Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 217.36.124.203 (talk) at 05:04, 2 December 2013 (→Sock of just-blocked editor: +information, please read). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion



    GERAC

    I'm currently engaged in a big dispute with User:Alexbrn and User:QuackGuru as they try to take the German Acupuncture Trials article apart. The argument mainly centers around whether the Federal Joint Committee (Germany) can be considered a reliable source, and whether the GERAC are notable at all (I think they are, since they were one of the main reasons why the Federal Joint Committee decided that acupuncture is reimbursable by the statutory health insurances, for low back pain and knee pain). But these questions are already being discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard and at AfD (since Alexbrn has already started a case there).
    The reason I ask for input here is the way these two users are going at it. Even though discussion is ongoing, QuackGuru has been tagging the article excessively [1] and deleting sources he doesn't like [2], while Alexbrn just nukeandpaved almost the entire article when he came to join the discussion today [3]. After reducing the article to a stub, he nominated it for deletion [4] On my objection, I was simply told I obviously don't understand WP policy regarding secondary sources [5]. When I reverted his nukeandpave, he threatened me to be blocked because of edit warring [6].
    As laudable as the works of QG and Alexbrn are in clearing WP of pseudoscience and bogus alt med content, they're overshooting the mark here. Could someone please look into this? Of course I'm willing to discuss anything regarding content and sources, but I feel a little helpless against their rapid actions. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Poorly sourced text does not belong in mainspace. I explained this on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 08:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we don't agree on this being poorly sourced, do we? But your rationale why the (secondary) Fed. Joint Comm. source shouldn't be used is bogus. And as I pointed out before, WP:MEDRS states very clearly, that in some cases primary sources can be used - to give descriptive information about how the GERAC where done is one of these cases. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well how about your nukeanpave of sourced material, and then presenting the remaining stub at AfD? (Which has so far be rejected, by the way) --Mallexikon (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    At the AfD page, a user conduct discussion regarding Alexbrn was recommended [7]... Is this the right place or do I have to take it to a special AN? --Mallexikon (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you mean "of poorly-sourced material" - good stuff eh? We're here to improve Wikipedia, after all ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's poorly sourced... We have a very good secondary source here: a review of acupuncture studies, by an independent medical organization (Federal Joint Committee (Germany)). But you won't even listen to me, or wait for consensus. Instead, you revert me, and delete sourced material at will, and then carry the remaining stub to AfD... --Mallexikon (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a FYI, the article is German Acupuncture Trials not the currently redlinked German Acupuncture trials. If it survives AFD (including if it's merged or redirected), either create a redirect or move depending on how it's decided to handle the capitalisation. Nil Einne (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. The only administrator's comment. After 12 hours. Focussing on redirect of the article. Thanks a lot, guys... --Mallexikon (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    To allow a proper study of the matter at AfD, I recommend that the article content that was previously removed by User:Alexbrn and User:Quackguru be left in place until the deletion discussion is over. One of their removals was here. I am a bit surprised that WP:MEDRS is being interpreted so broadly as to require immediate removal, even during the period that a time-limited discussion is in progress. We expect to see immediate removal of badly-sourced material in cases of libel or slander, but citations to the Archives of Internal Medicine (whether or not the material published there is ultimately found to be quackish) won't cause immediate harm. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually you've missed my main point (noting I'm not an administrator and there's no need for an administrator to create the redirect). Your original comment previously linked to the redlinked German Acupuncture trials. This was fairly confusing since people may assume (I did at first) that the article has already been deleted. I did not modify your comment, as you or someone else has now done, because there sometimes is a lot of controversy over modifying comments. So even in a clear cut case like this I felt it best not to open that can of worms.
    Instead I thought it best to point out the actual article is German Acupuncture Trials, which isn't currently redlinked, for the benefit of anyone else reading this discussion.
    I also recognised that ideally there should be a German Acupuncture trials redirect presuming German Acupuncture Trials exists, either as a redirect to German Acupuncture Trials or a redirect to wherever German Acupuncture Trials points to. When I see an accidental redlink to something which should be a redirect anyway, I normally simply create a redirectk, perhaps mentioning I have done (to reduce confusion if people saw the redlink). However because of the uncertainty due to the AFD over whether German Acupuncture Trials will exist, I decided creating a redirect at this time would be silly. So instead I simply reminded those involved they should do so in the future and used the opportunity to also explained why I did not just fix the problem myself.
    Nil Einne (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Is there a reason that the article was gutted, stubbed, and then put up for deletion? Why wasn't the article just put up for deletion as is? GregJackP Boomer! 06:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because doing the WP:NUKEANDPAVE (and adding a new piece of secondarily-sourced material), and then seeing the result, crystalized my thought that that subject matter here made this article an AfD candidate. As it happened, the large amount of primary material that I removed has been restored and this has proved a distraction from the pertinent questions at AfD (although other editors have added better-sourced content which is pertinent). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well it wasn't like that, was it? Your nukeandpave edit (removing reliably sourced material) took place at 6:19 [8]. However, at 3:57 you already had this discussion with QG where you stated that "... this article needs to be filleted - in fact probably deleted, with any usable remnant merged into the main acupuncture article". This was premeditated. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • What are you trying to say? Going from a thought that it "probably" should be deleted to actually deciding that it should be deleted is precisely what I meant by saying the stubbing process "crystalized my thought". So after thinking some more about it and searching for sources I nominated it for AfD. BTW, as has been pointed out at AfD, you set this hare running with a false statement that I nominated the stubbed article for deletion, when in fact it had been reverted by the time I made the nomination. Would be grateful if you could correct this. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    QuackGuru

    I'm not a person who likes running to a higher authority whenever something happens, but I do think this requires some attention from an administrator.

    Basically, QuackGuru is a long time editor who edits mostly topics related to Quackery, which includes things like energy medicine, homeopathy, and in this case, acupuncture.

    That alone should not be problematic, except that Quack is misinterpreting a lot of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in his controversial edits. What's more worrying is how Quack deliberately tries to compromise the integrity of an article that is currently being nominated for deletion along with any person or organization that's somehow related to these trials. The Federal Joint Committee (Germany), as a federal body working on a national level, is obviously a notable health authority so I think Quack's proposal for its re-direction seems to be somewhat unconstructive:

    I propose redirect Federal Joint Committee (Germany) to Healthcare in Germany#Regulation]

    ...especially when it was made on the 20th of November, which happens to be the day that the trials were nominated for deletion.

    Quack is still removing a lot of content from the German Acupuncture Trials, but I believe most of the article is reliably sourced. It shouldn't surprise anyone that most sources included in the German Acupuncture Trials are only available in German, yet QuackGuru is tagging all of these sources as "unreliable". I believe any native speaker of German (or even English) would be able confirm that the Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift is a reliable source.

    The more important point here is that these trials are obviously notable (nobody seems to be denying that they're not), but before I continue to spend my time working on it, I want to be sure that those people who have issues with my additions at least try to read the references that I've cited before tagging.

    I've tried talking to QuackGuru about this on this talk page, but he simply removed all comments, so perhaps there's an uninvolved admin who would like to give a third opinion? -A1candidate (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A1candidate is one of the editors who wants to keep the article with the disputed text and unimportant low level details. Using a source to describe itself is obviously a gross WP:WEIGHT violation. The GERAC trial itself is being used in the article to describe the trial itself. We must use sources independent on the subject matter. Using a primary study from six years ago is obviously a gross WP:MEDRS violation. The primary sources are being misused to describe in extreme detail about the trial itself, among other low level details. The article is littered with too many primary sources that do not show it is notable. For example, The Joint Fed. Committee is a primary source because they were part of the event. Even if the The Joint Fed. Committee was a WP:SECONDARY source there are now newer sources on the topic. That means The Joint Fed. Committee fails WP:MEDRS and WP:SECONDARY. The Joint Fed. Committee study is also being used to discuss the trial itself. The article should be mainly about how the results of the trial influenced policy in Germany. The trial itself in not what this article is supposed to be about. The details about the trials itself is not notable and not the direction of an encyclopedia entry. Editors have turned the article into their own personal WP:COATHOOK article. All the medicine cannot be stripped out of this article because editors at the article think it is a medical article. If the non-notable medical claims are removed from the article there may only be a few sources on how a clinical trial impacted the society and politics. The current state of the article makes it impossible for editors at the AFD to determine if the topic is notable. Again, the primary sources are being used in this article to make statements about the acupuncture trial itself to discuss medical information that is unrelated to how a clinical trial impacted society and politics. Do you see the unrelated medical information and do you think that information must be removed? Discussing the details about the trial itself creates a WP:COATHOOK. There is not a decent paragraph in Healthcare in Germany#Regulation, Regulation of acupuncture#Germany or Acupuncture. The content can be merged into the other articles. Editors at the AFD commented there many problems with the current article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials. See here, for example. QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not appropriate conduct to nuke an article and then nominate it for deletion. If it needs to be deleted because of poor sources, nominate it and make your case at AfD that the sources are crap. This article had 23K of material removed by Alexbrn [9], then it was nominated for deletion by him. The material was re-added to the article and then removed by you [10], [11] in what appears to be a tag-team match with Alexbrn. It is also not appropriate to remove reliable sources from an article while it is at AfD, which QuackGuru has done repeatedly, without any apparent consensus to do so. Note, I am uninvolved in the article and personally think that acupuncture is BS, but this isn't the way to go about it. GregJackP Boomer! 18:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "It is not appropriate conduct to nuke an article and then nominate it for deletion" ← well that's your opinion; I disagree. The fate of the article largely depends on its potential (as dictated by the sources available in the real world), not on what's there right now. You seem to be very free with your accusations and assumptions of bad faith, and that certainly is "not appropriate conduct". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, it's not just my opinion. I've heard it several times and places, especially since I'm a deletionist and don't have a problem in getting rid of crap articles. I did not assume bad faith either. I'm sure that both you and QG are doing this with the best of intentions. My statement above was factual and focused on what had happened and what should happen. No where did I state that I believed that either of you were acting in bad faith, nor have I asked for any sanctions for misconduct. I'm merely pointing out a better way to do it in the future. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure it is an opinion others share with you, and I respect it. TBH I didn't see any great link between stubbing the article and the AfD nomination, though I do now regret doing both in succession now because it's given an excuse for others to create a distraction around the article, rather than focussing on the content (which has always been the issue of substance here, so far as I'm concerned). In writing that QuackGuru appears to be in "a tag-team match with Alexbrn" you are at least being uncivil (see WP:TAGTEAM) in that this implies some degree of coordinated action. In fact when it began to look like the reversions and re-reversions were escalating into an edit war I backed off (and warned QuackGuru and another editor who had got to 3RR not to continue). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    QuackGuru II

    He is doing it again, this time removing a huge chunk of content directly related to the trials . -A1candidate (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The real question is, why is he allowed to edit at all? It's because everyone knows it is throwaway account used to do the so-called "dirty work", and he's supported by a great number of editors and admins alike for this singular purpose. It's like having an account-for-hire, but one that you know will be blocked for disruption. He's completely supported in this endeavor by the community, which tells you everything you need to know, in other words, the Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. Don't expect the rule of law, justice, or equal treatment on Wikipedia, because you won't find it here. It's obvious and transparent that this account is solely used to disrupt Wikipedia. QuackGuru isn't interested in arguing with you or compromising, or backing down on anything. He will simply disrupt the encyclopedia like he has always done. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, the fact that not a single admin has commented after so many days speaks volumes. -A1candidate (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That's because disruption is OK as long as you are on the correct side. Viriditas nailed it with his evaluation. GregJackP Boomer! 22:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true. But QuackGuru is actually making science look bad. Science is a tool for developing a provisional knowledge set that works to help us make accurate observations and decisions about the world and the uni/multi-verse. It is not, however, a cudgel used to beat people with, like a hardback book favored by some religious sects. But you wouldn't know it with QuackGuru, who appears to be pushing the religion of scientism, not the provisional knowledge set created by science, which in this context is used as the basis of modern medicine, which in application is essentially an art, not a science. People like QuackGuru are often victims of fundamentalist upbringing, so we probably shouldn't be too hard on him. He's acting out his victimhood in an aggressive and disruptive manner to prove a point to himself, nobody else. It's basically a cry for help. It's likely that someone in his family was harmed by some kind of "quackery" so he's lashing out at everything in an attempt to get back at this person or group. We've all seen this thing many times before. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    and yet on the surface, heshe is doing far more constructive work regarding quackery than somebody like, say, A1candidate, who seems to love the woo ! --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing "constructive" about it. Which articles has he improved? He's acting as a proxy for other editors who aren't willing to violate the policies and guidelines that make it possible for people to collaborate in a harmonious manner. I don't a give a damn who loves the "woo", I can find ways to work with them. If they don't have the tool set for skeptical thinking, then you offer them your hammer or spanner, you don't hit them over the head with it. He isn't here to work with or help anyone but himself. This is about as far from "constructive" as you can get. Finally, he makes science look like a religious pursuit, which it is not. As GregJackP has accurately observed, this is Wikipedia realpolitik in action. Fuck everyone and everything if you are right. Most editors are indefinitely blocked for this behavior, but not QuackGuru. This shows the community is essentially corrupt at its core. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gryffindor

    Could someone please have a quiet word with the administrator User:Gryffindor who is currently stalking my edits and trolling by adding info boxes (full of errors) against consensus (even on a well known FA Buckingham palace) and generally being tiresome by making small meaningless edits and comments to other pages which I have heavily edited or begun and am known to be heavily involved with. It would be good if this could be nipped in the bud before it get's out of hand. Thank you.  Giano  09:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) - User:Giano, perhaps you should provide some diffs to support your complaint? And have you made any other attempts at dispute resolution before coming to ANI? - theWOLFchild 16:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]
    I haven't the time or inclination to go digging about and copy pasting diffs where trolls are concerned. They are easy enough to see in his contributions. If admins won't monitor their own kind here, then I am more than capable of dealing with the matter myself. I just thought it was procedure to flag up problem editors here first. My mistake obviously - it won't happen again.  Giano  17:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Motion to close. Leaving messages on talk pages and asking to discuss does not constitute whatever User:Giano is complaining about. Gryffindor (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) - User:Gryffindor, do you think it's appropriate to ask that an ANI against you be immediately closed before it's be discussed and the issues evaluated? - theWOLFchild 16:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]
    I see 2RR apiece from Gryffindor ([12], [13]) and Giano ([14], [15]). Leaving messages on talk pages and asking to discuss is okay, but not if it's accompanied with a blind revert to the right version lacking an edit summary. Trouts all round. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am also referring to his stalking of pages which I have edited just to make irritating edits Vorontsov Palace, Buckingham Palace, Talk:Destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain, Destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain, Halton House and Marble Arch. Al in the space of 12 hours. He does not edit in the historical architectural field at all, so what is he doing there if not trolling. I'm in the middle of writing pages I don't want to have to spare time on his meaningless stalking and trolling.  Giano  10:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If it makes you feel better Giano, there's an infobox at Rainthorpe Hall that you can remove, and you have my word I will not edit war over its re-addition (although if you'd like to improve it to, say, B class, while you're there, that would be nice....). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That is very horrible indeed. I'll expand that later when I'm back from the Crimea, unless our new architectural expert transforms it into a GA first.  Giano  10:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had a look through both Giano's and Gryffindor's contribs for the last few days, and I can't find any smoking gun that points towards stalking or harassment. It does seem unlikely for Gryffindor to have been editing the same articles as Giano by chance, but then checking another user's contributions is not outlawed unless there is other inappropriate behaviour. From WP:HARASS: "Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons." I don't see anything particularly offensive here, and I haven't seen any evidence of repetition of this before this week. And Gryffindor has also been editing a lot of architectural articles, so there is nothing that unusual about seeing him editing in the general topic area. Giano: what makes you think that Gryffindor is "stalking [your] edits and trolling" rather than simply trying to improve the articles in question? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm quite sure that he is suddenly editing architectural articles....now. Stalking me and wandering in off the street onto pages where he's never been seen before and adding infoboxes against consensus and then edit warring with them seems, to me, inappropriate behavior for an admin - especially when he has filled those infoboxes with erroneous facts. To me, the adding of erroneous facts is the worst possible behavior - he either does it deliberately to annoy or he just adds boxes without bothering to read the page - either way, it's pretty poor behavior for an admin. Furthermore, at the same time as he's arguing with me about infoboxes elsewhere, he suddenly makes four completely pointless edits here [16]. Anyhow don't bother too much, I always regard this page as a futile, but necessary stepping stone to taking the matter into one's own hands, which is always more effective.  Giano  08:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply. I have a few more questions: first, is there a past history between you and Gryffindor? Some links to past discussions would help a lot in investigating whether this is a one-time thing or not. Second, could you point us to some of the claims that Gryffindor has inserted into articles that you think are erroneous? And third, are there any discussions where you have asked Gryffindor about any of these specific claims? I couldn't find any when I looked around, but it's possible I may have missed them. And finally, what do you mean by "taking matters into one's own hands"? That sounds vaguely threatening and has me worried, so I would appreciate some clarification. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I just tried searching the ANI archives for any past discussions involving both Giano and Gryffindor, but I drew a blank. If there is any past history here, it is not obvious. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked your diff [17], snd I fail to see four pointless edits. I see some reduction in thumbnail sizes. His first entry seems to be an attempt to make the infobox shorter and more concise. The first edit also is removing an opinion (you can't really say for what reason motivated Shah of Persia to say that statement, you should only relay the statement itself). The second entry adds a description of what the picture is, an advert, and doesn't grossly change it. The third entry is slightly incorrect in that it states all those events occured in 1929 when actually they only finished in 1929 and had begun earlier. Sure you can dispute that. But why not limit that to the article's talk page? Seems an awful lot to be escalating and accusing of stalking. LilOwens (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Tendentious referencing of other people's motives

    No administrator action is required here, and this thread has gone on far too long. While Carolmooredc's concerns are not unfounded, she is advised to focus more on content and refrain from discussing others' motives on article talk pages. (I have personally asked her to do this on her talk page.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Apologies for TL;DR. Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) doesn't seem to be able to stop repeatedly making accusations maligning the alleged disruptive behaviour/bad faith etc of other contributors in the circus that is articles relating to Austrian Economics. OK, she usually carefully avoids naming names but the circus has a small cast and far more often than not they are opposed across the entire gamut of these articles: it doesn't take a moment to work out to whom it is she is referring. The underlying content issues seems to me (who knows little about the subject) to be six of one and half a dozen of the other but Carolmoore is aware that we have processes for dealing with her allegations and yet she continues to avoid pursuing them in favour of continual whining across a wide range of forums. There are rarely any diffs provided. Some recent examples:

    That lot is a sample from the last few days. The problem has gone on for much longer (certainly prior to the examples in the lengthy thread here) and recently has included questions about application of WP:AEGS as if she is hoping that someone will do the dirty work for her (eg: here).

