Russian aircraft carrier that people on the talk page don't believe fits with this article. If he reverts again, report at WP:AN3 or leave me a message. EdJohnston (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Sorry, I forgot about AN3. I am happy for this discussion to be closed now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:19, 5 December 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.

IBAN violations by User:The Rambling Man, further evidence[edit]

I've blocked TRM for 48 hours for violations of his IBANs with Medeis and Baseball Bugs. In addition to the mess below, this is a clear reference to BB. I'm incredulous that this is still going on after nearly a year. --Laser brain (talk) 03:15, 5 December 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.

See 2014 Grozny clashes

Well, once again, TRM has reverted my edits in violation of the IBAN and in support of his opposition to an ITN nomination: diff 1 Diff 2. I have restored the material, and am bringing it to admin attention again. μηδείς (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's where I originally added the material which TRM reverted in full: diff

Here's TRM once again reverting me after he's been notified of this complaint, and of his previous reversion: diff μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Zomg. Oh my god, I had no idea. I'm so sorry, I can't even believe that Medeis was editing mainspace articles, when did that start? I'm glad she reverted my edits and hopefully she'll revert all the other improvements to the article I've made. Now then, can we rapidly get to the end game where someone decides this is it? I am now beyond sick of this endless game-playing and double-teaming to get me chastised, blocked, desysopped, whatever. I have no more energy for this. Let the show commence. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Assuming this comment is sincere, I am just going to revert your edit
Sure, undo all the improvements I made. That'll really help the encyclopaedia, after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Diffs and previous evidence of TRM's IBAN violations. I don't want TRM banned or Desysopped, although his suggestion is interesting. I want the IBAN enforced, and it is solely he who keeps violating it. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Here we not only have TRM deleting material, but also restoring tags when previously attributed material, and material directly quoted by the refs given (WaPO and NYT) is provided. The action is petulant, and has nothing to do with improving the article. μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Medeis directly reverts my edits? Come on.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice that not only is TRM reverting my edits because they are mine, but also reverting identical edits by other users Catlemur when they coincide with mine. Please note the two refs at the end of the sentence directly support the claim TRM challenges. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note that it is evident that neither editor understands WP:ATTRIB. But never mind, we got there in the end, didn't we? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Please note the article has been posted, regardless of TRM's personal attacks against the editors contributing to it. diff. μηδείς (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    Personal attacks? I'm glad all the work I put into the article has yielded a successful outcome! The Rambling Man (talk)
  • @Medeis and The Rambling Man: Alright, now that y'all have had your say about this matter, could y'all just let it rest until others respond here? I'm sure the last thing either of you wants to do is bicker with/about each other (or at least I would hope), so take a break and disengage for a while while other people take a look. Ks0stm (TCGE) 23:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not happy about this. The Rambling Man was clearly trying to improve the article, yet Medeis reverts [11] with an edit-summary of "IBAN prevents TRM from undoing my edits" despite the fact that the edit she inserted is full of errors (the dates should be in brackets, and the sentence "The 2004 Beslan school hostage crisis begun by Chechen and Ingush insurgents ending with the death of 385 people." is illiterate). Sigh... Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Calling TRM's actions improvements is largely a joke. (He opposed the article at ITN and tagged and reverted the article repeatedly.) Here I doubled the article's length. Here I added a background section and here TRM reverts it entirely. Here TRM reverts a section, and due to his own action, downgrades the article to a stub. Of course TRM did do some dash formatting with rude edit summaries, which anyone who wants can read by checking the page history.
If there was a problem with the dates not being in brackets, (and I admit I have no idea what you are talking about, User:Sigh), TRM could have simply added said brackets. Instead, TRM opposed the nomination, and repeatedly reverted material he was aware I had added, including hidden comments, that raised the article above stub status.
TRM's rather nasty "cleaning up your mess" edit summaries are there for all to see. And, nevertheless, the article got posted. Bottom line is, TRM repeatedly attacks me and reverts me while I do nothing of the sort to him. There's an IBAN between us and if it won't be enforced when he breaks it I expect it to be lifted. If that needs to be addressed at some sort of double secret probation page, please let me know. Otherwise, please tell TRM to cut out the endless violations of the IBAN, and penalize him if he doesn't. μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Both TRM and Medeis are valued contributors, but it seems that they are largely incapable of being around each other without getting on each others nerves. There is already an IBAN in place, but it doesn't seem to have ended the issues and it has bounced back to ANI repeatedly. In part, that is because many people seem reluctant to block either party over this silliness, but it is also because there is a lot of subjectivity about what counts as "interaction" especially when you both seem to want to participate at many of the same pages. With that in mind, maybe it is time to consider adopting some rules that are less subjective. My suggestions would be:

  1. Medeis and TRM may not comment in any discussion section (e.g. talk page thread, ITN nomination, Ref Desk thread) where the other person has already commented.
  2. Medeis and TRM may not edit any article, Wikipedia page, or other content page that the other person has previously edited within the prior 24 hours.