    I do realise that the entire topic area is toxic at the moment and that Carolmoore is far from being alone in exhibiting dodgy behaviour. However, we've got to get a grip on this increasingly personalised timesink of a topic and the fact that she acknowledged the issue in the last diff of the list above but then continued in the same vein over subsequent days is worrying. I could refer her to WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP but I do not have the clout of an admin (everyone is born equal but ...). There have been moments when I've toyed with suggesting that all the major contributors should be topic banned because the behavioural problems do seem sometimes to be widespread. Right now, I'm not convinced that banning CM alone does the project any favours because of balancing issues but, please, can someone suggest a remedy here? - Sitush (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I did decide tonight stop whining and take User:Sitush's advice and do a well formed WP:ANI of all the continuing problems in the Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions area, imposed October 26. I had gotten a section of diffs completed when I saw this.
    But having spent too many hours today dealing with the same BLP violations, the same input of poorly sourced negative material, the same deletions of perfectly acceptable RS material, and the same personal harassment that happened before sanctions and during the last month, I'm a bit burnt out today. So I'll reply tomorrow afternoon sometime with those ANI issues, either here or in a separate ANI as others' advise.
    Actually I did just look at the diffs and I do want to note that I'm still trying to get better guidance from WP:ANI on how often and in what context one can refer "publicly" to others frequently stated biases per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors. Asked here twice before. This includes reacting to explicitly expressed biases to which I probably replied one or more times, if not necessarily in the diff presented. But not going to figure it out tonight.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Carolmooredc reply on Sitush diffs

    Thinking about it more, after a long nap, maybe a quick response to each of Sitush's diffs is needed:

    • at RSN. -- CM:looks like polite mention of a factoid well known by the editor I was speaking about, per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors
    • at BLPN. -- CM: Isn't BLPN the place to complain that editors biases are being used to distort an article?
    • WT:Citing sources. -- CM: No one there would know or care who I was talking about but if the editor was misusing citing it might be relevant; I still haven't figured out exactly what the citing html issue is, but the material was removed making it moot.
    • RSN again. -- CM: I'm discussing advocacy group type biases in an administrative setting per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors
    • Talk:Ralph Raico (in fairness, later qualified with this). -- CM: Yes, I'm whining about Steeletrap and SPECIFICO always removing well sourced material. Mea culpa.
    • this amendment came out of my request following this. -- CM: I make a joke about Friedman not needing to bolster his ego and mention I'm not a paid editor, which I later removed since you did not assume good faith and assumed I was talking about someone in particular. I was just talking about me not being paid. Geez...
    • RSN, the change coming after a request. -- CM: Yes, I complained in general terms about SPECIFICO following me to other pages in non-Austrian areas and commenting on my work, usually negatively. But I don't get impression anyone would do anything about it at ANI - and I did remove it after you complained.

    Well, at least Sitush did do me the courtesy of providing diffs! Though I'd like to think they are far less serious than material I provide below in my WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP response to Sitush. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've no idea why you started another subsection for your response above. Still my report is now a sideshow and can be closed. As per the section below this, things have moved on. If nothing to your liking comes from the points that your raise below then I think you'll need to draw a line in the sand. - Sitush (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sitush, everything Carol has said below confirms your initial complaint. You state concern about her incivility and her reply is yet more incivility. All her sufferings and complaints have been litigated before and dismissed. They are full of lies, half-truths and of course more personal attacks. Why would you withdraw this ANI now? Carol's response is ample evidence of her inability to address any substantive issue without bringing on even more PA and other uncivil behavior. Why conclude that her recidivist behavior is going to change now, for the first time, after countless examples to the contrary? Are you satisfied that her writing in this ANI acceptably responsive, truthful and civil? I can well understand you may not have taken the time to read through the 13 noticeboard complaints she cites in her defense. I reviewed a few and I see the same behavior over and over. BTW, when she posts a link to a diff part way through an ANI or other thread, it's important to find the responses which followed when others read her assertions. I'll just tell you however that uninvolved editors who have invested the time to research her behavior in the past have been disgusted by what they found. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, you should name those "disgusted" editors and stick the standard {{ANI-notice}} on their talk pages, or give some diffs. I doubt that would be construed as canvassing in the present circumstances. - Sitush (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sitush, you did make me finally file a list of complaints, though like I said the timing is really bad and it's unlikely there will be much non-involved editor comment until next week. So your mission has been accomplished. If you are recommending to others that they post to MilesMoney or Stalwart (or anyone else?) who can be assumed to reply here, I'm assuming you are recommending I contact an equal number. I'll follow others' lead on what is and is not canvassing. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we assume all your allegations about "biased editors" to be true, repeatedly (on an almost daily basis) making these allegations, rather than filing them on ANI, is a clear violation of the spirit and policy of WP. Steeletrap (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For what its worth Sitush, those people like myself who have had to wade through this blather before (in my case at the BLP noticeboard) probably dont want to get involved. Carol is big on talking, not so much on factual evidence. I got fed up in the end and just tuned her out. Giant waste of time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sitush: As I wrote above, I took your comments about WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP as an invite to do so here. And when others started criticizing me based on your list, which I thought was rather innocuous, I thought I should respond to those specific issues. I'm not denying I've complained alot about certain editors' explicitly and repeatedly stated POVs and the way their POVs distorted their editing, in my opinion and that of others. Yet no uninvolved editor has yet replied here about whether or not the complaints were consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors. Considering these three editors are making probably an average of 7 to 10 problematic edits to 3 or 4 different Austrian economics articles almost every day, the topic keeps coming up! (Look especially at SPECIFICO and Steeletraps contributions lists.)
    Perhaps I was being too nice in not coming here two weeks ago when the three editors in question were dissing a dozen or more quality references calling Murray Rothbard an historian, doing it both on the Rothbard talk page and/or at WP:RSN on that topic. This after they were continuing to defend using very negative, low quality and/or self-published blog posts in Rothbard, Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute and Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Per this discussion. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand correctly, Carolmoordc is denying Sitush's concerns by stating her opinion that they are innocuous. And then she's denying her daily breaches of the core WP Pillar of civility by stating that her disparagement and attacks are justified because she disagrees with various editors about article content. As they say in Dixie, "That dog won't hunt." User Carolmoore has demonstrated over and over that she is unable to "comment on content not contributors". Her behavior has caused months of disruption which wastes editor and Admin time and attention nearly every day. For whatever reason she appears to be constitutionally unable to change her behavior. We've seen repeated promises to do better when it's appeared that the community was about to discipline her, but she soon resumes her disruptive and tendentious editing. Under the current Community Sanctions relating to Austrian Economics, any Admin is empowered to block Carolmooredc, and such a block is amply justified by this thread. SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If wikipedia thinks complaining about issues is worse than the issues themselves, including constant need to go to noticeboards because of editors' intransigence and POV pushing on BLP and RSN, it's pretty sad day. As just one example, in the last 24 hours questionable BLP-violation edits have generated five talk page sections in just two articles (necessitating three editors dealing with them): 1, 2 (this needs to be applied to other bio also), 3, 4, 5. Exhausting... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply:Frustrating issues in Austrian economics community sanctions area

    Obviously those diffs above express my frustration with various continuing issues in the Austrian economics General Sanctions covered articles. Thanksgiving week is a bad time to deal with this, but since User Sitush forced the issue above, here we go. Note that it's a lot easier to prove frustrated snippy comments like mine than to prove patterns of behavior like the below, so, yes, it's long...

    October 26th ANI imposing Community Sanctions on Austrian economics article after a number of complaints about problems in the area, including my long listing of diffs & links here. (See sanctions page Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions where a few of us have now been notified and logged.)

    In that discussion, two of us expressed similar concerns:

    • Me, I have no love for Austrian School economists (I am in favor of government-instituted economic policies) and I am not at all an economist by training or practice, so I am as neutral on the general topic as can be achieved here on Wikipedia. When I was alerted to problems related to Austrian School topics I found Steeletrap and Specifico working their POV changes to put one faction in a bad light. It became clear that they were fans of a competing faction, and that their purpose on Wikipedia was to reduce the respectability of their ideological opponents. Whatever I do at those articles is intended to establish as neutral a tone as possible. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 21:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
    • As I've said many times, it's one thing to clean up an article with issues you describe and add NPOV info, including critical info. It's something else to emphasize adding highly negative material in a WP:Undue fashion while frustrating others' attempts to add NPOV material. [User:Carolmooredc]] ''' 12:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

    I see these as continuing problems, either done or supported by Users: Steeletrap and SPECIFICO, and to a lesser degree by MilesMoney. Since the Community Sanctions were imposed, especially problematic articles include Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Thomas DiLorenzo , Ludwig von Mises Institute, Robert P. Murphy, and lately Ralph Raico. Feel free to mention any other articles. Additions of negative, cherry picked and poorly sourced material; deletion of WP:RS NPOV neutral or (heavens forbid!) positive material; need to go to noticeboards because discussions drag on without resolution or editors refuse to admit they are in the clear minority - or that there are obvious BLP problems; refusal to enter into any dispute resolution. Related issues below:

    Heavy negative biases

    • Steeletrap is working on “independent research on the von Mises Institute (for the Master's degree thesis on American fringe political movements)” and admitted early on to being “strongly biased against them”.(diff), writing later "(To put it plainly, I think they are cultish, ideologically-driven charlatans whose "economics" is just an attempt to justify their ideological priors), and also believe that a great many of them are bigots.”(diff). Steeletrap attests to having a minor [corrected: undergranduate degree] in economics & anthropology(diff) and believes such expertise is necessary so firmly that Steeletrap proposed in the Community Sanctions ANI “Sub-proposal: Require administrators who evaluate/sanction editors to be educated in economics’‘.
    • SPECIFICO stated his biases when he wrote: I am an "Austrian School" economist trained before the Mises Institute launched its attempt to hijack of this important intellectual tradition.(diff)
    • I personally have refrained from such POV soapbox, though their searching around Wikipedia and the internet helped them figure out I’m a libertarian of some sort who knew Murray Rothbard 30 years ago. I have expressed very strong opinions about misusing Wikipedia and violating its policies to discredit those one disagrees with politically, something I've spent far too much time dealing with on other issues as well.

    WP:RSN

    WP:BLPN

    • Oct 26, User:Arzel: Von Mises Institute re: Volkh Conspiracy generalizations.
    • Oct 26 User:Arzel 1 names MilesMoney who has been a problem in this area and Nov 2 User:Quest for Knowledge 2 an RfC, both regarding Rand Paul. (I would not be surprised if some see discrediting Von Mises Institute associates, including Ron Paul, as part of discrediting Rand Paul and his future career.)
    • Nov 23, User:Carolmooredc: Removing BLP violating material re: Thomas DiLorenzo article after SPECIFICO refused to reply to a long list of issues and accused me of trying to White Wash the BLP.(this diff).

    Continuing harassment
    Obviously this has made me more touchy and whiny that I might otherwise have been.

    Refusal to engage in dispute resolution

    That’s enough for now, though I can present lots of diffs of individual acts of questionable entry of bad material, defense of bad material, removal of perfectly good material, etc. Note that I gave up on doing much in Wikipedia in August and September because I was disgusted with these issues. The Community Sanctions gave me some hope, but despite them it's been the same old same old for the last month. Thus my whining. I wouldn’t mind seeing us all banned from these articles IF other NPOV editors would clean up the most obvious problems and add NPOV material. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    HEY! Don't be downgrading my econ B.S. to a mere "minor" in econ. Otherwise this is the same old tl;dr stuff that has been brought up by Carol on numerous ANIs in the past. Carol is WP:Forumshoping by raising these old charges again and again. (I was upfront in disclosing my bias, but it doesn't preclude me from editing these pages, any more than someone skeptical of Scientology from editing Scientology related pages; and for the record, my Master's thesis in anthropology is complete and made no mention of LvMI in its final form.) Steeletrap (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny, CMDC, my recollection is that you stated you would give up on editing for a while when it became clear that -- after your dozen or so failed Noticeboard complaints -- your specious ANI against me threatened to BOOMERANG against you with a topic-ban last August. I have nothing to say about your accusations and attacks. They speak volumes about you and your attitude and behavior here. I'll only say that the battleground personal attacks and ad hominem talkpage discussions in these articles began with your antics here last spring. What at first seemed kind of funny -- you remember: that time when you accused me of CANVASSING with faulty notifications of a talkpage RfC and then copied exactly the same words in your own notifications -- that opening salvo of yours has developed into what we see today. Thanks for the memories. There was nothing but clear constructive content disagreement here before you stirred things up. I'm confident the community will do the right thing here. SPECIFICO talk 20:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    SPECIFICO: I do not know what you are talking about in your allegations above and unless you can provide diffs or links reminding me and proving it to others I will have to assume you are making up exaggerated or false allegations in order to avoid taking responsibility for all the questionable editing I've pointed to. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Anybody who clicks on the links you've already provided and investigates the context and the rebukes of other editors, for example the thoughtful and articulate @Stalwart111: will be able to evaluate your behavior. I may provide additional diffs, or other editors may do so, but as I see it your behavior as documented by Sitush's opening statement, your writings here in this ANI thread, and the language of the Sanctions would justify a block. I am traveling and don't expect to be on WP for the rest of the day today, sorry. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, if anyone wants to know MilesMoney/Steeletrap/SPECIFICO's contemptuous opinion of Community sanctions and their admins see this user talk page thread (or if it's deleted the deletion diff): Mises Sanctions as a Horror movie plot: Anyone can die?'. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've worked with CarolMoore several years. She fastidiously finds and follows quality sources, avoids OR, seeks the neutrality that such leads to, and is very direct / blunt in conversations on such. The times that I've butted heads with her is when I thought she might have done this too thoroughly / rigorously. Although I don't consider myself to be enough of an expert or research to jump fully into the articles discussed above, I have been watching them and occasionally weighing in only in process areas. Carol's efforts of the type I described above (including following where quality sources lead) have led her to a collision with folks who to me appears have been working towards a negative spin on the subjects of the articles. Trying to use the bluntness aspect to go after her is trying to use a minor sidebar of this against her and I think out of line. And an even weaker construction after folks even admit that it was not about or to anyone specifically, and not even using the singular in her comments. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • It is true that I wrote the following in mid-October: "When I was alerted to problems related to Austrian School topics I found Steeletrap and Specifico working their POV changes to put one faction in a bad light. It became clear that they were fans of a competing faction, and that their purpose on Wikipedia was to reduce the respectability of their ideological opponents." I should add that MilesMoney joined this pair of POV editors to act as their heavy, throwing additional stumbling blocks at those who were trying to maintain neutrality on Austrian School articles. MilesMoney was topic banned, but I do not see the problem lessening with regard to Steeletrap and Specifico. They both have been reverting too many times in the last few weeks at Murry Rothbard, and they continue to try and reduce the respectability of Rothbard, for instance with this edit by Specifico in which Rothbard is denied the names of like-minded colleagues, and this recent change by Steeletrap in which a Ralph Raico statement is cast as being both trivial and conflicted. Little by little, Specifico and Steeletrap have been working to reduce Rothbard's legacy as much as they can get away with. Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So, Binksternet, you are saying that Carolmooredc is justified in filling nearly every "contribution" -- text, talkpage posts, and edit summaries -- with personal attacks and disparagement as documented by OP and others? And the justification for violating the Pillar of civility is that she has a content dispute with other editors? Is that your view? I'd like to know how many of the Admins who patrol this page agree with Binksternet that Carolmoore's personal attacks, incivility, and disparagement of other editors -- posting a stream of ad hominem attacks instead of responding to clearly stated content disagrements -- how many Admins agree with that? Anyone? SPECIFICO talk 03:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am saying nothing of the sort. Did you see anything in my comment about Carolmooredc? No, of course you did not. I have not commented on her behavior because I see that it is uneven, that she makes good points sometimes and then she goes off on a jag. This whole thread is woefully unorganized because she was unable to clearly state her case. Still, there is a case to be made, difficult as it may be, so the right thing to do is figure out what the problem is and correct it. I see the problem as the continuation of POV editing by you and Steeletrap. Do I think Carolmooredc has perfectly clean hands? No, not really. I think that some of her contributions to Austrian School articles are poorly thought out.
    I take offense that you would pin a fabricated viewpoint on me, drawn from whole cloth. Such misleading behavior does not win you supporters. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Misleading behavior like claiming I'm topic-banned when that's not the case? Let's stick to the facts: this report has nothing to do with anyone but Carol and her behavior. She keeps throwing accusations around, pointing at everyone else but herself, but even you admit that these don't excuse her behavior. She refuses to admit that she's made mistakes and take personal responsibility for them, instead playing the victim and repeating her performances.
    As far as I'm concerned, anything Carol says here about others here is just more evidence against her, showing that she's unable to discuss issues without making them personal. As you admitted, she's terribly disorganized, so when she actually does discuss content, she makes a mess of things. And as you admit with your comment about clean hands, she is extremely biased, prone to misinterpreting sources, picking and choosing, and generally resisting anything she dislikes regardless of how well it's sourced. She shops around to forum after forum until she gets her way and she is, in general, quite tedious to deal with.
    I am hardly Sitush's best friend, and that's mutual, but I think all of us see that Carol's behavior is a problem. Making excuses for her is highly counterproductive, as it only enables her misbehavior. Instead, she should come clean, admit that she's too biased to edit articles on people she knew personally, and agree to leave these articles alone. If this problem isn't dealt with now, it'll only come up again. Carol is currently the most disruptive editor on Austrian economics-related articles and we cannot ignore this any longer.
    I've said my piece, I'm done here. Stick to the facts, stick to the topic, and stop making false statements. MilesMoney (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For uninvolved editors who wish to see what Carol and her "suppporters" are talking about: - I just opened the link which Binksternet cites as a smoking gun against me to prove that I deserve to be personally attacked and that I am not editing in good faith: I hope that every reader will take a look: this is the edit. Now, Binskternet, it is hard to believe that you are telling the assembled editors and Admins here that the diff you cited proves that I am a bad-faith, biased, POV-pushing, etc. etc. editor. What's the problem? A copy edit which trims the names of two high-school students who accompanied Rothbard to Ayn Rand's place? I know that you're aware that this article is about Rothbard, and not the two students. False accusation of bad faith is a WP:personal attack and it's inflammatory. Please strike your message above. SPECIFICO talk 03:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your bluster is unbecoming. The diff I showed is a small part of you chipping away at Rothbard, bit by bit. You have been creating this problem for a long time, with many edits. Few of your edits can stand alone as evidence against you, including this one. Instead, the overall pattern of your editing for many months is what makes the picture complete. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like there's no further discussion. Do we need to put this up to a vote now? MilesMoney (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    With the exception of ArbCom elections, we do not strictly speaking vote on Wikipedia. Neither is there any need for every discussion on a central noticeboard, such as this or RSN, to end in a vote. Some things just die a death and in other cases the consensus is clear anyway. Whatever the outcome of this thing may be, it should signal the end of Carolmooredc's repeated and often oblique references to generalised issues on other boards: she'll either get a favourable reaction here or she will not. In either event, there should be a line drawn under things. Personally, I think that there are problems on both sides: Specifico and, in particular, Steeletrap and yourself are causing huge amounts of disruption with point-y edits and ridiculous challenges to things such as clearly unreliable sources (what?) and the use of words like "historian". But, hey, when I'm in the mood to draw up a list of diffs myself then you'll know about it and until then I won't be referring further to it - you've had as much of a warning as I'm going to give and can decide whether to risk it or not based on things such as my past experiences when initiating reports here.