The initial violation of such rules may be enforced by reversion (optional) and the issuance of a warning to the violating party. Such reversions and warning may be performed by anyone. Any subsequent violation at the same location after a warning is to be enforced by a 24 hour block.

Personally, I think such rules amount to treating Medeis and TRM as something akin to petulant children who can't stand to be in the same room, but maybe that is what needs to happen here. If both parties want to agree to this arrangement, I would be willing to be one of the people to help enforce it. If either Medeis or TRM would prefer some different outcome here, then I would like to hear some suggestions for other concrete and easily enforceable rules that could put an end to the arguments. Dragons flight (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

PS. I started writing this before TRM was blocked; however, I continue to think that less subjective rules that create a greater degree of separation might be helpful here. Dragons flight (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Subjective? Absolutely not. There's not a single accusation against me or BB, and moral equivalence to avoid taking sides between victims and wrongdoers is simply evil. Start a new thread showing misbehavior on my part. (I have no problem with TRM continuing his contributions at ITN and elsewhere, subject to the IBAN, which also constrains myself and others.) TRM's had a year to do so. This IBAN was worked out over several months last winter with input from dozens of editors, and all that has happened is what needs to happen: the IBAN has been enforced. Can someone re-archive and fully close this? μηδείς (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me be careful to say that I don't think you are equivalent, either in general, or in this particular sequence of events. In my estimation, TRM pushes the boundary more than you do. That said, even if you do it less often, pushing the IBAN boundary has not been entirely one-sided. For example, a month ago TRM posted an ITN and you were the first one to call for it to be pulled (i.e. in effect, directly criticizing his action). Over the months, I've noticed several other examples where I would say you are commenting on something TRM did, and given how often you overlap at ITN and Ref Desk I don't think it would be hard to find others. I'm not going to go digging for examples, as I not trying to be hostile towards you nor would I want any actions to be taken based on old evidence. However, I do want to make the more general point that both of you could avoid a lot of grief if you would both do a better job of staying away from each other. I suggested some rules to create more of a separation, but if you don't want that, then fine. I don't plan on forcing you into it. Dragons flight (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: A one-sided ban, despite a breach by Medeis too? Laser Brain, your name does not live up to your action here. It's either both or none, because at the moment your action is a poor one. - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment So let me get this right: An incompetent editor adds incorrect information to an article and when noticed, an editor of good standing fixes it. The good standing editor is then banned for "interacting" with the incompetent editor and the incompetent editor is allowed to continue on his mission of writing bullshit which has more holes in it than cheese. What a sad state of affairs! Cassiantotalk 10:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:BANEX allows "asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another party (but normally not more than once)." So although opening the ANI request in response to an obvious WP:IBAN violation re "undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)," the repeated replies after TRM posted were violations, too. NE Ent 10:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I think we need to see past the rules sometimes as in some cases, the rules just don't work, like here. It is tragic that we elect to honour the rules of an essay over fixing incorrect information to the encyclopedia. We have to ask ourselves this, what is more important? We, after all, are all here to improve the project which TRM has done. Having to speak to someone he has had previous issues with is part of the course. Cassiantotalk 10:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Although TRM did not act wisely here in letting himself get sucked into this, I do not understand why Medeis was not also blocked - not even warned! - for breaching the IBAN e.g. Medeis reverting TRM by reference to the IBAN (!!), removing a stub tag that TRM had added, his interaction with TRM above... No wonder TRM feels unfairly treated. Were it not the case that I have previously said in these discussions that I regard my WP-friendship with TRM as disqualifying me from using admin tools around him, I would consider either unblocking him or blocking Medeis, given the disparity of treatment. Perhaps Laser brain would care to comment. BencherliteTalk 11:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • This is not a good block, although it may have been less bad if Medeis had been blocked as well; I don't understand why she hasn't been. It does not look good for Wikipedia when an editor is blocked for edits that improved the encyclopedia, whilst the other party is not sanctioned for edit warring errors into the article. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments Good morning, everyone. I knew this block would be unpopular and that I would wake up today to various criticism, both public and private. It's all been fair for the most part, so I'll do my best to expound on what seem to be the key questions: Why did I block TRM, and why didn't I block Medeis?
I thought my reasons for the first were clear. As noted, this has been going on for a year. I tried to mediate this situation back in January, and it finally evolved into an IBAN which had strong community consensus at the time. It's been completely without teeth up until now, for various reasons. I've been monitoring it, though, especially the firm warning from Bishonen to TRM back in May that if he continued to "pick at his topic ban" he would be blocked. He's continued the same behavior. I spent an hour reviewing diffs last night before I finally decided that a block might send a message that it's not acceptable. Nothing until now has appeared to get that message through. Sadly, he's still trying to claim that he's not targeting these editors with his digs.
Why didn't I block Medeis? Simply, this and other times it has been TRM who has decided to enter the arena, whether he wants to admit it or not. He decided to get involved directly where Medeis was working and start a conflict. I don't think Medeis reacted ideally to this situation, and as NE Ent pointed out, they should have reported the violation and walked away. I accept blame for not issuing a warning to Medeis, but I don't think they should be blocked. As has been repeatedly demonstrated on this project, we are often lenient with editors when they react badly to provocation. This was my logic.
All that said, I don't (and never do) have a problem with anyone undoing my actions if they are seen to be incorrect. I personally will not be unblocking TRM because, looking at his Talk page, I don't see that he has accepted any responsibility or even that he's erred in the slightest. --Laser brain (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Well you may have 'had the guts to block an admin', to paraphrase one of your talk page fans, but it's a shame you don't have the ability to see when you've been played by Medeis and the tag team that has brought this to ANI 4? 5? 6? times already in order to kid an admin into taking the wrong step. Not blocking Medeis for being as equally culpable as TRM is very, very poor: you need to "have the guts" to own up to poor decisions sometimes too, I'm afraid. - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Let's tone it down. I recommend starting a fresh discussion about how to create a successful interaction ban, if one is needed, and if we can't get something that works, I recommend taking the matter to arbitration so that it can be finally resolved. Jehochman Talk 16:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, the ad hominems start, eh SchroCat? I'm not a 'fan', I've never interacted with Laser Brain before that I can recall and his talk page certainly isn't on my watchlist. Try not to hurt your back stretching so far to make a martyr out of TRM. You'd think after comment after comment by TRM about Medeis in conversations that had nothing to do with TRM but he interjected himself so many times about Medeis got involved might someday deserve some form of "reminder" to TRM to stay away from Medeis. They do not get along, they are disruptive when they interact. That is the point of an interaction ban. TRM might be the more quality editor, but if we are not going to enforce a community consensus for an IBan to avoid disruption then you might as well get rid of IBan's all together and create a ladder of quality editors with a rank order so we all know the people above us not to piss off and we know the people below us we can pick on. Better yet, create a page of levels and achievements so I can get level 90 and pawn all the n00bs with my epic Sword of I'm Awesomesauce and we can really make this an RPG instead of trying to maintain some level of decency and collaboration.--v/r - TP 17:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
There are no ad hominem comments, so please do not try and smear by innuendo. I am also not trying to make a martyr of anyone, so perhaps you should re-read what I've written. To clarify (I.e. To repeat so you don't have to search through for the three of four times I said this): the block was poor because both were culpable and if you block one, you need to block both. That's it, end of story, so there's no need for you to try and prolong the dramah needlessly, and certainly not against me. Perhaps next time you should keep your comments to yourself, especially when the affair is largely resolved? - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 5 December 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.

Unblock request, etc.[edit]

Unblocked Jehochman Talk 16:37, 5 December 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 would like to ask that The Rambling Man's block be lifted, provided that Medeis agrees.

This is by no means a criticism of the admin who blocked him. I just think unblocking is the fair thing to do at this point.