    And before someone says yet again that this is a "bad week" for bringing things here, it isn't: Wikipedia does not go into meltdown just because some people in the US are stuffing their faces with turkey etc, nor when people are engaging in other annual rituals on 25 December of 31 December/1 January, Passover, Diwali etc. - Sitush (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sitush, I think there's agreement that Carolmooredc should not be permitted to continue her personal attacks and other disruptive and tendentious behavior which has been discsussed above. As I see it, the problem is that she's demonstrated that she's unable to control herself. If she were capable of changing her behavior, I do not believe that she would have continued with the same sort of disparaging and accusatory narrative in this ANI. My experience and knowledge around WP is much more limited than yours, but I am struck that on this thread nobody, not even those who have "sided" with Carolmooredc on various earlier talkpage and noticeboard threads, have denied your initial complaint, nor have they tried to excuse her behavior. In fact, when I interpreted Binksternet's comment as a rationalization of Carolmooredc's attacks, he corrected me and stated that even he -- who last summer accepted at face value her accusations and conspiracy theories about other editors -- did not come here to defend her behavior.
    With these articles under General Sanctions, any Admin who has read this thread and reviewed Carolmoore's history of disruptive and tendentious editing, her personal attacks, and her steadfast refusal to limit her WP remarks to "content and not contributors" could block her. I have no knowledge of how Admins have traditionally exercised this authority in other areas under Sanctions, but I'd hate to think that with all the time and attention we have put into discussing Carolmooredc's behavior we are going to go back to the same old same-old. If that's all that comes of this thread -- some kind of warning or the wishful expectation that Carolmooredc is going to exercise a new self control which she has never yet been able to muster, then how can we trust this process or the GS enforcement to support the WP-efforts we invest in the future? So, I hope that Sitush as OP and the most experienced among us in these matters -- and all the Admins who must be watching this board -- can help take this thread to an effective outcome. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I read Sitush's PUT UP OR SHUT UP comments to be an invitation to make specific complaints here. Plus, now that I think of it, show that I and other editors have tried to do something about the problems I generally complain about with multiple noticeboard visits in the last month! (Where the community generally supported the complaints, if anyone bothers to read the noticeboard postings.) Maybe my listing above needed to be shorter and most of it done here next week instead; my apologies if so.
    I certainly do encourage Sitush to come and list the issues he has with the editors in question, per his general discussion above. I've already got a big BLPN building up now for later next week if issues not addressed properly.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Clogging the Noticeboards with ordinary content discussions which belong on the article talk pages is one of the ways in which your participation continues to be disruptive, for example here, in this thread, where you continue your pattern of personal disparagement even after numerous warnings and this ANI SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And here we are, an hour later and Carolmooredc has posted additional gratuitous, and inaccurate, personal disparagement: [18]. It's clear that she is not able to control this behavior. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Noticeboard discussions are a relevant place for problematic editing issues so this is a strawperson. Both links refer to bringing one editor to WP:RSN for removing Institute-related info from two different bios the same day. I did do a WP:RSN search, as inferred in original WP:RSN posting, and saw WP:RSN usually supports such use, but I was too burned out to do all the links on both talk pages and then have to explain them, when it seemed a cut and dried case with "problematic behavior by one or more editors" (as an uninvolved editor put the general problem in reply to last diff) just delaying the inevitable. Additionally, my comments were in reply to questions from another editor today about the objective situation and were relevant to the discussion, as behavior and POV editing usually are at noticeboards! All the other complaints were filed due to I or others being annoyed that discussion was going no where because of equal numbers of pretty much the same editors on each side of issue, among other reasons. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Look, I'm the last person to endorse the tendency of ANI reports to turn into lynchings, so I'm not out for blood. I don't think we should ban Carol from this topic, or even from particular articles. However, I do think we should formally warn her that she has used up all of our tolerance for her personal attacks and that there is a consensus that the next one will trigger immediate sanctions against her. This way, if she really can control herself then she's safe, but if she's as out of control as some fear, they'll get their way. MilesMoney (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: probation

    This means that if she engages in personal attacks, edit-wars, brings article disputes to drama pages (RSN,NORN,ANI) without first discussing them on the article talk page, or otherwise repeats the sort of misbehavior that led to this report, she is immediately blocked from all editing for one month. No excuses, no tolerance, no more. MilesMoney (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You seem to be a bit fact-challenged, as I am not under any topic ban. I mentioned this the last time you made this error, but perhaps I was too subtle. Repeating this slur against me constitutes a personal attack, so you're going to need to redact it right now. I insist.
    For that matter, I don't see what argument you offer against probation. Would you rather we just block or ban her now? Feel free to offer an alternate proposal, then. MilesMoney (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit confused, it says here that "MilesMoney (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from engaging in any edits or interactions with respect to the article, Ludwig von Mises Institute". Has the sanction been removed? Let me know if it has and I'll update the general sanctions page. If it is still in effect though, you should stop saying you aren't topic banned. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Bink is claiming that I'm banned from the topic of Austrian economics as opposed to a single article. MilesMoney (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I? Where did I say that? Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you even know the difference between WP:TBAN and WP:ABAN? MilesMoney (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do. The article ban is also commonly referred to as a topic ban, in casual conversation on Wikipedia. I see you did not ask Mark Arsten whether he knew the difference. You will also note the wording of your ban which says you are "topic-banned" from the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly support CMDC's constant, disparaging speculations about the motives/mental states of other editors' constitute PAs; even if these speculations were meritorious, they should be filed in ANI complaints, not constantly splattered on article talk pages. OP's proposal appropriately threads the needle between a topic ban (which I hope is a route we can avoid, as CMDC is a spirited and gifted editor who can contribute positively to WP) and a slap on the wrist (which has proven woefully insufficient to improve CMDC's conduct). Steeletrap (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Per above. No offense, basis. North8000 (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If your concern is that probation is an unnecessary step, would you instead support an immediate block or ban for what she's already done? I prefer to be lenient, but if you insist... MilesMoney (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I meant that there is no basis for either. This looks like somebody trying to gin up/ overblow a few snarky comments not directed at anyone in particular into an ANI against someone that they are having a content dispute with. North8000 (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    North, my old friend... Are you accusing Sitush of creating a falsely-stated ANI? I see no basis for that. Please review the entire thread. I don't recall any memorable content disputes between Sitush and Carolmooredc, and I have never seen Sitush confuse content issues with behavioral issues. Please review the thread and reconsider. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, North. I'm sorry if I have not made myself clear but am also bemused regarding where that failing shows. There is a behavioural issue regarding CMDC. Happen there are probably behavioural issues regarding others also but in CMDC's case, which is that she sees such issues in others, the appropriate response is to draw admin attention to the perceived issues and not to tendentiously refer to them across numerous threads where admin involvement would be serendipitous. My complaint has forced the denouement, which is something I'd tried and failed to obtain previously. Whether people now choose to address her concerns or her actions alone is entirely up to the community. Once this is done, there should be no need for CMDC to reference all the historic stuff on an almost-daily basis. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been watching the article for a while. I don't have the expertise to jump deeply in, but have commented on a few process issues and also as a "dummy reader". And my general impressions is that the net effect is an effort to POV the article negatively towards the topic. I've seen Carol to use noticeboard to get input on content issues, but not to "go after" editors. I see here choice of words etc.as an effort to "push back" against the "net effect POV'ing effort" without directing the comments at any individual editor. At best, this is pointing out a reality in a much-needed effort without even accusing individual editors much less taking them to behavioral noticeboards. At worst it would be an inaccurate complaint against nobody in particular. And so when I see a big content dispute, and minor sidebar item become a ANI discussion, and the main people weighing in against Carol being the same ones in opposition ot here in a content dispute, I get "concerned" about what's really going on. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for two reasons. First, reviewing the diffs I just don't see the NPA aspect of CMDC's comments. Yes, some seemed snarky and some assigned motives to other editors. While CMDC's behavior may be irritating to some it doesn't come close to constituting personal attacks, at least in my book. Second, the proposal is WAY too vague. There's no WP:NODRAMA policy or guideline. It's unrealistic to expect any editor working on such contentious subject matter to jump through extra, unnecessary hoops before using the noticeboards for their intended purposes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Doc. Nothing was unmanageably contentious before Carol showed up. SPECIFICO talk 00:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc, Carol has a pattern of jumping straight to the drama boards, avoiding discussion on talk pages. MilesMoney (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    These don't sound anything like punishable offenses to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Doctor, have you read all of the text above and followed the links and read the diffs and the surrounding threads? Have you ever seen another editor whose every utterance on WP is couched in first and second person narratives, speculation, and accusations and who freely distorts and misrepresents her narrative to manipulate WP process? If you haven't done the reading, I ask you to do so. It will be quite an eye-opener, even if it takes you several days. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that an editor's irritating comments are many doesn't render her comments any more violative of WP guidelines or policies. I went through the list of diffs in Situshi's original report and I didn't see anything objectionable. Sorry, no editor in their right mind is going to spend "several days" reviewing all of CMDC's many comments. Personally I'd rather wash the dishes. Ok, off to the kitchen... --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello TFD. As you know, I personally invited you recently to become an active participant in editing these articles -- an invitation I am glad that you accepted. Why would I do that if I had the intention of adding negative information to these articles?? Secret strategy of misdirection or sleight of hand? I am surprised and disappointed to see you use weaselly language here. "they added..." WHO added? All 3 of us badguys at once? I know I didn't add that information. Nor did I have much to say in the extended discussion that followed, and certainly no fixed POV. I think you're a more thoughtful and intelligent an editor than to use misuse "they" in such a manner. But as to the matter at hand: Do you deny that Carol has behaved tendentiously, made repeated uncivil remarks, personal attacks and other violations of core WP policy? Or are you conceding that she has done so but saying that such behavior is OK? Please sort out who did what RE:Duke and strike or correct the false portions of you allegation above. Please also clarify your view as to why Carolmooredc should not be disciplined for her behavior which is clearly documented by numerous editors in this thread. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    TFD, I'm disappointed in your assessment of my edits on these pages. Do you recall that it was I who added the glowingly positive Skousen material and deleted the race and intelligence material (it was later restored when multiple RS were added to support what was previously a primary sourced section)? As to the "endorsed" Duke stuff, that was an RS interpretation and was properly presumed to be true until proven otherwise. Steeletrap (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – Carol has been around for many years and 27k+ edits, long before and/or with far more editing experience-wise than many of the other editors who have opined. IOW, she has contributed greatly in these topic areas well before others signed on and contentiousness has not stemmed from her efforts. Rather, difficulties have arisen from the interactions between editors. (I, myself, was (once) banned from her talk page because she did not always enjoy reading my comments.) I have observed difficulties in these various interactions, and a few months ago I proposed a voluntary interaction ban to apply to all of the editors engaged in the discussion. (And I was the first to volunteer for the ban.) I raise the IBAN proposal again, with the proviso that it be mutual for all "involved" editors. – S. Rich (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Srich, the initial complaint presented by @Sitush: documented Carolmooredc's tendentious editing. Her incessant and egregious violations of the Pillar of Civility were then further documented and (amazingly) demonstrated in this ANI thread. The articles are under Community Sanctions. It's rather an open and shut case. Please state under what theory you believe that Carol's documented violations and the Sanctions should be disregarded here? I know you had hurt feelings last time your IBAN theory was rejected, but the proposal is even more unsuitable now, in the context of Carolmooredc's specific documented misbehavior. SPECIFICO talk 04:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't recall saying anywhere here that CMDC's comments were personal attacks/uncivil. They're a bloody nuisance but she has raised some valid points. My point was to cause her to raise the things ("put up") or cease ("shut up") the repeated vague accusations. She chose the former and I'm pleased that she has because there does seem to be some merit to them. I find it interesting that I keep getting "thank you" ping from both sides of the circus, the timing of the ping depending on whether they perceive my comment to be pro- or anti- the position being taken by the individual: I'm clearly neutral. I've raised a few diffs in a subsidiary message above - the quibbling about "historian" etc - but if I raise more then there is a possibility that the entirety of one "side" will find themselves sanctioned. I'd rather knock heads together and hope that the participants see sense because reasonable debate is healthy. - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Rich, I don't even know that Carol would argue that contentiousness hasn't stemmed from her efforts, especially as regards her edits on the Palestine-Israel controversy. There is no reason for constantly disparaging other people's motives; it is tendentious, uncivil, and insulting. She should file an ANI posting if she's concerned about bias. Steeletrap (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe Carol gets frustrated by these off-topic comments. Steeletrap, what was your involvement in any P-I controversy and how is any of that long-past editing relevant? Where did anyone get the idea that my feelings were hurt (and how would my feelings impact any of the previous discussion)? What sanction violations have been documented? Where is there uncivility? These recent (and earlier) comments demonstrate how an IBAN would (hopefully) help – the idea being that subtle and overt snipping is put to an end. – S. Rich (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose And Miles should thank his lucky stars that he was not topic banned for exactly what he is accusing Carol of doing. These pages have become a toxic dumping ground to attack and malign Libertarians. Carol could probably temper her approach, but it is hard to do when you have a group of editors who's only apparent purpose is to denigrate anyone associated with Libertarian views, or at least certain Libertarian views. Arzel (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comments
    • Steeletrap, please do not try to speculate on what I think about my edits on Palestine-Israel conflict. Plus, what is the relevance? Feels to me like some sort of "wink wink" negative inference, as it is quite appropriate to mention in an ANI. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration for how those of us who edit in the area still try from time to time to deal with conflict.
    • Steeletrap, need I remind people of my and others' past noticeboard postings where POV of three editors in question was mentioned or the main topic: My listing above of "Heavy negative biases", as well as discussions at WP:RSN, WP:BLPN, WP:ANI. And all these past discussions since the spring: ANI, ANI, BLPN, ORN, 3RR, BLPN, NPOVN, RSN, ANI, ANI, ANI , BLPN.
    • IMHO, some editors would like to ban any editor from ever mentioning their POV-distorted edits in talk page discussions or edit summaries, including the BLPs where most of the problems are.
    • Question: If POVs are constantly disruptive do we constantly have to go to ANI to publicly complain about POVs , ala "NPOV Policy FAQ:Dealing with biased contributors"? All that Policy FAQ talks about is being polite, not how frequently one can mention them when they keep coming up over and over again. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Only fly in the ointment, carolmooredc, is that you are not polite. What to do? SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't be trotting out the Palestinian/Israeli stuff if you're trying to convince folks how reasonable you are, Carol. Anyone with the patience to dig into it will find you engaged in the same dysfunctional, elbowjabbing incivility we've seen on the Austrian aritcles. And just to complete the circle, the current relevance of this (aside from the fact that you brought it up here) is your anti-Semitic innuendo and misogynistic and anti-transgender on [[ping|Steeletrap}}. SPECIFICO talk 18:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Instead of innuendo based on innuendo, perhaps WP:RFC/USER is the best place for this discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    And don't forget the almost always lacking diffs to prove your allegations. But a mass of unsupported allegations in response to a long list of diffs and links of noticeboard discussions has been the very frustrating modus operandi through many of the noticeboard discussions mentioned above.
    Having noticed an external link to a smear site run by an anonymous smear-monger, I'd like to point out that my intemperate remarks there were to 2003 email which has been discussed previously at wikipedia (assuming they are accurate, which I probably checked at the time but am not going to check again). They were at the time the Iraq war was started and in reply to/reaction to a person who had made at least five or six death threats against me, as well as other smears, which got him banned from several notice boards. (I listed all of the threats on the internet.) Yes, I lost my temper. In contrast, in the last year when I received over a 1000 death threats through wikipedia's email system from a well-known Sockpuppet on the same topic, I kept my temper.
    Also, note the one time I got blocked I was blocked originally for six months (later reduced to a week) for inferring negative things about someone from their edit history and mentioning it on the Wikia feminist page which I thought (duh) was part of wikipedia.
    Of course, we aren't supposed to have to defend ourselves this way on Wikipedia, are we? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Tendentious editing

    Middayexpress (talk · contribs) seems to have made various Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and other errors on the African Australians page, discussed on Talk:African Australian.

    Removal of valid citations: Middayexpress removed various citations which were pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style, e.g. [19], [20]. Furthermore, the user's justification for this is erratic, most recently that the edit would have justified the inclusion of "New World" immigrants on the page in question, despite the source and statement making no mention of New World immigrants whatsoever. Discussing the matter is problematic due to this inconsistent and fluctuating reasoning.

    Ignoring good faith questions: I have repeatedly tried to make simple, clarifying questions to determine the user's views or reasoning. The user has repeatedly ignored these questions. Related to this:

    Clarity: Repeated attempts to discuss the lack of clarity on the page are completely ignored. For example, I have established I think the page definition is confused and poorly phrased with direct questions, e.g. "have you considered that the current page definition of "African Australians" is simply not clear?" This is completely ignored, and as any edits to the page are reverted, it is impossible to address.

    Blatantly illogical use of sources: Various examples, e.g. user ignored the disclaimer on one source stating it is the view of "the individual author only", and argued it is more than the view of the individual author and that the source shows the government's view. However the user consistently deletes sources (from the government or otherwise) that are contrary to his/her opinion when they are added in. The user has further claimed evidence in sources yet ignores my attempts to receive a direct example of this. For example, arguing a report[21] is referring to immigrants when when it says "people of African descent", but ignoring direct queries to clarify exactly where this is stated. Furthermore, user removed this source despite claiming it supports their position.

    I notified the user earlier of my concerns on their talk page, which hopefully was the correct thing to do. Appreciate any admin clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heisoutofsight (talk • contribs) , this notice added by Jprg1966 (talk)

    (Non-administrator comment) This seems like a content dispute to me. Aren't dispute resolution steps more appropriate for something like this? It appears that both of you are editing in good faith, so I would hate for ANI to be the place where it gets sorted out. --Jprg1966 (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's indeed an ordinary content dispute. The Heisoutofsight account was created only a few months ago, so perhaps he/she isn't familiar with proper dispute resolution procedure. All of the claims above have also already been addressed in detail on the article's talk page [22]. Additionally, a Third Opinion was sought [23], so that should be coming in shortly. Middayexpress (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I sought a Third Opinion as Middayexpress refers to. However, I felt that the user ignoring the specific Wikipedia:Tendentious editing guidelines I raised with him/her, and persisting in simply protecting one exact version of the page over multiple edits, was more appropriate to raise here. I am indeed unfamiliar with proper dispute resolution procedure, and I apologise if I have made a mistake. I will of course not persist with any discussion here if this is the wrong place for it.Heisoutofsight (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This board is for reporting urgent violations of Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks, none of which have been made. It's not for ordinary content disputes, especially when a Third Opinion has already been sought (see WP:FORUMSHOPPING). Those multiple edits were and are also unsupported by what the government sources actually state, both in words and data figures. This has been repeatedly demonstrated on the talk page. Middayexpress (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for linking me to WP:FORUMSHOPPING (which I was unaware of), however it does state that "Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards may be reasonable".
    Middayexpress's dismissal of the rules in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing is a different issue to the actual content dispute that I posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. I stick by my claims regarding Middayexpress's Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, which is fairly unambiguous as it involves straightforward things like ignoring the rule under "One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors".
    If ignoring Wikipedia's policies outlined in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing (after having attention explicitly drawn to them) does not constitute urgent violations of Wikipedia's policies and is not appropriate here, then I have simply made a mistake. If this is the case, I request this discussion be closed as it is simply entirely misplaced.Heisoutofsight (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, you clearly do not understand what tendentious editing means since all of your claims have already been discussed and successively disproved on the article's talk page [24]. As also already explained, this noticeboard is for urgent violations of Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks, none of which have been made. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were unaware of the policy against WP:FORUMSHOPPING as well. Middayexpress (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, I explicitly raised these specific concerns regarding tendentious editing on your talk page[25], as I have stated. You deleted them without discussion [26]. Therefore, it is incorrect to say they have been 'discussed and successively disproved'. They were deleted and ignored. Likewise, much was ignored on the page you linked to [27].Heisoutofsight (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I indeed deleted that notification from my talk page because it had zero relevance, as is my prerogative per WP:HUSH. The fact remains that all of your various claims have been successively addressed and/or disproved on the article's talk page [28]. Middayexpress (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I simply did not make all these claims on the article's talk page. These claims here are largely a restatement of what I posted on your talk page. They have not been successively addressed and/or disproved on the article's talk page because they were not raised there.
    I am by no means whatsoever disputing your right to delete what is on your talk page, but that is where I made in particular the second two of the four claims on this page. You did not successively address and/or disprove either of them, because you did not respond to them at all.Heisoutofsight (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I have also noticed the behaviour involving user Middayexpress (talk · contribs) regarding several articles on Wikipedia, mainly the country article of Eritrea where this user have been involved in edit wars [29], this page is now page protected.

    The user Middayexpress have been reverting and removing several edits and contributions made by several users. But also been engaging Wikipedia:Tendentious editing on several pages.This user is has been involved in 86 reverts in [Eritrea]] article [30] and has also been the user (active) with most edits on this page [31]. The user is active in stopping users from contributing, and revert edits as soon as he/she disagrees with the contributor.

    As user Heisoutofsigh (talk · contribs) case points out, Middayexpress has been involved in a numbers of incidents that involves:“Removal of valid citations” “Blatantly illogical use of sources”

    Here are some recent examples (there is alot more):

    Eritrea Article. Here user Middayexpress reverts edits and removes valid citations in the cuisine section [32], that got three reliable sources, one including a WHO report on alcoholic consumption in Eritrea. These sources states that “Suwa” (beer) and “Mies” are traditional alcoholic beverages in Eritrea. Middayexpress removes these sources made by a user, throws in and refers to own sources and claims that Suwa is just a barley drink and not a beer. Middayexpress claims that “Suwa” and “Mies” are not traditional Eritrean alcoholic beverages, since half of the population in Eritrea is Muslim. User also claims that none of Eritreas Muslims drink these alcoholic beverages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eritrea]. How can you claim that half of a country’s population doesn’t drink alcohol with any sources? These are most definitely traditional beverages in Eritrea.

    In the cuisine section on the Eritrea page Middayexpress has also constantly been adding illogical use of sources. Middayexpress claims that Eritrean cuisine “strongly” resemblesthose of neighboring Ethiopia and Somalia [33]. Using a source that not states this!The sources the user is referring to only states that “Eritrean and Somalian Cuisine are similar to those of Ethiopian cuisine ”, the source does not mentions anything about Eritrean and Somalian cuisines being similar to eachother. Still the user Middayexpress claims this and even states that they are “extremely similar”, which contradicts actual facts.

    Tigre people Article.The user Middayexpress claims that the Ethnic group of Tigre is related to the Somalian Ethnic group. Which is not correct? There is no sources claiming this, still the user Middayexpress engages once again in edit wars and reverts the article, [34], using no sources at all. The sources on Tigre people article only claims that the Ethnic group of Tigre_people are only related the Beja_people of Eritrea/Sudan and the Tigray-Tigrinya_people of Eritrea.

    Eritrean cuisine Article (extended). Once again Middayexpress uses a source that does not claim that Eritrean and Somalian cuisines are “extremely similar”. [35] . But also removes contributions and sorces regarding the beverages "Suwa" and "Mies".

    Somali_People Article. Here the user reverts edits and adds that Somalian people are releated to all of these ethics groups Afar | Agaw | Amhara | Beja | Benadiri | Harari | Oromo | Saho | Tigray | Tigre. Without a single source! [[36]]

    But, to make it look good this user throws in a reference to a book which does not claim that Somalian ethnic group are related to all of the mentioned ethnic groups above. [[37]] Can an experienced user or admin please go trough and investigate the behavior involving this user. A warning and a possible ban should be considired for this user.

    Regards (Canevino16 (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

    Canevino16 is a sock of User:Hiyob346, who was indefintely blocked only a few days ago. Most of the pages he links to above are actually now page protected because of his disruptive editing there via a series of ad-hoc accounts and dynamic ips. The administrators User:CambridgeBayWeather and User:Gyrofrog witnessed this disruption. Middayexpress (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected Agaw people and Tigre people. Interesting first three edits by Canevino16. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats a very odd thing too write User:Middayexpress, dont confuse me with a socketpuppet. You are mentioned in alot of pages that involves east africa, my area of interest. Everywhere there is a dispute your name seems to be there. I also noticed this discussion, where another user is accusing you of the exact same things. I don't know if thats a coincident ? User:CambridgeBayWeather, Yes recently I started my account, I did not know if I was obligated to have an account to post in this noticeboard.

    Regards Canevino16 (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You have a non-existent editing history other than your posts here, but this is belied by your posting style and content. Your arguments, links, writing style, posting times, gripes and pages of interest are also identical to those of Hiyob346, who coincidentally was indefinitely blocked shortly before you registered this account. That is what CambridgeBayWeather means above by "interesting first three edits". Per WP:DUCK, you are yet again block evading Hiyob346. Middayexpress (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This report here looks too early, discussion is taking place on article talk page. There's lots of accusations against Middayexpress, but with weak evidence to back it up.--Loomspicker (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Well if more evidence is needed, here it is.
    Removal of valid citations, reverting to the exact same sentence: [38], [39], [40]
    Ignoring good faith questions - all unanswered direct questions found here [41]

    You are constantly reinstating your preferred sentence, in its exact form. I don't see how this is constructive. Have you considered any alternatives? Please explain if any other options may acceptable to you.


    Firstly, does a government source explicitly state that identified African descent does not denote an African Australian? If so, please provide an explicit quote, and a page number.

    Secondly, does a government source explicitly state that an Australian who is not an African immigrant cannot be an African Australian? Does a government source explicitly state that an Australian who is not an African immigrant or of "recent" African descent cannot be an African Australian? If so, how is "recent" defined? If so, please provide an explicit quote, and a page number.

    Thirdly, have you considered that the current page definition of "African Australians" is simply not clear? It states that "African Australians" are synonymous and interchangeable with "African immigrants to Australia", but that they may also have "recent ancestors from Africa". Are you comfortable with any rephrasing of this statement to make it more precise and less unclear?

    Blatantly illogical use of sources:
    - Reason for edit on talk page where government source I posted is explained not to contradict user's sources [42] - "The parts of the Response to OHCHR Questionnaire link [17] that actually discuss African Australians (beginning on "Question 2") pertain to immigrants from actual African countries and their descendants." [i.e. pertain to Middayexpress's stated definition]
    - Reason for the same edit where source I posted is explained to contradict ("mutually exclusive") user's sources [43] - "fix erroneous mutual exclusivity; more precise govlink"
    - Reason for deleting a source which literally contained no mention of the New World in any way whatsoever - "The gist of your post above is that there is an "unabridged link between an Australian of African descent" [incorrect quotation of what I said] and an "African Australian"", and that "an Australian of African descent" is by extension inclusive of New World immigrants with some ancestors from Africa."[44]Heisoutofsight (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to review block of Joefromrandb

    Block reviewed by community. Consensus was this was a good-faith action by the administrator but the editor should be unblocked. Numerous parties should take the community's advice and cool off. This should not be a witch hunt, rather a requested review of a block. Toddst1 (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    I recently blocked User:Joefromrandb due to his edit warring on an AFD page. The original report is here. My findings were that:

    • Joefromrandb had added a comment to the AFD page, which he believe he had worded to avoid a BLP violation.
    • User:Neljack claimed that the wording did violate BLP and redacted it.
    • An edit war broke about between the two users with the comment being re-added and re-redacted.
    • Neljack eventually opened a case on the BLP noticeboard.
    • Shortly afterwards User:Nomoskedasticity reported both users at the edit warring noticeboard.
    • Both users continued to revert after the edit warring report was made
    • Neljack's last revert was about 40 minutes after the case was opened
    • Joefromrandb reverted again about 5 hours later

    I decided that Joefromrandb should be blocked (and that the block should be for one month) due to the fact that he continued reverting several hours later and the fact that he has a fairly extensive history of blocks for edit warring and disruptive editing (including a week long block that had only expired three weeks earlier). I decided to use my discretion to not block Neljack, because he had opened the BLP case, had stopped reverting shortly after the edit war was reported, and because he seemed to have a genuine belief that he was preventing a BLP violation. I have since discussed the block with Joefromrandb, and put it to him that

    You seem to agree that you were edit warring, and have stated that you make no apology for doing so. Presumably this means that you believe edit warring is OK, and would be prepared to do it again. The fact that this is your second block for disruptive editing in three weeks, adds further support to this conclusion.

    to which he replied

    You're goddamn right I make no apology. The day I make an apology for reverting the sycophant of an (alleged) child-molester will be the day I die.

    It has been suggested to me that Joefromrandb should not have been blocked because his comment did not violate BLP and so Neljack was violating policy by reverting his comment. I did not make a finding on whether Joefromrandb's comment did violate BLP. Instead I found that even if his comment did not violate BLP, and that Neljack did violate policy by reverting him, that did not provide Joefromrandb with an exemption for edit warring (here is the list of edit warring exemptions). It has also been suggested that the block length was punitive, rather than preventative. Per the blocking policy a block is preventative if the aim of it is to

    • prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia;
    • deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior;
    • and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.

    In this case, I believed and still believe that the longer block was necessary to deter further disruptive behaviour from Joefromrandb. I believe that his comment above reinforces the belief that he is unrepentant, and feels that edit warring is acceptable and previous, shorter, blocks have failed to deter him. I bring this here for your review as User:WilliamJE has made it clear that he is not happy with my decision to retain the block, and his belief that it needs to be reviewed. There has been extensive discussion on my talk page and Joefromrandb's talk page. TigerShark (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Joe's original comment was not objectionable and Neljack had no business removing it. Perhaps Joe shouldn't have edit-warred, but when someone insists on censoring a comment that should not be censored, they are just asking for trouble. If anyone should have been blocked, it should have been Neljack. The fact that you brought this here for review yourself instead of waiting for someone else to do so allays my outrage slightly, but only slightly. At best, you've made a major mistake. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) – Rest in Peace, Jackson Peebles 23:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • My two cents: Joe was edit-warring with the other guy about restoring Joe's own comments which Joe had carefully written in a good-faith attempt to avoid any BLP problem. I don't see anything in Joe's block log about any edit-warring about Joe's own comments, so this seems sui generis. That's why a month-long block seems excessive. This was not an edit-war about article content.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you asked, I would say that you probably should have blocked both and probably just long enough to finish out the AFD. I think Joe is very angry and will need to find a way through that anger without taking it out on Wikipedia. Probably the best thing to do now is end the block. Your motives were good and the fact you brought it here speaks well of you. JodyB talk 23:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jody, Automatic, Tiger Shark only came here after I made repeated statements today that I would be starting the ANI. Before that he ignored at least two editors who thought a review was in order or said his block was inappropriate and at least one of those comments was made two days ago....William 01:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • WilliamJE, I think you know that is a gross misrepresentation of what happened. Both TParis and Drmies raised concerns on my talk page and did mention that ANI may be required. However, I took significant time to address there concerns (including TParis's follow up) but then heard no more. In your case, I explained my reasons again, and asked yo to explain why you thought it wasn't edit warring, or why you thought that Joefromrandb did not need to be deterred from edit warring again. You ignored those key points (and they are the key points if you are arguing for a unblock) and instead tried to suggest that I had some nefarious intent, because I responded to your question on my talk page, and then said that you were going to take it to ANI. You also keep mentioning that TParis and Drmies raised their initial concerns, as if that explains why Joefromrandb had an exemption. Do you actually have policy based reasoning for why Joefromrandb's reverts were exempted, or is your reasoning simply your claim that I am acting in bad faith and that other people have questioned the block? TigerShark (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • TigerShark you have already shown appallingly bad faith via your actions.(BTW I brought up above WP:TPO in Joe's defense. Something you ignore.) I asked you two question on Joe's board. You didn't answer them there but on your own talk page instead in a two day old stale thread I had never taken part in. The only reason to do that- to keep Joe from commenting on any replies you made. I told you how I felt about that move(Never seen anything like it in 7 years here) and why I felt you did it, but you've ignored it though you've had almost a day to address it. Based on your non answer we can safely assume you did that move only to muzzle Joe. If there was any justice here at ANI, we'd be discussing your competence as an administrator.(Look at this ANI of yours. No differentials or userlinks when you began it. Even though it says at the entry window 'Also, please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors.' I had to do that.) Unfortunately it is well known that getting acting against an admin is impossible. The well known case of Mark Arsten calling an editor a petulant piece of shit and getting away with it is damning proof. You know you can get away with anything. If you thought more about Wikipedia than yourself you would have already ended this ludicrous block. It is increasingly obvious here that editors other than myself think you went too far....William 11:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was aware of that and I had actually considered inquiring as to when you would start the thread. As you know, Joe and I have had some very severe differences in the past, but yet I am tempted to make some very strong comments about this extreme block. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) – Rest in Peace, Jackson Peebles 03:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removing BLP violations is a clear and specific exception to the 3RR rule. While Joefromrandb took some measures to keep his comment below the threshold of a BLP violation, in my opinion he did not go far enough, and the statement as it stood was a strikingly negative comment about a living person, whatever one might think about that person's character, which we do not take into account when determining if the BLP policy has been violated. (Facts about bad acts and the opinions of experts may legitimately be immune from removal due to BLP concerns, but most certainly not the opinions of Wikipedia editors.) Further, the wording used by Joefromrandb left little doubt about what Joefromrandb was referring to, when he could have used a number of other formulations which would have been much vaguer and yet gotten the point across. Because of these circumstances, the block of Joefromrandb was correct, and the non-block of Neljack was also correct. As for the length of Joefromrandb's block, it was possibly excessive, but I'll leave that for others to determine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not the only editor with concerns. Drmies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and TParis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have also voiced them.
    What took place happened at an AFD[45]. Joe made this post[46]. Neljack came along and redacted[47] it as violation of BLP. Neljack and Joe went back and forth reverting each other more than three times each. To save time, I am not posting them but TigerShark didn't either. We're not in dispute on that aspect of this thread.
    The changing of a editor's comments would seem to be a clear violation of WP:TPO by Neljack. When an editor sees this, isn't he or she allowed to undo it?
    As for the BLP violation that Neljack accuses Joe of, TParis told TigerShark here[48] and here[49] that he felt no such BLP violation happened. TParis also said[50] no BLP violation took place directly to Neljack.
    Without a BLP violation, this comes down to WP:TPO and whether an editor can be charged with edit warring for undoing changes to their own comments. If it is an edit war, then punishment should be handed out to both parties. TParis in one of the above posts I linked to above, clearly said he feels Neljack not Joe deserves the block. Right now Joe is blocked(by Tiger Shark) for a month. Drmies thinks[51] that is too long and felt these blocks should be reviewed at ANI[52]. I agree with Drmies.
    Before today, I wasn't involved with any of this. I learned about it when reading Joe's talk page. You may want to read this thread[53] besides the one at TigerShark's page. There I asked[54] TigerShark two questions. TigerShark did the interesting course of action of not replying[55] at Joe's page, but in a two day stale discussion thread at his own talk page that I hadn't ever taken part in. I told TigerShark that I didn't appreciate that and that I strongly suggested[56] he did so in order for Joe not to take part in any discussion between TigerShark and I. Tigershark has had multiple chances to deny this but he has chosen silence. His behavior over that, his block of Joe and failure to do the same to Neljack, and his refusal to change anything in spite of multiple editors suggesting he do so, well I have an opinion on it. What do all of you have to say?...William 00:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a minor correction, I didn't say Neljack should be blocked now but I would've blocked Neljack instead of Joe at the time. At this point, we all need to find a way forward and blocking Neljack now isn't the solution. At this point, let's try to solve the dispute with some open discussion and cohesion.--v/r - TP 00:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WilliamJE, you comment that If it is an edit war, then punishment should be handed out to both parties. shows a deep misunderstanding. The blocks are supposed to be preventative. Taking into account everything that I have said above, it was clear to me that a block was not required to prevent future edit warring by Neljack, but that it was for Joefromrandb. To claim that two parties that have edit warred must both be blocked, for punishment is completely wrong. You are also still relying purely upon 1) claims that I acted in bad faith and 2) statements that other people have raised concerns. Furthermore, you keep wording your comments to suggest that I did not respond to those concerns, and that simply because somebody raised a concern at some point, that means that they still have that concern. Why don't you speak for yourself. Explain your policy based reasoning for why Joefromrandb's reverts were exempted. TigerShark (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of fuzziness here: Borderline BLP issue, borderline decision to block one and not the other, borderline decision on duration. Nothing insanely wrong here on TigerShark's part, but my Reality Check Meter(TM) is indicating that the sum total ended up being too harsh. Reduce to time served, since you're asking for other opinions. FWIW, I blocked Joe for a day a month or two ago. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Crokupedia is so cool, man. Lots of reasons to contribute here. Calling someone incompetent for misreading and or misapplying policies is a clear personal attack, but calling someone a sycophant of a child molester is borderline everything (BLP, NPA) etc. (as a long you put "alleged" in parentheses somewhere in there; should it be before sycophant or before child molester?) Kumbayah. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not sure if all that was directed at me (I didn't say calling someone incompetent was a personal attack), but yeah, I was too flippant here. "Borderline BLP issue" was unclear, I was trying to use it as shorthand for "A BLP issue that some would block for, and some wouldn't". But I definitely didn't account for the clear personal attack in "sycophant of an (alleged) child-molester", that was unacceptable. It wasn't a reason for blocking, since it came after the block, but it's worth considering when deciding on unblocking terms. I still think 1 month is too long for one (sustained) outburst, even with the recent block history. But my suggestion of "time served", if not accompanied by some acknowledgement from Joe that you can't going around saying stuff like that, whether you're angry or not, was not really reasonable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not intend to comment on the block, but I do want to explain my actions. I redacted the statement because, after careful consideration, I concluded that it was prima facie libellous and therefore a BLP violation. I considered that the statement contained an obvious implication of extremely grave criminal conduct or purposes (and subsequently it has indeed been confirmed that this was indeed intended). It may not be well-known among non-lawyers that an innuendo can be just as libellous as an explicit statement. There are many cases where a person has brought a successful action for libel based on an innuendo which readers would grasp despite it not being expressly said.
    I acknowledge that I should have brought the matter to the BLP noticeboard more promptly, and I apologise for that. All I can say is that in this somewhat stressful situation it took me a little while to organise my thoughts, compose a coherent statement and find the relevant diffs. Joe was reverting quite frequently in the meantime, despite the fact I had repeatedly indicated a willingness to discuss the matter and start a thread on the BLP noticeboard. In the interim, I felt I could hardly leave up a statement that I regarded as libellous (and I repeatedly pointed out the statement in the BLP policy requiring disputed material to stay out until it has been discussed and consensus gained for reinstating it). I note, also, that two of my reverts occurred after I had started the BLP noticeboard discussion.
    Finally, I note that Joe's talk page contains a number of statements either expressly confirming the innuendo or repeating the original statement (or something that carries a similar innuendo). I suggest they should be RevDeleted as libellous and a BLP violation. Neljack (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simple fact: this was a block for edit-warring, and both of them were edit-warring. As such, both should have been given the EXACT same block - this is one of the few times I don't follow normal escalation processes. The block log does NOT say it's a BLP-related block. The problem now: it's purely punitive because only 1 side of the edit-warriors was blocked, and it's too late to block Neljack, so you have no choice but to unblock joe. An unblock does NOT negate the fact that joe should not have been edit-warring no matter what ES&L 12:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To say edit-warring should usually result in symmetrical blocks is inaccurate. If one editor has edit-warred on one article, and another on 10-15 of them, should they get the same block? No. pbp 15:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What the heck does that have to do with the topic at hand? I gave a rule-of-thumb based on 2 people edit-warring on 1 article, not someone edit-warring across multiple ones? How many red-herrings are needed here? Stick with the program, please ES&L 17:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe a consideration in the block was the fact that Joe had a history of edit-warring. Had this been the first time he edit-warred, he would have gotten a much shorter block, or none at all. So it's not a red herring. pbp 17:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's try and keep this on-topic. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Comment: While you're at it I suggest that you also take a look at the multiple other errors that TigerShark, an admin who over the past five or six years has only made just enough edits to keep his adminship alive but now acts as if he's as infallible as the Pope, has made over the past few days. Such as blocking a large number of IPs indefinitely in spite of being told by multiple editors, including admins, that it should not be done, and why (discussions regarding TigerShark's multiple errors have been spread out over multiple talk pages, possibly to make it harder for others to get a full picture of the multiple errors he has made...). With [57],[58],[59],[60],[61],[62],[63],[64],[65],[66],[67],[68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73] being some, but far from all, of the IPs that have been given indefinite blocks by TigerShark, blocks that TigerShark refuses to reconsider. Other places with interesting reading would be on Drmies' talk page and these two threads, #1 and #2, on TigerShark's own talk page. Thomas.W talk to me 13:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thomas what you point out above is very serious. Maybe I turn this thread into a discussion about whether TigerShark should be WP:Deysyoped. We have all those horrendous IP blocks, his actions towards Joe, his not knowing how to start an ANI thread, Multiple instances of [[WP:IDHT], and his talk page change with me at least. Based on all of that his continuing to have administrator privileges should at least be reviewed but knowing ANI as I do I'd expect someone to quickly close this thread and remove Joe's block so to avoid that potentially very embarrassing discussion....William 14:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be best if Thomas.W and WilliamJE stopped with the hyperbole; if your average editor came to this thread and saw people breathlessly making these overwrought comments, they would probably instinctively take the other side. Throwing everything you can at the wall to see if anything sticks is poor form, and an indication that you don't have strong arguments. The IP blocks are not "horrendous"; some kind of block of joefromrandb is hard to argue with; "doesn't know how to start an ANI thread" is... devoid of meaning; he is talking to anyone who shows up at his talk page, and making reasonable points, so there is no IDHT; his talk page change was not a big deal; and you can't desysop someone at ANI. If you want to stir up drama, keep on going. If you want to work towards an unblock of joefromrandb, focus on the issue at hand and suggest to Joe that he reconsider his personal attack. Hatting this was smart, unhatting it unhelpful for an unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the block Normally I would be inclined to agree with ES&L, as both editors were indeed edit warring. Joe's behavior on his own talk page is quite frankly, deplorable. He clearly doesn't care that he violated policy (both EW and BLP), and directly states that he would have no problem doing it again. Therefore, this block isn't punitive, it is preventative, as joe would certainly continue editwarring and BLP violations if the block was lifted. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but I can't support an unblock after some of the rhetoric Joe has been using, i.e. "the land of enablers for child-molesters and their sycophants". While calling other editors sycophants should not normally be justification for a block, I think this is a bit of an exception. This kind of rhetoric is disruptive, and the block should be maintained as a preventative measure until we're certain it won't be used again. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That "the land of enablers for child-molesters and their sycophants" doesn't come anywhere close in comparison with calling someone 'a petulant piece of shit' You should know that, Mark....William 15:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but the excesses of others don't give Joe the right to break our rules. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support immediate unblock how is it fair to defend a bad block based on the way the user reacted to being given a bad block? Yes, I wish Joe would tone down the rhetoric, but I'd imagine many of us would react unpleasantly if we were given such an egregious block. Even if Joe did deserve a brief block for edit-warring, he should be unblocked for time served. And yes, Neljack should have been blocked as well. Joe's comments were not a black-and-white BLP violation and repeatedly insisting on removing them only served to further this mess. If Neljack can't be blocked now because it would only be punitive, Joe's month-long block should come to an end because it is also punitive. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) – Rest in Peace, Jackson Peebles 15:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose there are two interpretations. The one I believe you are putting forward is that the block was not necessary to deter Joefromrandb from further edit warring, and that his later comments where he claimed to be unapologetic and gave the impression that he would edit war again were simply a result of his anger at the perceived unfairness. The other interpretation is that he did need a longer block to deter him, because he believes that edit warring is acceptable and would do it again, and that his comments simply reflect that. Given his history of edit warring and disruptive editing, I think that the second interpretation is far more likely. TigerShark (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock per AutomaticStrikeout, for fairness, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have little to add here but support for an unblock for time served. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would endorse this block; I would have made the same block had I been reviewing the edit-warring report. I would have blocked chiefly for the BLP issue rather than the edit-warring. One month seems an appropriate duration although there is an argument to made for an indefinite duration pending credible assurance that the problematic approach would not be repeated. I would also not have blocked Neljack; the removals of the remarks in question I would have considered as covered by the BLP exemption for edit-warring.--CIreland (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock -- just give everyone a break. If it continues, we'll go from there. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 18:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock per AutomaticStrikeout, Couldn't put it any better myself. Davey2010Talk! 19:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock per Sportsguy17. Enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Sportsguy17 recommends that we unblock and "just give everyone a break. if it continues, we'll go from there". What exactly would that entail? A week long block did not prevent further edit warring, and a month long block has been responded to with claims that he "makes no apology" and would do it again. If the block is removed now, why would that deter Joefromeandb in future? A week long block didn't, so I can't see any reason why making this a 4 or 5 day block would help. So, I'd be interested to hear thoughts on what "we'll go from there" would actually entail. Would it be another block? For how long? What would happen when that one gets appealed? In the face of unrepentant edit warring, I can't help but think that we need to try longer and longer blocks, not shorter ones. How else do the community send a message that this has to stop? TigerShark (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Now would be a good time to remind everyone of this. pbp 22:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    TigerShark, I'm somewhat disappointed that you have not acknowledged that this situation was unusual in that it was not about article content. It's much much much more unusual to have comments reverted than content reverted. Right? But you seem to be treating it all as one and the same.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a reminder that BLP policy is in force everywhere on en.wiki, including in the comments of editors, so there is no real content/comment distinction here, as there would be normally. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The distinction is that very unusual things are less likely to recur than very usual things. Isn't this the only time that removal of Joe's comments has occurred? And the only time he has protested such removal?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it would normally be true that the lack of precedent for the behavior would be a mitigating factor, but it remains true that Joefronrandb has, so far, at least, failed to back away from the comment, and has said that he would do it again – see the comment above about the day he backs off from it would be the day he dies – so precedent alone can't carry as much weight, because he's apparently still harboring the same feelings. Now, a statement from Joefromrandb that he won't do it again (it doesn't have to be an apology, just a statement about his future behavior in this regard) would change everything, and I would think that time served would be sufficient, as there would be no longer anything to prevent. Until he distances himself from his comments, though, which still variously qualify violations of BLP and NPA, there's still something to be prevented. Giving WP:ROPE to someone who says that they'll do it again seems to me like a foolhardy choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    TigerShark let me clarify what I meant. First of all, we could always apply WP:ROPE, give him another chance and if he continues disruption, you (likely) indefinitely block him until you receive credible assurances that the problem won't reoccur. As for you, Purplebackpack89, by linking to that RfC, you really tossed a boomerang, considering that the RfC ended up having a good chunk about how you and Gabe (mostly you) had been treating Joe, which earned you a one-week block about a month ago for hounding/harassment of Joe (although it hasn't seemed to have been a problem since). Just saying. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 22:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have taken no position on Joe's unblocking, I just want people to get the facts. People seem to be portraying Joe as completely innocent, when the fact is he's edit-warred a great deal. We gave him plenty of ROPE already (two blocks for edit-warring since the RfC). There is no particular reason why any action should be taken against me for saying that. pbp 23:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't an interaction ban between you and joe already suggested more than once? Perhaps it's time to make it official as well? Good opportunity to kill to birds with one stone ES&L 09:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that's needed at this time. pbp 13:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Sportsguy17 I tend to agree in principle, but I believe that we really need the credible assurances now (after all, this is far from his first block). Of the people here who have agreed that the block should continue, I think most of them have said (in one way or another) "until we get credible assurances". If he provides them and acknowledges that future edit warring will result in an extended block (or maybe even a ban), then I think that most (myself included) could support an unblock. If we don't get them now, and unblock anyway, I think we lose this opportunity and reinforce that we are not committed. Would be good to hear your thoughts on this. TigerShark (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that User:Anythingyouwant tested the waters a little with regards to this by asking if Joe would edit war again in a situation where he felt his comment had been removed without good reason [74] and Joe responded with "To give you a quick, but honest answer, I don't know." [75]. I don't knock Joe for being honest, but I think it shows that we are not there quite yet. I hope he can find his way to agreeing that he won't edit war again (even in situations where he believes he is right). It is the belief that edit warring might be a valid tool when we are right that is often the problem in these situations. TigerShark (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe the interaction ban is needed at this time, and it's off-topic anyway. This thread is about Joe. Earlier you were saying I need to stay on topic, now it's you who do. pbp 13:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think it's off-topic, Purplebackpack89, and you might not be happy with the idea, but I'm almost certain Joe would have no problem with it. When the two of you interact, it is far more disruptive than constructive. I see it like EatsShootsAndLeaves does: unblock on a 1RR restriction and civility parole and an IBAN between PBP and Joe. I also agree with TigerShark that the next block will/should likely be an indefinite block. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 15:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll support the 1RR, but the interaction ban doesn't solve the problem. It's clear that even when I don't interact with Joe, he edit wars with other people. And it's likely an interaction ban wouldn't cover this anyway: I didn't edit-war with him, I didn't comment on his talk page, and I didn't start this ANI. pbp 15:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm coming late to this (wasn't even aware it was being discussed) but I was watching this revert war in real-time. I urged both participants to calm down, and since a BLP claim was being made, and since Joe claimed it wasn't BLP I asked him to please explain why it wasn't. From my vantage it sure looked like one. But as I have known to be wrong before I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. He didn't feel like explaining, perhaps because there is some bad blood between the two? In any case this flare up seems to be related to other interactions that have been seething for some time.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally feel that the interaction and civility stuff should be kept out of this, because the waters are already muddy enough, with all kinds of allegations and points being raised that have nothing to do with the current block and how we deter Joe (and others) from edit warring. I hope we are close to a resolution, but it seems that there are enough people that place little importance in deterring edit warring, that getting consensus to take action which supports the policy may be tough. TigerShark (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Joe is unblocked, but must adhere to 1RR or expect a very long block