As regards the interaction ban in general, it was apparently imposed "by the community", not by ArbCom, which perhaps allows more flexibility. Once a year has passed, which would be sometime in January as I recall, the ban could be altered or abolished. All things considered, that might be the best thing going forward. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep block - While I am willing to acknowledge TRM's contributions to the project, their abrasive manner and flouting of the IBAN is more than enough reason to uphold this block. I speak here as a longtime contributor at ITN who finds TRM highly unpleasant and uncollegial. I make no comment on blocking anyone else, but am moved to speak out here in support of an admin action I agree with. Frankly I would support an extension, given the lack of contrition currently expressed on their talk page. Jusdafax 11:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


  • Support Unblock It is not at all clear who he was referring to or responding to with his post, that and Medeis has been running to this board repeatedly trying to get TRM blocked, ala The BetaCommand saga, where enough crap was thrown on the wall that something finally stuck.

Bad block all the way around, unblock suggested. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep block I'm somewhat in two minds about this. One the one hand, I agree that this wasn't the best thing to block over since it appears TRM's edits were largely improving wikipedia even if the motiviations are suspect. On the other hand, from the little I've seen TRM has been flouting their IBAN regularly, usually by jibes clearly directed primarily at one or both of the people they have an IBAN with even if the person isn't named and the post is indented generally. So we could unblock and then just wait for the next violation and block again. But I get the feeling if we unblock now we're far less likely to block again in the future and it's clear that something has to be done to convince TRM (and probably μηδείς) to stop their IBAN violations. And this was an IBAN violation, even if the for once, they were actually doing something useful rather than simply sniping at others. Ultimately, as with most bans, when you've lost the right to carry out certain edits, you've lost the right. It's acceptable to sanction you for your edits even if they seem to be helpful, particularly when you've persistently violated your ban and generally not in such a good way. Dragon's Flight comment above is also a good summary of my thoughts. Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep block - Had TRM not made his "interesting comments" above, I would support an unblock, but he appears to regard this as recess time in an elementary school playground :(. It is,moreover, disingenuous to believe TRM was not making remarks about those whom he is IBanned from. Collect (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • This page isn't votes for (un)blocks. I've discussed the matter with the blocking admin and unblocked. No further action is required, unless there is a future breach of the interaction ban. TRM has been very thoroughly informed about it and knows he risks a block for any violation, so hopefully there will be none. Jehochman Talk 16:36, 5 December 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.

Request from EChastain re blocked user Lightbreather's continuing to post allegations against me on her talk page[edit]

WITHDRAWN
Request withdrawn by OP. NE Ent 20:42, 5 December 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 would appreciate that something done regarding blocked Lightbreather who continues to post allegations against me on her talk page. She was blocked 1:00, 1 December 2014 by Salvio giuliano for socking, and her block modified after another sock of her's was discovered removing comments from her on an arbcon talk page. Since her block she has used her talk page to provide a running list of allegations against others, but primarily against me in an attempt to prove I'm a sock of Sue Rangell (and without notifying me when she is doing so). Another editor has been ferrying her "evidence" to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell[12] and updating them.[13] Anyone looking at the actual evidence in her diffs can tell the evidence is ridiculous. Contrary to Lightbreather's claims I registered my account on 20:23:09 12/10/2014, before she announced she had been driven off wikipedia, so my motivation to open an account was not her announcement. I have no idea why she's picked me to target as Sue Rangell's sock.

Today (4 December) she added (bolding hers): "If she did discover my real-life ID, then Sue Rangell knows that I have a personal connection to a place that was the topic of the very first article EChastain edited[14] after creating her account." Her continued posting of evidence against me resulted in me over-defending myself (as I've been told by several editors) and afraid to edit articles because Lightbreather may spuriously connect me to Sue Rangell somehow through another article edit. This is extremely stressful.

I request that either Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell be closed, or Lightbreather's be prevented from adding further evidence against me on her talk page. EChastain (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Ah, the gift that keeps on giving. Where to start? The users referred to here but not mentioned are, I presume, TParis and Gaijin42, two editors in whom I have some faith. TParis is an admin: if Lightbreather's commentary was problematic he could have chosen to revoke talk page access. Also, that SPI will be closed when someone gets to it and sifts through the evidence. That your account, your edits raised some suspicion should not come as a surprise to you, a seasoned editor.

    Having pontificated one way, there's another way as well. I think it's been a few days since TParis was involved on that talk page, so while he may not have considered Lightbreather's activity to be problematic, by now it's a bit much: let's remember that for a blocked user the talk page is to request unblocks--continued contributions to an SPI while serving a block for socking and outing (ah, the irony!) is not what the talk page is for. Now, Lightbreather has yelled at me enough for her to claim that I'm INVOLVED, so I won't yank TPA, but I think another admin should have a careful look at this: this ongoing involvement with investigations in other editors, I don't think this is OK. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks Drmies! I think quite a few admins consider themselves involved, so many editors having had unpleasant experiences with her. I've spent the day looking into her archives since she started editing a little over a year ago. Nothing good there; she caused a lot of disruption. She disregarded all the suggestions of her mentor, StarryGrandma, but left one of her "I am retiring from Wikipedia" messages to her with "I wanted to make my last edit to be a goodbye to you." If only! I'm losing interest anyway. If editors like her are coddled, then no wonder wikipedia is losing editors! EChastain (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Propose one or two way IBAN EChastain is to steer clear of LB and LB is to stop with her pursuit of EChastain. Enough is enough, I and a few other editors have been trying to refuse the problem with no luck. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87, Crazy! The only interactions I've ever had with Lightbreather were when she posted on my talk page, when I tried to help her after her block (big mistake - have you actually looked at those diffs?), and my replies to her evidence, which she completely ignored, habbing it and eventually removed. I have no desire to have any contact with her at all. I think you don't understand what's been going on. I really wish you'd just look through her archives (they're very short) so you'll see a little more her MO. She's a one case example of why Eric Corbett is absolutely right in his views about civility. EChastain (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Im not going to bring Eric into this as it has nothing to do with him, what I am proposing is a one way ban that deals with LB interacting in anyway towards you. I feel enough time has been wasted here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to bring Eric into this! Don't know where you get that idea. It's just that all this is about the GGTF arbcom where some were outraged that he wasn't banned for incivility. And Lightbreather perfectly illustrates that civility is not a matter of using "bad" words. She's been disruptive for over a year, but because she's civil she's enabled. Don't bother with a one-way ban. I don't care anymore. In fact, it's becoming funny. EChastain (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Well if you don't care anymore and im using your words here then why did you start this topic in the first place here? At lest three editors have told you so far to just ignore it something you have yet to do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it's your responses to this whole thing, starting with the userbox issue, that leads me to think this whole thing is ridiculous. You don't seem to understand anything I say. Like thinking I want to bring Eric Corbett into this. Did you pay any attention to the arbcom where Lightbreather was caught to be extensively socking? Then caught again, after she was blocked? That was about Eric Corbett, and editors like Lightbreather completely vindicate him in my eyes. EChastain (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you are understanding what I am saying either, a one way I-ban here would prevent LB from interacting with you. you are the one who threw Eric's name in here not me. What is clear is that you are going after LB just as LB is going after you. Yes LB socked she was banned so in turn she accused you of socking as for the incivility bit that comes down to opinion. Are you trying to compare editors in terms of civility? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, Knowledgekid87, after you posted on her talk today, her edit summary (in which she removed your post) had to be redelved (or whatever the word is).[15] And now she's assembling evidence against that IP 172.56.9.95, whose comment you supported on her talk. EChastain (talk) 05:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I saw that, look im not saying you are wrong LB is behaving really badly that is clear but per WP:ROPE if she does continue the behavior do you really think she is going to be around much longer? You are going after LB because you feel she gets away with a-lot am I right? The SPI will close and nothing will be done, when her block is up if she continues then she will be re-blocked for a longer period of time if she continues to disrupt, that is my prediction. At least you are listening to others here more than LB. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
yeah, I don't really care what happens to Lightbreather, and I'm starting to enjoy her continuing talk posts road show, now that I've figured out that TParis actually posted twice for her on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell, but wasn't transparent about it, so I couldn't tell what was going on. But transparency isn't a strong suit of wikipedia, as who ever those are who allege cabalism are kind of right I think. I'll withdraw this whole thing. Don't want the circus of ineptness to stop! So . . .
─────────────────────────I request to withdraw this ANI request. EChastain (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:MatteoNL97 is rewriting various firearm list and redefining terms to match his point of view[edit]

User:MatteoNL97 is rewriting various firearm lists and redefining terms to match his point of view.[16] While he requests help to fix any errors he has made, in reality he reverts any edit that contradicts his POV. I request that other editors please look in to this matter. Thank you--RAF910 (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see if it's our good ol' friend User:Ctway...after I finish my sandwich. ansh666 05:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Resumed disruptive editing and socking across multiple pages[