    Actually proposed by ESL or Sportsguy17 above

    • Support pbp 15:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose if you want to give Neljack 1RR, fine. Just unblock Joe and move on. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) – Rest in Peace, Jackson Peebles 15:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost support As long as we mean "no reverts" rather than "not more than one revert", and Joe should also give an undertaking to not edit war. Also, I think that the proposal would need to define what the block would be. Otherwise, someone will give Joe a long block, and then we will be back here with half of the people claiming that they never supported a block of that length. I fear that this may be moot, given that Joe has stated (in response to my post above) that he will never accept a conditional unblock [76]. Still, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't define what those conditions would look like. TigerShark (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The conditions probably should be imposed when he returns even if he isn't unblocked, given his history of edit warring. As for "how long", maybe make a suggestion in the "Definition of a long block" section below? pbp 16:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Definition of a long block

    Proposal: Joe is unblocked, but if (for any reason) he reverts another user on a future occasion, he will be blocked for two months on each occasion

    This means that Joe would need to leave others to revert obvious vandalism, BLP, or anything else that usually exempts reverts. I think we should drop any suggestion that Joe should agree to these conditions, because he clearly won't, and as long as the conditions are clear it doesn't really matter. However, I feel that this proposal needs strong consensus to be implementable. It will be useless if there is no strong consensus, because then we will just be back here, arguing for and against "time served". TigerShark (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose this laughably bad proposal. The first thought that entered my mind after reading the above- Is this serious? Reverting vandalism and BLP violations can get a person blocked. He's protecting wikipedia but can't be allowed. If this was a serious proposal, it just further strengthens my view that this person shouldn't have administrative functions....William 17:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarify I favor unblocking Joe but not with these laughably bad conditions. Tiger Shark, end Joe's block before you make another proposal or say something that makes the above seem reasonable in comparison....William 18:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Comment from uninvolved editor Oppose because vandalism reverts and self-reverts can get him blocked for two months. That is the most unreasonable idea I have heard in this discussion. Epicgenius (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This proposal clearly shows that TigerShark is totally out of touch with reality. There is a clear support above for unblocking Joe because of his one-month block being seen as unreasonably severe, yet TigerShark proposes an even more severe punishment, a totally unlimited 0RR-limit that would give Joe an automatic two-month block for any revert he makes, even on his own user pages (since there's no mention of an exception for that in the proposal), and even of the most obvious cases of vandalism. And forever, since there's no time limit in the proposal. So could an uninvolved admin please close this, and enforce the consensus above, i.e. to unblock Joefromrandb? I would also like to point out that I find it very unsavoury that an editor who obviously has some grievance against Joe gets free rein here, more or less smearing Joe at will, while Joe (an editor that I don't know and have never encountered on WP), because of his block, is unable to defend himself.Thomas.W talk to me 19:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Tom, I find it unfortunate that you've ignored Joe's previous blocks for edit-warring (Four in the last six months). Then when I bring it up, you accuse me of "smearing him at will". TigerShark's proposal is coming about because (and only because) of Joe's history. pbp 19:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Comment from uninvolved editor All of these blocks for WP:3RR. Epicgenius (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It usually takes two to tango. And being all over this case here at ANI, cheering on everyone who opposes lifting the block or writes something unfavourable about Joefromrandb, is equally unsavoury. And not cricket (to use a phrase my grandfather often used). Thomas.W talk to me 20:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We're past the point of punishing Neljack for this. If Joe wanted to comment, he could request unblock and/or request that another editor transclude comments from his talk page to here (those are things to make it cricket to discuss an editor when he's blocked). He's done neither. What's really concerning me now is how critical you are of me, TigerShark and others who find his history of edit-warring reprehensible, particularly to the point of inaccuracy (cheer on every person who opposes the block? I've done no such thing!) pbp 20:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So since we, because of stubborn resistance from TigerShark and legal wrangling here, are past the point of punishing Neljack for his part in it, Joefromrandb should serve his unfair one-month block. Where's the logic in that? His block doesn't become fair just because we can't give Neljack the block that he IMHO ought to have been given. Thomas.W talk to me 21:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Cue Personally, when I looked at the diffs, it seemed to me that Joe's comment (before it was edited by Neljack) was not wrong. Other people might say otherwise. Epicgenius (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool down, remember, and lets end this thing. Thomas, Purple, please do what I just suggested. The remember part involves this- Joe's EWarring involved him reverting another editor who was changing what he wrote in a AFD. The other editor was violating WP:TPO and you have to take that into consideration when judging what Joe did. None of us are happy if someone comes along and reverts what we did on in non article space. A few weeks ago an experienced editor reverted my wikilove message to another editor, would you believe that? Back to Joe, so if you are going to still punish him, remember what was the underlying cause of this. Also, TigerShark should have taken this to ANI right away instead of waiting 2-3 days to do it. TParis and Drmies, both administrators, had problems with the length of this block and told TigerShark but TigerShark stuck to initial position. I'm the one who forced TigerShark here, because I said I would start the ANI if he didn't....William 22:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I move that Joe be unblocked by a uninvolved administrator

    A tally of straight block or unblocks shows this-

    Unblock- Me, Epicgenius, ESL, Drmies, Automatic Strikeout, Gerda, Sportsguy, Davey, Thomas W, GregJack, wehwalt, Floquenbeam, thewolfchild, and maybe TParis who he would have blocked the other editor. Jody B and Anything seem to favor unblock. Correct me if I'm wrong. (16 for unblock)

    Continue the block- TigerShark of course, Mark Arsten, Admiral, Clreland, Beyond My Ken, Loomspicker. PBP I think too. (7 for block)

    A couple of people are fuzzy but I have it around two to one in favor of Joe's unblocking without restrictions/just a warning. I think its time to end the arguing....William 22:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe I am uninvolved and could close this discussion. A couple of editors might take issue with that conclusion because of my action to hat one portion of the discussion, but I disagree. I have been following the discussion and have avoided closing it for two reasons. First, many people were still commenting, and, second, the lack of focus made it difficult to determine consensus. William's idea here to bring the issue of whether to unblock Joe back into focus is a constructive one, but I believe some clarification of his vote counts is in order. I'm not doing this just to disagree with William's interpretation, but with the hope that some editors who have previously commented will make their positions clearer now. In favor of an unblock without restrictions: Automatic Strikeout, Gerda, Drmies, Sportsguy, Davey, Wehwalt, Thomas, Gregjack, William, Jody B, and thewolfchild (9 10 11 total). Against unblocking (and that includes anyone who wants conditions): ES&L (originally favored an unblock but then proposed conditions), Floquenbeam (originally favored unblock but changed to conditions), Admiral Caius, Clreland, Beyond My Ken, Loomspicker, Andrew Lenahan, and TigerShark (7 8 total). TParis hasn't voted. PBP's vote is unclear (at one point he took no position and later supported an unblock with conditions). EpicGenius doesn't seem to have actually voted except on one permutation proposal, just commented otherwise. If I were to close this now, I'd probably close it as no consensus, although because the vote counts are close, I'd have to struggle with argument weight and other factors. I've read editors' comments, and I gotta tell you that would be tough as generally the voting editors are experienced and either make credible arguments or implicitly agree per precedecessors' arguments (Drmies's is a good example of that).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on William's comment below, I've added him to the list supporting an unblock and changed 9 to 10.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Jody B should be counted in favor of an unblock (now added). I don't agree with the others. More recently, Andrew supported the block below, so I've added him as well. I am now rethinking whether I will at some point close this discussion, not so much because I think I'm involved, but because, despite the fact that I am willing to make hard calls, it's not worth the grief. Hopefully, this mini discussion about consensus will assist any administrator willing to close the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23:Where does Andrew say he supports blocking Joe for Ewarring? He thinks Joe was not civil but this block isn't about him being civil. You're still discounting multiple people who have said they support Joe being unblocked or that TigerShark was wrong to block him in the first place. If you say TigerShark was wrong in the first place, then you're saying there should be no block at all. Maybe its time to ask Jimbo to Desysop TigerShark. A very strong case can be made for it just based on his laughable 0RR proposal above which TigerShark refuses to withdraw. TigerShark can always unblock Joe and that would end the grief, the arguing etc....William 15:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23: You're still not counting Floquenbeam, Jody, TParis(and read his lengthy comments to TigerShark at Shark's talk page. Without his Drmies protests, this thread may never have happened. And others have this count at over 2 to 1 compared to yours. Your second failed count I think also shows bias in my opinion and that eliminates you from deciding this thread....William 11:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23:CommentYour above vote counting is shabby. Among those who voted for Joe that you seemed to forget was me(and I don't know how you could miss that considering I listed myself above among those who support unblocking Joe and you've messaged me on my talk page about something I said here), Jody B who said the block should be ended, Floquenbeam who said he would reduce the block to time served, TParis has clearly said he would have not blocked Joe in the beginning but the other editor instead. The people who support conditional unblocks still support unblocking. A over 2 to 1 majority isn't no consensus....William 00:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, very bad precedent but typical around, if no consensus is the decision. A month block for an editor reverting edits that violate TPO(remember the block was for edit warring), Nothing at all for a administrator when they violate WP:CIVIL and acknowledge it at this page. We have a block done here by incompetent administrator. He actually proposed an indefinite 0RR for Joe that would have damaged Wikipedia in an effort to punish Joe. That tells you alot about the administrator who did the block we're talking about. Why would anyone here want to validate the judgments of a person who would see Wikipedia harmed so that his judgment be not overturned?...William 17:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In most circumstances, decisions made by admins intended to represent the will of the community are not supposed to be made on the basis of tallies or headcounts, but by weighing the policy-based arguments presented. I would hope that any uninvolved admin will remember this, and read and evaluate the entire discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well BMK, I think that it's going to be hard for uninvolved admins to decide the outcome of this discussion, given its complexity. Epicgenius (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's possible, but I've seen much knottier problems be unraveled by closing admins. In any event, just counting heads is not rhe appropriate methodology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Template:Comment from uninvolved editor Comment – reduce both block lengths. It was at the AFD, which is now over, and it was over whether a comment should have been removed or not. Cannot support unblock as both users have history of edit warring, and cannot support an unblock of Joefromrandb at all because of their comments above suggests user thinks edit warring is acceptable.--Loomspicker (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's look at things here: I agree with BMK that head counts don't cut it. That said, their is definitely leaning consensus toward an unblock. IMHO, Joe and PBP should not be commenting on or interacting with one another. Now, policy-wise, let's look at WP:BLOCK: As I see it, the AfD/PROD or whatever it may be has closed and I honestly think that Joefromrandb has some small interest in improving, even if he doesn't make it completely transparent. As I see it, unblock and make it clear that further disruption/edit warring could result in an indef block. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 01:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment There is clearly not consensus here, nor can consensus be achieved by people just voting "time served", or just focusing on attacking other users. There is a legitimate concern, shared by many here, that Joefromrandb will continue to edit war and that he needs to be deterred from doing so. Any consensus can only be reached if that concern is acknowledged and addressed, either by putting forward arguments that no such threat exists, or by proposing a way to deter it. Proposing conditions for deterring future problems is an attempt at consensus building. Focusing on attacks on others, or just saying "unblock", is not. That is not to say that people can't comment as they wish, just that many such comments do nothing to actually achieve consensus. TigerShark (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Over a dozen editors stated good reason to end Joe's block. You're practicing WP:IDHT just as you are by not withdrawing that laughable proposal up above that's got not one iota of support because of the bad judgment it shows in you. An administrator is out of touch when they propose blocking someone for reverting vandalism....William 14:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I fully agree with Tiger's concerns. Joe's history is poor. However my concern is whether this event with the ensuing block was appropriate move. I think given the one-sided nature of the block we should end it now and move on. If Joe fouls up again in editing he will be dealt with as an serial offender. But this is just not the best way. I encourage Tiger to unblock him especially since the root discussion is done. JodyB talk 15:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Jody, although I don't think that the root discussion is quite done. The root is how we deter Joe from edit warring again. It would see that a key idea is that we "let him off this time", and only deal with it if it happens again. I can't see any justification for this, especially given Joe's history and defiant comments made since the block. As I mentioned above I think that it is easy to reach consensus for an unblock (including support from me) if it is done on the condition that further violations will result in a pre-agreed response. What those conditions are, I think, is really the root discussion, but it is not a discussion that some people seem to be prepared to engage in. I think the conditions need to be unambiguous, and I have suggested "no reverts" and "a two month block", but that is only a suggestion, and anyone should feel free to suggest changes. But a response by some, along the lines of "ludicrous proposal...unblock immediately" is simply an attempt to avoid the question of what the conditions should be. So let's try to decide what those conditions should be. TigerShark (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • TigerShark, make it very clear that a recurrence will result in an indefinite block. And while there is isn't perfect consensus to unblock, there is a lot of people telling you to unblock, including fellow administrators. Lets also remember that it takes two to tango in edit wars and since one of the offenders got off without a block, it's not fair to continue the block on the other side: the edit war has stopped, the AfD closed, and as I stated very far up, lengthy blocks tend to anger users more than get them to understand. If you want Joe to have an epiphany about his actions, then do so, but continuing the block will not. This is my last comment. Best. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 15:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's easy to overlook, but Joefromrandb's comment was indeed a too-thinly-veiled highly insulting remark about a living person, the removal of which by Neljack was justified, and the restoration of by Joefromrandb was not. This is what justifies the unequal treatment of the two editors.

              The question of the length of the block is another matter altogether. I'm convinced by the discussion here that there is considerable sentiment for reducing Joefromrandb's block to time served, but I agree with Tiger Shark that doing so without some kind of statement from Joefromrandb that he won't engage in the same behavior again does not serve to protect the project.

              This puts his fate into the hands of Joefromrandb. If he has no intention of making BLP-violating comments and edit-warring in support of them int he future, all he has to do is say so, and I feel sure that Tiger Shark would unblock him. However, this is not the case, since Joefromrandb has explicitly stated on his talk page "I have no interest whatsoever in any conditional offer of unblocking." Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just a note because I was checking up on Thewolfchild and his edits led me to Joe's page which led me back here. I've been a bit busy offline so I havent paid attention here. But just to clarify, I do not think Joe should've received the block here. I also believe it's too late to block Neljack whom I believe is responsible for this whole mess. This thread, in my opinion, should conclude with a warning to Neljack to not be so liberal in his user of BLP as justification for his actions. Redacting once is appropriately, from there, he should've taken the issue to ANI.--v/r - TP 16:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grudgingly yes. I believe that Joe was provoked by Neljack. Neljack's actions led to this situation. If Joe received anything, time served is good enough for me. No other conditions. TigerShark was put into a difficult position and that's understandable why he did what he did, but I think he's drawn this out long enough and it's time to put an end to it.--v/r - TP 17:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    TigerShark, you asked for a review...

    ...and you have now had one. A lengthy one. What else do you need? There is a consensus of 2+:1 in favour of lifting the block. More than that, there are several experienced administrators suggesting you lift the block. You need to consider how your defiance in the face of all this appears. The community has spoken. If you're concerned about recidivism, then monitor for awhile... if he repeats this behavior, then you have all you need for a harsh and unquestioned block. If he doesn't, then the issue is resolved and everybody is happy. This is starting to drag on, and we need to start looking at closing this and moving on. - theWOLFchild 19:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur. There has been a review, and the community favors an immediate unblock. If TigerShark has so little regard for the community's judgment, then perhaps we need to look at other options. Hopefully he will rethink this defiance, unblock and we can all move on to creating content. GregJackP Boomer! 21:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're going to look at other options I suggest you also look at the capped content quite a bit up this wall of text. Thomas.W talk to me 21:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We need to wait until he gets back on, his last contribution was about 12 hours ago. An RfC/U and an ArbCom case are messy, and no one wants to go through that. I think that he will get the message and unblock. GregJackP Boomer! 03:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say that the "sycophant of an (alleged) child-molester" comment alone is a good reason to keep him blocked, even setting aside everything that came before. That was so over-the-top it's absurd. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starblind: - Where was that comment made, and in what context? - theWOLFchild 07:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Searching for the text on this page and at the user's talk provides the answer. Johnuniq (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm... well, given the big picture, that comment really doesn't seem all that bad. But, once again we're going off the rails here. I had specifically asked @TigerShark: just what is he doing at this point, given that he asked the community for a review, following which there is strong support for lifting this block. He has not done this. He asked for feedback, and is now ignoring it, meaning that this whole exercise seems to be a waste of time. - theWOLFchild 14:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block and oppose unblock. Given that I have decided not to close this discussion, I am now free to express my opinion. TigerShark's initial block was well within process. Whether I myself would have blocked is immaterial. The length of the block is discretionary and again, considering Joe's history, was well within process. Whether I myself would have blocked for a month is immaterial. TigerShark's decision not to block Neljack was well within process. I think Neljack's persistence, albeit understandable, was probably ill-advised, but I don't think it merited a block. As for Joe's behavior post-block, I see many reasons not to unblock him. He has never made an unblock request. He has continued to make personal attacks and to commit BLP violations. He refuses to accept any conditions. Instead, we are supposedly to simply hope he will behave or block him again. That's not the way it's done. Generally, we scrutinize apologies carefully for credibility. Here, we have an unrepentant editor from the get-go. Unblocking him in these circumstances turns the usual procedure on its head.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Thewolfchild and WilliamJE: Cool down, and go find something else to do, because your repeated heated and not always well thought out posts in this thread are not helping Joefromrandb. Thomas.W talk to me 16:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thomas.W - "Cool down"? "Heated"? Heh, I can't speak for William but, I can assure you, I am quite calm. Perhaps you should relax a little, as you seem very upset. - There, see how I did that? I'm sure you are perfectly calm as well. It's easy to say to someone "Hey, calm down!" when in reality, there is no way to tell what state a person is in. (Unless, of course, they're using ALL CAPS, followed by plenty of exclamation marks!!!!, along with some rude language and insults... none of which I have displayed here). I had asked Tiger a fairly simple question. He answers, he doesn't answer... Either way, I am going to move on. Cheers - theWOLFchild 16:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thewolfchild, you do need to calm down. As seen in your comments you are obviously discontent with the current situation. Epicgenius (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Epicgenius - I am either as upset, or as calm, as you are. It's rather silly of you to try and depict me as being in some sort of rage, based on... well, based on nothing at all. Just plain silly. - theWOLFchild 23:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There should be no unblocking conditions. I'm not an admin, but I recognize consensus. I also see a number of admins circling the wagons. GregJackP Boomer! 21:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to a passing uninvolved admin: When an admin blocks without a discussion first, it should only be because they believe there would have been a consensus if there had been a discussion. It's not unreasonable for TigerShark to have thought that, and I have no real issue with Joefromrandb having been blocked. But if there is a post-block discussion, and no consensus for a block is achieved, the user should be unblocked. The default in case of no consensus needs to be an unblock, or else far too much discretion is left in the hands of one single admin. I'm not sure if there is clear consensus for an unblock here (I think there probably is), or no consensus, but I'm certain that after 5 days of discussion, and 8 days of blocking, there is no consensus for the block. In addition, discussion is going around and around in circles, with no productive end in sight.

      Thus, as someone who has no real problem with the block (in spite of being mislabeled an unblock supporter above (re-read my comments if you're not sure)), and who feels in particular one comment he made post-block is beyond the pale, I strongly recommend that a passing uninvolved admin unblock Joefromrandb, without forcing him to agree to restrictions, and close this "discussion" as either no consensus for a block, or consensus for an unblock, whatever they think is more accurate. "Unblocked without forcing him to agree to restrictions" doesn't mean that it wouldn't be appropriate to tell him that the next time he calls someone a "sycophant of an (alleged) child-molester", or something similar, he'll likely be blocked indefinitely, and that block would quite likely have consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree pretty much with Floquenbeam. Eight days is a plenty long block given that it's the first instance where Joe was blocked for edit-warring to restore his own comments. And anyway there's no consensus to continue the block. Regarding the post-block vituperation ("sycophant of an alleged child molester"), such language would be fine with me if it were well-supported, but here I'm not convinced that the individual is a sycophant as opposed to a BLP enthusiast (plus it's not nice to imply that sycophant X of alleged criminal Y agrees that Y is a criminal), but in any event Floquenbeam's conclusion is the same as mine.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been plenty of time for TigerShark to have responded and to have unblocked Joefromrandb. I can prepare an RfC/U, if 1) someone indicates that they will certify it, and 2) that this is what the community wants. GregJackP Boomer! 21:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Block evasion

    User:113.168.106.105 is a currently blocked User:Thainguyencc. He was blocked based on behavioral evidence found here [[77]] and is again using an IP to continue the dispute and making personal attacks [[78]] which mirrors this edit [[79]]. Personally think that the ip should be blocked and registered user's blick extended for ip socking and block evasion.

    • Also consider comments at 3rr board "What do you think if a map not show California, Texas... are not an English-speaking areas without source? --Thainguyencc (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)"
    • and ":I can't talk? but What do you do with a linguistic map show your state is entirely non-natively English-speaking area, make from non-specific source [Ethnologue (2009, 2013)]. --113.168.106.105 (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

    Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    In Vietnam, most of IP address are dynamic IP address--113.168.106.105 (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you stating you plan on continuing your disruption editing? Hell In A Bucket (talk)
    No, I need only page(s) and/or link, and add "as per Ethnologue" in Kwamikagami's fake linguistic map.--113.168.106.105 (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for block evasion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Jimfbleak, you should reduce the block to a set time because now it is an indefinite block on a dynamic IP.--Atlan (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

    Sock of just-blocked editor

    The just-created editor User:You find the truth painful appears to be a sock of the just-blocked editor User:Cognoscerapo. YTheir contribution list is short enough to peruse for the evidentiary diffs, but see this and this in particular. The block was based on a violation of WP:ARBMAC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef blocked by Ponyo per WP:NOTHERE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A CU might want to take a look, and if there was block evasion, extend Cognoscerapo's block, although I think WP:DUCK is sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The geolocation between You find the truth painful and Cognoscerapo certainly makes a connection  Possible, however due to the IP range hopping I can't lock down a rangeblock. A liberal dose of reverting, rev-deleting, blocking, and semi-protection will essentially deny them the platform they're looking for. If they continue with the physical threats then it may need to be brought to WMF attention for a more thorough check. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As Ponyo found out, our friend is now actively IP hopping. De728631 (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Cognoscerapo is, in turn, likely a sock of somebody else. He cites a policy in an edit summary via shortcut WP:RS in his tenth edit overall [80], and knows how to use ref tags and cite web template in the twelfth [81]. It's not rocket science, I agree, but it is consistent with someone having significant editing experience.No such user (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Cue In this case, a SPI might need to be opened and then have a checkuser compare the accounts. Epicgenius (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:You find the truth painful is an Evlekis-sock. Another AN/I thread on Evlekis has recently been closed, below. I think that Cognoscerapo could be somebody else's sock, but I'm not certain. If a sock, the sockmaster would appear to be somebody on the opposite site of our Balkan disputes, although it wouldn't be the first time that Evlekis has used false-flags... anyway, I think there is still a real possibility that Cognoscerapo is a real editor, it's not an open-and-shut case. bobrayner (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Speaking of which, Evlekis has returned with 217.36.124.203 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Any chance of a block? bobrayner (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may speak here. I would like to draw attention to certain things which I believe constitute BOOMERANG. Without submitting too much in the way of examples, I see Bobrayner has embarked on a crusade to cancel EVERYTHING submitted from the accounts these past months which were recently blocked DESPITE the period having passed peacefuly and the contributions evidently being in good faith and there being nothing tendentious about any of them. One example is here[82]. Now naturally if striking out banned users is a real requirement (this coupled with the notion of acting as a proxy for banned users is forbidden) then may the community please have an explanation as to how and why this "banned user edit"[83] is not subjected to the same "rv sock" policy, instead pushed by the claimant. When will the community finally wake up and realise Bobrayner edits in gross violation of all NPOV matters on Balkan-related subjects and that is all this is about. Examine the content and spot the difference between the edits we "strikes out" or "reverts sock" to those that he ignores/restores to "banned user" revision. 217.36.124.203 (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Telegraph Totter

    This is a newish user, with a chequered record (see User talk:Telegraph Totter), who is insisting on making edits to articles - specifically, removing dates of birth from opening sentences - contrary to guidance at WP:OPENPARA and despite being advised not to do so. I'll revert him once more, but a few more eyes on his activities would be welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Given my dealings with this editor and their IDHT attitude regarding policy, I don't believe they should be editing any BLPs, period. But I'm not exactly unbiased.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No Jezzy I'd say you are totally biased and the reason for removing the dates from the opening par is because it looks daft to have them there AND the fact box AND the opening line of the bio section.--The Totter 01:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
    If it "looks daft", perhaps you should start a discussion at WT:LEAD, rather than trying to change one article at a time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    While TT is a bit of a bull in a china shop, and would do well to invest more time learning his way around, he's right about one thing: it does look silly for the lead to say (January 5, 1912 - June 3, 1952) and the infobox to give Born January 5, 1912 and the article body to open Smith was born January 5, 1912 in London. I think all that's needed here is for someone to explain to him that, of these three, the last is the expendable one -- Smith was born in London is enough in most cases. EEng (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think EEng has a good point here. Including dates of birth by rote in multiple places looks silly. It's not the first thing that readers are looking for, so why do we have to cram it into the first sentence of so many articles regardless of how well it scans? WP:OPENPARA suggests that the date of birth should be in the opening paragraph but all the examples push it into the first sentence, immediately after the name. Maybe we could discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. bobrayner (talk) 11:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    @Telegraph Totter: - your signature violates WP:SIGLINK, please rectify ASAP lest I have to initiate a softblock. GiantSnowman 10:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sonny1998

    Blocked until he begins to discuss his edits with others. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Sonny1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): all of this user's edits are unsourced. He/she never explains them in edit summaries, never discusses on talk pages. Has been blocked twice for the same reasons last month. Now the block has expired and Sonny1998 continues unchangedly. I just left a message on the user's talk page an hour ago, asking very politely to review our policies and guidelines, to please provide references or to explain using the edit summary. No reaction: continues as though nothing had happened. I don't know how to solve this as it is impossible to communicate with this user. --RJFF (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This user's pattern of edits is very reminiscent of serial sockpuppeteer Greekboy12345er6 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). It might be worth doing a CU on the account. RolandR (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Greekboy hasn't edited since 2010 and is therefore stale with respect to a possible CU.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But several socks have been blocked since then, most recently last June. Is there any point in taking this to SPI? The account has been indeffed, and has never engaged in talk page discussion, so is unlikely to challenge this. But Greekboy has a long record of creating socks to make large numbers of disruptive edits, so a record of this latest appearance could be useful. RolandR (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    June is well outside the useable time frame for technical comparison, although there is nothing stopping an SPI being started to be judged on behavioural evidence.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Greekboy frequently used edit summaries, but Sonny apparently didn't. Sonny mainly edited between 11:00 and 23:00 UTC. Greekboy doesn't have enough edits for wikichecker to be very effective, but appears to have edited between 01:00 and 03:00 and 14:00 and 21:00 UTC. IMHO while they may have similar interests and behavioral patterns, editing patterns seem to indicate that they aren't related. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 22:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Some eyes please on Patrick Califia

    There has been a concerted effort to associate Califia with pedophilia for several months now. The talk page has had to be revision deleted a few times. And may need at least another round as someone has generously quoted several sources. I've removed a statement two times now that presents the material in what i see as an WP:Undue, and WP:POV way violating WP:BLP. I think there is some room for some content but that it has to be presented with context, and done so neutrally. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. I read the articles (ours and the source) and meddled a bit. Kleuske (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term "Alvin and the Chipmunks" vandal under different IP addresses

    There is very strong evidence (because of similarities) that this IP user is using different IP addresses to disruptively edit and to evade blocks. There's a persistent long-term pattern of disruptive edits over a sustained period of time. The same type of unhelpful and poorly sourced content about Alvin and the Chipmunks is put into numerous different articles about songs, for which there is simply no relevance to include such poorly sourced content.

    The IP user has previously had numerous warnings and a 3 month block, but simply comes back again under a different IP address to put in the same irrelevant and poorly sourced content into song articles. This has been going on for a long period of time and has a disruptive impact on the Wikipedia community.

    Please could I ask for an investigation and a rangeblock to be calculated and checked. Please see the following contributions below for evidence.


    Given a 3 month block for long-term disruption as:


    97.86.5.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)


    Suspected evasion of that block as:


    198.246.7.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)


    Most recent pattern of disruptive edits:


    68.186.161.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    IP's may be related somehow by being in the general St. Louis area, but this seems stale and I'm noticing some good contribs from the latter, and all three are currently stale. At that, this is the wrong place to ask for a rangeblock/checkuser; this should be filed at WP:SPI. Not that I would support a rangeblock anyways since all the numbers are so far apart we'd have to block all of Charter's IPs just to deal with some easily controllable A&TC vandalism. Nate • (chatter) 02:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Well I'm a gentle type of person and not someone who is prone to arguments, so I guess we may just have to agree to differ on this. But all three are stale ? The latter edited just yesterday, on 28 November 2013, putting the same type of unhelpful content in again about Alvin and the Chipmunks.

    "The IP's may be related somehow". I would suggest that there is an extremely good chance that they are related. Is it just a mere coincidence that all three IP's happen to all come from the St. Louis area of Missouri ? That seems to me to be a very big coincidence.

    "Some good contribs from the latter" ? But also some bad and unhelpful ones too I would suggest. He or she was requested to provide reliable sources. A detailed look at contributions show he or she has ignored that request with edits in November and the contributions between all 3 IP's show striking similarities.

    If, as I very strongly suspect, the IP's are related, he or she evaded the 3 month block on 97.86.5.61 by continuing to edit during the period of the block on IP address 198.246.7.69

    A viewing of the total number of contributions from all three IPs, shows that numerous warnings have been given and ignored. It has been frustrating to see song articles so frequently disrupted by the same type of editing.

    If you do not feel that action is required on this, I may keep tabs on the situation and later report the matter to WP:SPI Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Completely different vandal (or vandals); listed IP's don't engage in article creation it seems, and the creation of additional A&TC 'sequel' articles is a regular annoyance among children's show/films article followers like me; we get about five-ten of those a year. Nate • (chatter) 01:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Need diffs. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Overzealous addition to local spam blocklist

    Pointed to WP:SBL, which is thataway. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I have found out from another site that User:Ckatz stuck http://www.ccel.us/ on the local spam blacklist back in the summer of 2011 in this edit. This was apparently in response to this spam taunt, but it's quite unlikely that this threat was honest since CCEL (now titled Evangelical Christian Library) is simply a repository site for well-known theological and religion-related texts, most of them PD. I would not be surprised to see links to its materials throughout religious topics on Wikipedia; the case which caught my eye involves a reference in J. Z. Knight to an on-line edition of a book by Russell Chandler, once a religion writer for the LA Times. This looks to be a perfectly reasonable reference, and an online copy is surely preferable for an online encyclopedia. Therefore I would like to ask that this entry be removed from the spam blacklist as unnecessary and inappropriate. Mangoe (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you asked at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist? They'll be more apt to remove it than anyone here at AN/I. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done so, thanks. Mangoe (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Medgeorgia

    Indef'd per WP:NOTHERE due to pushing WP:THETRUTH. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I find this user's comments unnecessary and often offensive. I tried to be as civil as possible, though he doesn't seem to care about the basic rules of Wikipedia.

    Earlier today he added "Georgian-Armenian" as Sayat-Nova's nationality. Note that he linked "Georgian" to Georgians (the ethnic group) when it is widely known that Sayat-Nova was an ethnic Armenian (something that he also admitted in the talk page "Was the son of Armenian immigrants"). And then I tried to remove Georgian from the lead, since it it unsourced and somewhat irrelevant. In order to avoid an edit war I went to the talk page and gave reliable several sources such as Encyclopædia Britannica and Great Soviet Encyclopedia‎ that simply call him "Armenian") and his response was a comparison to Kim Kardashian!?! He ignored the sources I provided and instead claimed that people born in Georgia are automatically Georgian.

    The above, however, is just a content dispute. His last comment is what made me come here. He said "U r inadequate my bro! I am active in ka.wikipedia, and I am writing here because seeking to falsify the history by Armenians. But I do not hate Armenians, contrary I love them." --Երևանցի talk 21:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Well,Very bad behavior from the Armenian friend. At the end of the discussion I offered him a way out, but ignored it. Sayat Nova never lived in Armenia. He was born and lived in Georgia. He died and was buried in Georgia, Tbilisi. Had an Armenian mother, who lived in Tbilisi. His father was from Aleppo, who moved to Tbilisi. After this, Sayat Nova's article mention of Georgia is Mistake?--MEDGEORGIA  talk  22:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not an excuse to make statement like "falsify the history by Armenians". You might also want to accuse Encyclopædia Britannica and Great Soviet Encyclopedia‎ in "history falsification". --Երևանցի talk 22:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You do not want to recognize the truth.--MEDGEORGIA  talk  22:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Cue And what is 'the truth' as you say? Epicgenius (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yea I think that last statement clearly indicates a WP:NOTHERE issue and a topic ban is unlikely to work. We don't need uncivil nationalistic POV pushing editors, we got enough as it is. Gone, indef. Secret account 01:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Possible vandalism

    The article Foro de Sao Paulo has been stable for 8 long years, but for no apparent reason an user is now trying to start nonsense edit wars like this. I hope someone can help me solving the issue because I don't want to request blocks for no one, since I don't edit wikipedia for this. Thanks. MarcosPassos (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I recommend engaging with the other editor on the article's talk page. Soman is an experienced, productive editor. Rather than "nonsense" or vandalism, this seems to a fairly routine content disagreement. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarcosPassos: There is an edit warring noticeboard for reporting edit warring. Please be cautious about accusing other editors of vandalism, as it may be construed by some as a personal attack. For more information about what is and what isn't vandalism, see Wikipedia:Vandalism. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 02:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sam, please be cautious about accusing other editors of doing what they haven't done, as it may be construed by some as libel. I said "possible vandalism", what means that I was not sure if it was or wasn't a case of vandalism. MarcosPassos (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry that we misunderstood each other. I was trying to say that people usually don't even bring up the word "vandalism" unless it's pretty obvious. I hope you had a good Thanksgiving, if you celebrate it. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 20:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Marcos: as SamX noted, if you really believed that Soman's behavior was inappropriate, you should have taken it to WP:AN3, as it notes in big letters in the top of the page. However before requesting administrator intervention, your first step should be to make a good faith effort to resolve the issue. (Edit warring and insulting other users does not constitute a good-faith effort.) For example, I have just initiated request for comment, which is something you should try in the future. —Quintucket (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, this post by an account with the name of an organisation is the last straw. The report mentioned is at [84] and is titled "Documentation Of Jewish Dishonesty And Corruption On Prof. Santilli's Article At Wikipedia". The editor User:ScientificEthics quotes someone atTalk:Ruggero Santilli saying ""hi luca / we have completed our investigation over wiki's scam on dr santilli / all editors are jews / all non-jews are cut out / all decisions are made privately via emails now monitored / talks are just a smokescreen / the boss is the level six zionist weinberg s / rubin a is just the puppet executioner / the fringe dubbing is their slimy signature prohibited by wiki's rules calling for response in kind / we provide in attachment names and profiles of all these scammers and their nicknames so that your committee can deliver a legal punch in their most tender personal and academic spots / adnan ". See various other comments by SPAs and an IP who is almost certainly Santilli. Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    HiLo48 at Talk:2014 Winter Olympics

    Went to reconsider whether I want to edit the English Wikipedia, as recommended.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    HiLo48 is engaged in an incivil behavior at Talk:2014 Winter Olympics#The most expensive games in history. They may have a point, but instead of discussing it in a civil manner they resorted to personal attacks, talking about my and other editor's English skills and making up some phantasies about my political views. Whereas I am prepared to discuss the issue, I am not prepared to discuss it in this manner. Note also edit summaries like WTF. I vaguely remember having some problems with the civility of this user in the past, but frankly not a single detail. I posted yesterday morning ate the Editor Assistance requests, this unfortunately did not attract any interest.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have two comments to make. Firstly, I draw everyone's attention to my use of the word "almost" right at the end of this post. I do this because Ymblanter then posted as if I hadn't used the word (after extensively refactoring my comments), and ignored my pointing out that I had used it, and has continued to post attacks on me as if I hadn't used the word, right up to this very time. Secondly, I have been and am still confused by several of the posts made by some editors in that thread. As I politely suggested, this may be at least partly because they are being made by editors who are not expert at using English. I explicitly said "That's not a criticism on its own", but [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter}} described it as a personal attack. I'm sorry, but at this point I give up. Am to be condemned for being ignored and confused? HiLo48 (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no personal attacks by Hilo, and Ymblanter brought up Putin first anyway. I also had trouble following some of the conversation due to the broken English. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Did I write that I have "a rampart desire to prove evilness of Putin"?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No. HiLo48 (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you write it then? Can you prove that I have such desire? Am I may be a POV editor of other articles? Do I regularly express anti-Putin views on other talk pages? Why did it happen right after I requested you to remain civil? Is this your understanding of civility?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to revisit your own definition of civility and compare it to ours ... just sayin'. I mean, if you're complaining about an edit summary of "WTF" ... you just might want to rethink your approach, AND look carefully at your intent ES&L 12:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, Wikipedia is my hobby. I am a pretty succesful person in my professional life, and I have no interest to somehow prove anything by my Wikipedia activity. Obviously in my capacity as administrator I have to deal with problematic editors, and I realized that before running an RfA. But in my capacity as an editor I just do not see why I should deal with problematic editors. I avoid editing in problematic topics. But here an editor comes to a talk page of an article which is in my watchlist for a long time and where I have a dozen of edits, and makes a suggestion. I politely disagree, providing my argument, and then they start the next reply with WTF and suggest that we discuss the topic accurately and constructively. Subsequently they attribute me some political opinions, and when another editor disagrees with them as well, complains about our bad English. And now I am recommended to continue the discussion and not to pay attention. WTF, is this the editing atmosphere we are aiming at? I have plenty of topics where I am pretty sure I would be the only non-bot editor for the next ten years.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymblanter, you are way out of line here. HiLo has not done or said anything in the discussion on the nominated talk page that warrants any sort of administrative sanction. I very strongly recommend you review your own words on that page, which have been far from flawless. Your post immediately above this is almost entirely non-sequitur to this AN/I thread - it is full of self praise, but says little gremain to the point. With all due respect, if you have difficulty understanding and using everyday English as seems to be the case here, then perhaps you should reconsider whether you really do want to edit the English Wikipedia. - Nick Thorne talk 13:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I disagree that HiLo's behaviour in the thread was appropriate and am posting some remarks on his talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, HiLo made some comments that were unnecessary, but nothing blockable. For Ymb, it is unfortunate that what seems to be a minor language barrier led to this. Both these editors could've handled this better, and ANI should not have been needed. But the result is ludicrous... instead finding a resolution, all ESL and Nick Thorne seemed to have accomplished is to chase away a valuable editor - an admin with 0 block history and ≈32,000 edits in 2 years, 85% of which are article. This should've gone thru some of the other WP:DR resources available here. I certainly hope that Ymblanter does not leave the project. - theWOLFchild 20:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not planning at the moment, but I unwatched the page. For the record, I did not request a block, and I am pretty fine with what Diannaa did (assuming this is going to be learned).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is calling me a "fool" also fine? Or may be my English skills are so bad that I misunderstand the meaning? Or may be this is not about me, and I am unable to comprehend?--Ymblanter (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Well.... What part of "No further edits should be made to this discussion." do you people not understand. (I apologise for failing to follow that instruction just this once myself, but surely it means something?) HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, did Jimbo die and leave you in charge? I must have missed the memo. --Calton | Talk 04:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'm sorry, did Jimbo die and leave you in charge? I must have missed the memo." - @Calton:
    - And this comment is helpful... how? - theWOLFchild 11:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole notice is "The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion." It refers to the hatted discussion above. It may (and sometimes does) continue below the hatted block. Nobody has as yet modified the above discussion. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree HiLo has been out of order. I'm surprised no one has taken it seriously. His comments have been rude and unconstructive. Malick78 (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    European Commission editing on own subjects

    Please take a look at IP editors like User:158.169.131.14 and (to a lesser extent) User:158.169.40.9. These IPs trace to the European Commission, and they are adding self-interested content that seems problematic for Wikipedia and its free license. For example, note the "copyright" claim on this edit. Nothing wrong with government officials wanting to help expand the encyclopedia, but they need to be aware of WP:CV and WP:COI, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Percolaytor (talk • contribs) 15:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The copyright claim is about the underlying material being discussed, ie the copyright status of EbS programming, not the content of the Wikipedia article. Unless the article content is copied from somewhere, I don't see any issues on the WP:CV front. WP:COI always applies, but it the edits don't seem that bad, and there hasn't been any attempt to sort it out at the article, or on user talk pages, so that aspect isn't ripe for review here. Monty845 15:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Monty, I appreciate your comments, but I don't think you looked carefully enough at the content. Look at the text in section Europe_by_Satellite#Copyright_for_EbS.2C_Credit_.C2.A9_European_Union. Just pick any sentence, e.g., "All other kinds of video material available on this website may be edited for EU information and education purposes." That's a direct copyright violation of copyrighted content found on the EC AV page here. The government IP is blanket copying copyrighted content, then pasting it into Wikipedia. I don't have the time today to "sort it out", but I know it's a problem, so that's why I brought it here, for someone to tend to, not to dismiss it as unripe. Percolaytor (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring the COI issues, the edits by 158.169.40.9 aren't a substantial problem. The other IP has far more edits, so I'll report back after checking them. Nyttend (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw no big problems with any of the edits I checked, aside from Percolaytor's samples. We shouldn't block an IP without warning for a series of days-old copyvios, so I'm not going to take any admin actions, but I've left a {{uw-copyvio}}. A block will be justified if any more of these edits are made. Nyttend (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I see a couple of IPs in the 158.169.0.0/16 range have been quite busy over several years, on a range of topics (including, but not limited to, lots of different EU-verse articles) so perhaps there are proxies used by multiple people in one of the Euroland institutions? I think it's more than just a couple of overenthusiastic stagiaires. bobrayner (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Abuse by Greenclayton

    This is unacceptable. Could someone please take action against such an indefensible breach of one of the five pillars? - SchroCat (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Well we are a load of idiots. Is there a pattern of this type of behaviour? If not, maybe they're having a really bad day or their account has been compromised. In any case, it looks like they're retired.- MrX 17:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have bad days but I don't go around calling people cunts. Good riddance to bad rubbish! So has this now been swept under the carpet with no action? Anyone can stick a retirement tag up on their user page and carry on editing. -- CassiantoTalk 18:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be a tad oversensitive. Just remove it and forget it. You're not going to get someone blocked for posting a single "c*nt" on your talk page. Thomas.W talk to me 19:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Then that's a damned poor reflection on the state of Wiki that something so blatantly wrong and against one of the five pillars is so blithely ignored by such a casual dismissal. - SchroCat (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not much point in blocking someone who's retired. I would have imposed a block if not for the retirement claim. Nyttend (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thomas.W, I'll bear that in mind when you do something to piss me off and I come to your talk to call you a cunt then? CassiantoTalk 20:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Thomas.W, who have you just called a cunt? -- CassiantoTalk 00:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nyttend, You haven't answered my question: What's stopping this person from editing while they are "retired" then? ANI is only as good as the admins who police it, and judging by the representation on this thread so far, it's piss poor. CassiantoTalk 20:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Cassianto, something like this would generally get a 24-hour block. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, so there's no point in blocking someone who's not going to edit in the block time. And who retires and then comes back in less than a day? Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind what I said in the previous comment. Turns out that I was wrong on one basic thing: last month, Greenclayton unretired about an hour and a half after retiring in the first place. Given that fact, we can't trust that he'll be gone even for a short period of time, so I've issued a 24-hour block. Nyttend (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll remember the next time I overstep all bounds of normal behaviour: I'll slap a retired tag only account and step away for 24 hours in the knowledge that the rules regarding interaction - one of our five core pullers - are so woefully and weakly defended that I'll get away with pretty much anything. Always good to see ANI backing up such behaviour - great work going on here! - SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Since you didn't answer my question, I will assume that this is a one time transgression by this user, so no, an admin is probably not going to block this user who has stated that they are no longer editing. If they start editing again, and if they continue making personal attacks, then perhaps an admin will decide it's worth incurring the inevitable flood of criticism that comes with almost every admin action. You should let this go, and move on with the incredibly rewarding task of building the world's best encyclopedia. - MrX 22:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • overstep all bounds of normal behaviour
    Seriously, one vulgar, obscene word crosses not one bound or two bounds but all bounds of normal behavior? I know you're a veteran editor so I'm surprised one obscenity is the vilest behavior you've seen. I'm only recently active since the summer and I see worse tirades that this every week. I'm not saying that posting "cunt" is not uncivil, it's just not extraordinary. There are editors in good standing who insult other editors on a regular basis. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Great work all round. I now know exactly what I need to do should I ever want to drop into the gutter and call someone a cunt. Toothless and pointless place this if ANI is too gutless to bother with breaching one of our core pillars. Why do we bother even having it if people can't be bothered with something so blatant and obvious. Shameful. - SchroCat (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Feel free to call me cunt, or whatever else you want, on my talk page if you think it will help. I wish I had a better answer for you. Unfortunately, There is no justice. - MrX 23:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The only "stick" I have now is the one which you have handed me. The abuse on my talk page has seemingly been ignored and to some extent endorsed by the lack of action which has been displayed here. What you have done now is open a floodgate for editors to abuse other editors and to avoid a reprimand simply by sticking a retired tag on their page. Also, your sycophantic claim of this being "the world's best encyclopedia" is now rendered questionable; maybe one day many years ago it was, but certainly not now. Not if we have people like yourselves who appear to stick their head in the sand when situations like this arise. CassiantoTalk 00:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a rather childish response MrX - and no, I don't see you as trying to be helpful with comments like that. I do not wish to call anyone a cunt, but sadly it seems ANI IS all rather spineless and toothless to those who breach one of the unbreachable rules. As to this being against someone who has stated that they are no longer editing, it's a great way to avoid any censure, and if a block is applied by someone with standards, then the user will have to face up to the fact that they have transgressed before they are allowed to start editing. Sadly I don't hold out any hope for any action in this rather bizarre set I up (seriously, what's the point of having Wp:FivePillars, if even those who are supposed to safeguard it cannot be bothered to do anything. I've always considered ANI to be a rather pointless and disappointing place, but the last shreds of any positive thoughts I had about have evaporated in this rather ridiculous and shameful episode. Why do we bother having five pillars if admins can't be bothered with them. Shouldn't we just fess up and admit that our core principals are an utter waste of time and effort, ditch them as being unnecessary and pointless and go round calling everyone a cunt that we don't like?

    - SchroCat (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:TPNO violation by User:SPECIFICO

    WP:TPNO violations and responses:

    • At this diff [85], User:SPECIFICO posted off-wiki blog links which identify and/or personally attack User:Carolmooredc.
    • The links were removed by me here [86] and a warning to SPECIFICO about WP:TPNO (personal details & NPA) was posted here: [87].
    • SPECIFICO reverted the removal of the off-wiki blog attack here: [88].
    • He received a second warning from another contributor here: [89].
    • The off-wiki comments were removed a second time here: [90].
    • Specifico has since responded to the warnings on his talk page, but seems utterly unrepentant for this gross violation of WP policy. (He also sought to change the TP remarks that I had personally made after I had removed the NPA material from his post.)

    As he suggests, I seek Administrative action. – S. Rich (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This also is a violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles which I've mentioned to User:SPECIFICO before. I don't know if editors have to be warned for sanctions to be levied. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how this sanction applies as Specifico's postings were simply directed at CMDC. The NPA & BLP violation in itself is enough for admin action without this added wrinkle. – S. Rich (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Incivility regarding the Israel Palestine issue is relevant at all times. Plus, see my necessary reply to SPECIFICO's charges above at this diff. We are not supposed to have to defend ourselves from anonymous smear-monger attacks on Wikipedia. (Thinking about it, I don't even know if these quotes are accurate!!!) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Alas, it looks like another thread is going off-track. While AQFK may be the eventual outcome, it cannot address the issue of Specifico's blog posting (or whether my raising the issue is "specious"). Specifico defends himself only by saying that Carolmooredc's real life identity is known, and posits that he has somehow permission to post disparaging off-wiki blog links about her. How in the world such postings seek to improve her on-wiki behavior is beyond me. Come on, dear patrolling admins, please take a look at what was done by Specifico in this singular instance and comment or take action as appropriate. – S. Rich (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Agree, Admins, please admin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. I went straight to the ArbCom discussion below and hadn’t looked into the diff here. I saw it now and we are in severe harassment territory here; the edit must be revdeleted/oversighted and at least a warning to the posting user must be issued. Iselilja (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. Posting the link was inadvisable because it was uncivil. But user Carol has repeatedly "outed" and identified herself on Wikipedia, so it is highly misleading to insinuate that SPECIFICO was trying to bring Carol's "off-wiki" identity into the fore (she has already, repeatedly done this herself). Use SPECIFICO is of course entitled to his views on Carol's wiki behavior, including her statements regarding jews and transgender persons. (In response to my self-identification as a (trans) woman, Carol blatantly disparaged me by linking to a womyn born womyn, a page devoted to the proposition that trans women aren't women; she has also repeatedly referred to me with the masculine pronoun, despite my clearly stated wishes in this regard.) Steeletrap (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it my imagination or did I just notice yet another set of allegations against me, with nary a diff in site, where I have to search around and prove I'm not an evil bigot??? Should someone do an ANI on it?
    Again, if I don't defend myself people will assume that it is true. I know the one on "jews" --as Steeletrap put it-- was nonsense but won't search around for diffs. See Talk:Bill_Clinton#Allegations, a discussion of removal of the section header on the discussion of sexual allegations against Bill Clinton where Steeletrap and SPECIFICO suddenly appeared and declared, yes, the section header should be removed. Steeletrap had not, at that point, clearly declared whether a proud M-t-F or F-t-M, and I was expressing my own pride. Later I looked more carefully at the Womyn-born womyn article and found it is poorly sourced and reflects the bias that feminists (or anyone else evidently?) are not allowed to question or debate any of the related issues and if they try they are bigots and must be shunned, fired, kicked off wikipedia or whatever. This is a problem on a number of related articles. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not defending yourself, you're attacking others. This is not the first time you've crossed the line into bigotry against transsexuals. Any chance you could make it the last? MilesMoney (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Note

    If there were any attempt at all by Carol to maintain her Wikipedia account as something distinct from her personal and online identity, then perhaps this complaint would have some merit. But she doesn't, so it doesn't. It would also help if she came here with clean hands. Instead, her report is obviously retaliation for Specifico's support for blocking her. This support is due to her ongoing personal attacks against him and others. On the whole, this is the aggressor attacking her victim, and should just WP:BOOMERANG. MilesMoney (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    [Insert] - FYI, I'd love to change my handle to avoid personal attacks, but Wikipedia makes you admit who you were before, and people would go around searching to figure it out anyway, so why bother? Please don't make such false claims. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The two off-wiki threads that Specifico posted are from 2009 and 2011 – well before any recent contentious postings developed regarding Austrian Economics. Posting the links to these off-wiki comments from the get-go was improper. But repeating the posting after it was reverted and after a warning had been issued, takes the cake. And what's going on now? We see an accusation against Carolmooredc of retaliation. Is this supposed to excuse Specifico? – S. Rich (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @MilesMoney. The linked site is vile it the extreme and even incluces a death wish for Carol and her family. Users who think it is OK to post links to blogs who wishes death over another user have no place on Wikipedia. That the link to this post has not been at revdeleted and a strict admin warning issued to the poster is the single most upsetting thing I have ever experienced at Wikipedia. I have previously seen CarolMoore get a direct threath on Wikipedia; it's very typically that these haters specifically go after women. As long as no action is taken regarding the post, Wikipedia is not a safe place for its users and in particular not for women. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is anyone here claiming that Specifico is responsible for these posts? If not, then why are we blaming the messenger? Besides, his goal was to show how her off-wiki activity related to her on-wiki activity; anything else was incidental. As there was no reason to remove these links, there's no reason not to restore them.
    I would appreciate it if your comments were a bit less over the top and instead complied with WP:NPA. There's absolutely no basis for trying to associate Specifico with unspecified generic misogyny, and it's quite clear that Carol's behavioral problems have nothing to do with gender. It's just as clear that Specifico isn't threatening anyone. What I see here is a shotgun approach to trying to associate various negative things with Specifco when none of them have any relation. I find this series of personal attacks against Specifico utterly disgusting and demand that you redact them immediately. MilesMoney (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, The links are clear NPA and BLP violations. They should not be linked to and the linker should know that. Yes he is responsible for linking to that crap. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when do NPA and BLP get enforced here? Nobody seems to care about Carol's repeated and ongoing violations of both, which is what led to Sitush's report and therefore Specifico's response, so why do we suddenly care now? Not much point pretending we're following the rules when we ignore them anytime they're inconvenient, is there? This is a pathetic joke and I call bullshit on it. MilesMoney (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes 'the devil made me do it' defense does not work out well. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @MilesMoney:, if you attempt to assert once more that I claimed personal attacks as my reason for reporting CMDC in the thread currently still visible above then I'll be asking the community to do something about you. I didn't say it, I've explained that I didn't say it and I do not consider CMDC's stuff to be either incivil or attacking - my point was the tendentiousness of it, which was resolved by her producing some diffs and thus moving things on. It is this sort of twisting of facts etc that is doing my head in and I'll quite happily !vote for the lot of you to be topic banned if that is what it takes to calm things down. There are times when the best thing for the project is to limit the involvement of all who are currently involved and let any issues regarding the articles be taken up as and when by a fresh group of people. Please do not use me as a way to achieve your fairly obvious aims. The same goes for Specifico and Steeletrap. I have no horse in this race but you lot are trying to stick me in there as a ringer or something. - Sitush (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

    Isn't Ms. Moore already outed? Through her edits* to her since-deleted Wikipedia page (and acknowledgement that this was her page), and her sharing of personal remarks she has made on Wikipedia -- not to mention her disclosure of her first and last name, location, website, and personal photo -- hasn't Ms. Moore already "identified" herself on Wikipedia? I think that the situation here is much different than it would be if someone with an anonymous name was "outed." (* I acknowledge these edits were many years ago, but I don't think that's relevant; she made the decision to out/identify herself on WP.) Steeletrap (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not a question of whether she has identified herself on WP or elsewhere. The violation occurred when the link to the grossly disparaging blog comment was posted by Specifico. He did not, did not have permission to post that particular personal detail about her. Reposting the personal comment made the infraction even worse. – S. Rich (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can tell, he posted an article that very harshly criticized her views. It was certainly uncivil. But it didn't constitute outing, and really wasn't much worse than what we see from Carol on a regular basis. With the 48 hour block having been imposed, and the comment having been withdrawn, pushing for additional punishment seems punitive and gratuitous. Steeletrap (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Austrian Economics - Is it time for ArbCom?

    A couple months ago (or so), the community enacted General Sanctions regarding the Austrian Economics topic space. However, the dispute continues to rage unabated as this thread and the thread above (WP:ANI#Tendentious_referencing_of_other_people.27s_motives) prove. The sanctions have failed due to a lack of admins interested in patrolling this topic space. I think it's time to ask whether the community is capable of solving this dispute, and if not, is ArbCom required to step in? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Certainly specious ANIs such as this one by Srich don't help. Carol Moore has freely shared her real-life identity, her personal webpage URL, her photograph and other personal information since her first days here. Srich knows that because there was recently some discussion about whether she had a COI due to a failed relationship with the subject of a certain WP article and there was previously discussion about two WP articles about herself and her life and work. SPECIFICO talk 19:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably. It seems that there is a core group of editors who just can't play nicely together. Interaction bans and topic bans would seem to be in order.- MrX 19:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, SPECIFICO's insinuations are proved exaggerated or worse when one looks at the diffs. Please don't use noobie mistakes of the first year or two to condemn someone editing for almost 7.5 years. Plus my noobie mistake in first six months or so of working on a silly bio someone wrote of me that I was happy to see later AfD'd. Plus why hide the Conflict of interest noticeboard thread where I discuss knowing the subject of the article 30 years ago and Steeletrap discusses the fact that a faculty advisor suggested looking into these people and that they were a subject of a masters thesis for a while. What's more of a conflict of interest, 30 year old news or this year's masters thesis? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've felt for some time that this is headed for Arbcom. I think we might be able to avoid that with proper use of the general sanctions though. They don't seem to have been used much, and I suppose that's as much my fault as anyone's. This is a hard area in which to act as an admin. In any case, if anyone does want to go ahead with this I would suggest waiting until 2014 to file due to the change in Arbcom's ranks. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've always said more short blocks would wake editors up. I'm happy to take a 24 or 48 hour block for the actual relevant diffs that have been provided, if SPECIFICO and Stelletrap and MilesMoney get proportionate blocks fro their behavior on both these threads. It's much more likely to solve the problem than waiting for Arbcom. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep. I suspect this should be one of the first cases for the new ArbCom in 2014. The discretionary sanctions don’t seem to have helped much. The situation reminds me of the entrenched conflict that was at the heart of the matter in the Tea Party Movement case, and which the committee eventually solved by issuing a series of topic bans (not much activity in that article now). In some ways, I believe the situation in the Austrian economics articles is more severe and concerning than the situation in the TPM case because it to a larger degree involves BLP issues. While persistent conflicts always is a problem, it’s particular so when sensitive BLP issues are involved; it’s adamant that BLP issues are discussed in a dignified way that inspires confidence and not plagued by infighting among disputants etc. Iselilja (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking it reminds me of that other battle of the "entrenched experts," Sexology. Too personal. Too long term. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If Admins are not willing to enforce community sanctions in clear areas like this, why bother to create them at all? Should I bring SPECIFICO's past pattern of accusations, my warnings to him, and current attack here to WP:ARBPIA because Admins do not want to enforce community sanctions with even a little warning? And let's not forget the Editing restrictions and log on those who violate BLP repeatedly. That's also been brought up repeatedly and ignored, despite existing sanctions.
    I'm not blaming it on Admins per se who have to take a lot of grief when they warn and block people. I really think the Wikimedia Foundation has to find a way to pay admins to do the dirtiest jobs. The bad editors (or those who cause "controversy" by resisting the bad ones, dragging them to noticeboards, etc., as I have for a number of years) have driven off scads of good editors. At some point there will be a tipping point and the bad editors will so overwhelm so many articles that Wikipedia... well, leave it to your imagination. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins not enforcing community sanctions is why Arbcom is the only thing left. So, the only thing between festering for more months and some kind of working out is Admins stepping up, now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want things to go this way, but I fear it's inevitable that Austrian economics will go to Arbcom. Personally, my greatest concern is not the core Austrian articles but the way it spreads out and infects other content. bobrayner (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think after a topic has been brought to AN/I with an ever-expanding number of editors, 6 or 7 times, with no steps moving forward toward resolution, I think ARBCOM is the logical next step. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I have batted for both "sides" in this without ever really doing much at all on the articles themselves - I know nowt & so my role has mainly been as a neutral and very occasional outsider. almost a pseudo-admin role, in the absence of willing/able/uninvolved admins. The subject area is just becoming more and more toxic. That said, the transitional phase of Arbcom means that nothing will come of the suggestion for a few weeks. A few weeks is better than nothing but in the scale of this ever-expanding mess it really would help if some admin types could try to resolve some issues now using the sanctions system. All this said, if it does end up at ArbCom then please do not name me in the case - I have no intention of getting dragged further into the murk and I'm well aware that ArbCom decisions can be, let's say, surprising. By comparison, caste-related articles look like a walk in the park right now. - Sitush (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel moving from ANI to ArbCom so quickly is undesirable and probably unnecessary. We should consider whether sanctions against specific editors are appropriate and can be imposed either through the general sanctions regime or just through a normal community process here.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you volunteering to have sanctions imposed on you? Or are you helpfully volunteering everyone you disagree with? MilesMoney (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to point out to all concerned that most of these disputes are related WP:Biographies of living people policy (including the RSNs, NPOVNs, ORNs, ANIs, etc.) and not merely abstruse economic issues. So it does seem a bit counterproductive to ban people trying to correct BLP problems, as if they are equally destructive to the process, thereby leaving many of the BLPs as defacto attack articles, or articles containing big controvery sections filled with guilt by association/cherry picked/out of context quotes and criticisms whose only goal seems to be to denigrate the BLP subject and all the individuals even loosely association with the BLP subject. Rather like the complaint that is the subject of this original ANI posting. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There are some subjects where editors can make useful contributions without a deep understanding of the subject. It does not appear that Austrian economics is one such subject. What we've learned the hard way is that well-meaning but ignorant editors just make a mess of these articles, particularly by treating deeply biased sources as unbiased. On the other hand, the knowledgeable but necessarily biased editors can't seem to come to a compromise that overcomes their unavoidable bias.
    There are reasons for this, but it comes down to a content dispute that isn't particularly amenable to threats of blocks and bans. A scorched-earth approach would simply reset the cycle, only with more ignorance, hence more bias. Policy is of little help here due to the nature of the sources, which are sparse, insular and mutually hostile. Worse, there has been ongoing abuse of WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NOR to censor articles and harm editors. Still, the problem is rooted in the subject matter, not the people: WP policy simply can't handle Austrian economics.
    I don't know if ArbCom is the answer, as I have no experience with them, but it doesn't seem as though regular dispute resolution channels, much less irregular ones such as "community" intervention here, are much good at this. I figure it's worth a try, since nothing else has worked or seems likely to. MilesMoney (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Finally An Account

    RESOLVED
    Unblock request declined by Legoktm

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Finally An Account has threatened on his talk page to use sockpuppets to continue editing. Can someone take a look? Thanks. -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 20:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Threats by user Goldrawer7

    Blocked indefinitely, "I was tasked with spreading the word. It is classified who gave me this mission" was the kicker. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I've speedied one of his misinformation pages, and now Goldrawer7 (talk · contribs) is telling me that 'he was secretly given a mission of spreading that message', and threatens me that 'I'm going to suffer some serious consequences'. Alex discussion ★ 21:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    +a personal attack here. Alex discussion ★ 22:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken it out as G10 even though the two main names are reportedly dead. It was sourced only to a book whose title I can't trace, and whose author was not given. With no evidence provided, I'm playing safe and assuming they might be still alive. I've left the author of the article a message. If sound evidence appears, there might be a case for an article - or more correctly, for a section in the Zodiac killer article. I note that the suspects mentioned in the article I've deleted are not in the ZK article. Peridon (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Now, back to Goldrawer7 (talk · contribs)? bobrayner (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that Goldrawer7 (talk · contribs) has now modified their remark. What is now threatened is that if the page is deleted, then someone--presumably the person who did that--will find whatever edit or page they are involved in edited or deleted. This is of course still unacceptable, but not as outrageously so as their previous comment. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Pistolpierre

    I think I am in the correct place, but this may belong in long-term abuse. I am here to alert admins to the comments and actions of the user Pistolpierre. This user has a long history of disruptive behavior dating back to 2006. Currently, (s)he has been leveling personal attacks at users and general incivility on the Talk:Adolf Hitler page. While (s)he raises a valid point on the page, her/his comments quickly devolved into incivility and ad hominems (e.g., 1). The user has been warned on the talk page itself and on their user talk page. For note, the level 4 template was used because of past behavior and recent warnings the user had removed from their wall. User has been alerted to this discussion. Thank you for your time. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) I don't know if the incivility here rises to the level of a block. The user's main problem is insisting that they are right and everyone else is wrong—i.e., that the page consensus, developed at an RFC, means nothing. Pistolpierre, it's fine to believe the consensus is inadequate, but at a certain point the discussion needs to stop. There's plenty to do on Wikipedia. I suggest taking a time-out on the Hitler article if it really upsets you that much. There's no need to let this grind your editing to a halt. --Jprg1966 (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Walker deceased

    TEMPORARILY SEMI-PROTECTED
    Walker's death and the surrounding circumstances have been confirmed in mainstream sources, and the article is being carefully watched by many experienced editors. General policy concerns should be brought up in appropriate forums such as WP:VPP. (non-admin closure) —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Numerous media reports of actor Paul Walker having been killed in a car accident. Eyes on the article... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Article should be locked up until there is official confirmation. Betty Logan (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is confirmation - eyes would be appreciated.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 03:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems a little ironic to be true, but even El Comercio (in Spanish) has news on it([91]). If a hoax, this is a major one.--MarshalN20 | Talk 03:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't appear to be. Both his official Facebook and Twitter accounts, as well as New Regency (makers of the F&F movies) Twitter are all confirming. The article is semi'd right now, which is good, because keeping up with the talk page is nearly impossible. Resolute 03:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sadly, it appears to be the truth. A simple search of "Paul Walker" in Google News shows multiple major news outlets reporting his death. - theWOLFchild 04:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's terrible that he died and a great loss for his friends and family, but not at all ironic or surprising considering that road injury is the ninth leading cause of death.[92] Please slow down and buckle up. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It still seems a strange death, given that he is best known for playing a death-defying car driver. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be a publicity stunt, but (at this point) would be of terrible taste. So, RIP Paul Walker.--MarshalN20 | Talk 06:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What's sad is how respectful we were about confirming his death but could give a crap about waiting for a reliable source to state the name of the friend in the vehicle with Walker. I don't see how "event organizers" are reliable. While it may well be true, this doesn't appear to be appropriate right now.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ridiculous

    All the pathetic and immature vandalism taking place at Paul Walker and Fast & Furious 7 is just another solid reason to bring an end to ip editing and make account creation mandatory. - theWOLFchild 06:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thewolfchild: A little while ago you wrote "I'm looking to avoid fights these days..." It appears that you have made - by my probably flawed count - about 34 WP:AN/I posts in the last seven days. WP:AN/I is pretty much the fightin'-est place in en.wikipedia.org. Perhaps it would be for the best if you took a little break from posting here, and worked on articles and reverting vandalism for a while. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ... - theWOLFchild 14:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Les Etoiles de Ma Vie Edit Warring, Personal Attacks, Calling Out Editors, Rants, Tendacious Editing

    NO ACTION
    The issue is in the process of being resolved. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk · contribs) is removing some of her more controversial comments from the talk pages that she had posted on, assisted by Toddy1 (talk · contribs). Other discussion should take place on talk:Asma al-Assad and the relevant users' talk pages. Epicgenius (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Pages: Asma al-Assad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Talk:Asma al-Assad (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) and User talk:Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs).

    Editor being reported: Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Other Involved editors: Bbb23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Veriss1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 23:45 , 30 November 2013 (US EST)

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in US EST

    Brief summary: This editor has a long history of tendacious editing, edit warring, personal attacks, posting long rants, soapboxing and being difficult to work with. She is very smart and has some valid points at times but trying to wade through all the vitriol makes it hard to resolve her concerns. I believe all the drama on the talk page and edit summaries scares off other editors. It certainly inhibits cooperative, productive discussion.

    End result desired: I merely want the editor in question to cease her attacks, insinuations, rants, soapboxing, lack of good faith and try to cooperate with other editors if possible.

    Edit warring warnings, 24hr block and appeals: Throughout her appeals you can see many personal attacks interlaced with accusations of collusion and feelings of persecution.

    17 Mar 2012 (Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Asma al-Assad. (TW)) By Bbb23/Editor.

    27 Nov 2013 (Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Asma al-Assad. (TW)) By Bbb23/Sysop.

    28 Nov 2013 (added AN3 notice) By Bbb23/Sysop.

    28 Nov 2013 (→Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion: don't need you writing on my page every second. Borderline stalkerish.) By Les Etoiles de Ma Vie/Editor.

    29 Nov 2013 (→Edit warring at Asma al-Assad: new section (Notice of 24hr Block)) By EdJohnston/Sysop.

    30 Nov 2013 (→Edit warring at Asma al-Assad (her appeal)) By Les Etoiles de Ma Vie/Editor.

    30 Nov 2013 (→Edit warring at Asma al-Assad: new section (appeal declined)) By Jpgordon/Sysop.

    30 Nov 2013 (→Edit warring at Asma al-Assad) (second appeal)) By Les Etoiles de Ma Vie/Editor.

    30 Nov 2013 →Edit warring at Asma al-Assad: new section (second appeal declined)) By Kuru/Sysop.

    AN3 report and discussion: AN3 28 Nov 2013 (has all the pertinent links to the edit warring)

    Recent Personal Attacks in edit summaries:

    28 Nov 2013 (→Personal life: There should be a comma after Zein. Someone needs to open a grammar book.) Directed to Bbb23/Sysop by Les Etoiles de Ma Vie/Editor.

    30 Nov 2013 (→Personal life: Have you, Veriss, ever heard of a Oxford comma? A.k.a serial comma? Look it up. It might help your writing to know that for three or more names, a comma should be included after the "and".) Directed to Veriss1/Editor by Les Etoiles de Ma Vie/Editor.

    Personal Attacks on article talk page:

    30 Nov 2013 section: Vogue Personal attack in last comment. Directed to Bbb23/Sysop by Les Etoiles de Ma Vie/Editor.

    30 Nov 2013 section: Repetitive Information Multiple attacks in last comment. Directed to Bbb23/Sysop and Veriss1 by Les Etoiles de Ma Vie/Editor.

    30 Nov 2013 section: Rewrite of article by Etoiles Multiple attacks in last comment. Directed to Bbb23/Sysop and Veriss1 by Les Etoiles de Ma Vie/Editor.

    Closing: This is my first time initiating a post on any noticeboard that I can recall in seven years of editing here. I tried to follow other examples but if I left something out, please let me know. Older difficult discussions are located in the two archives for the talk page and older personal attacks in edit summaries can be found by scrolling back to early 2012. I can provide additional links to older interactions from early 2012 if needed. I have tried to be be patient and courteous but this all is becoming tiring and grinding so I am now asking for assistance. Thank you for looking into this. Veriss (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    First and foremost, I find Veriss' accusations rather laughable. So much to address--I don't even know where to start. In regards to the punctuation "attack". Both Bbb23 and Veriss1 undid a very basic edit I had made in regards to adding a comma. I added the comma in accordance to the grammar rule known as the "Oxford comma" or "serial comma". Surprise--surprise, both Bbb23 and Veriss1 undid that revision. Veriss' summary of the edit was:
    09:25, 30 November 2013‎ Veriss1 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (16,340 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (Undid revision 583705873 by Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk)minor, excessive punctuation. there is no need for a coma in a list of three items before the "and".) (undo | thank)
    However, according to rule of the serial comma, there IS a need for a comma in a list of three items before the "and". :)
    I would like to address Veriss' accusation that, "I believe all the drama on the talk page and edit summaries scares off other editors. It certainly inhibits cooperative, productive discussion." First of all, there are only two primary editors for the article in question. They are, surprise: Bbb23 and Veriss1. Though I was active in 2012 for a period of time, I left the article in good faith after hashing out and contesting bits of the article, for which other editors ruled in the favor of my arguments. For over a year, I stepped away from the article, so this accusation that "drama scares off" is quite laughable to me. I've been silent for over a year. But alas, Veriss and Bbb23 would find it most ideal to silence the opposing opinions of those who do not agree with them.
    I wish I was simply "imagining" that Veriss1 and Bbb23 were buddies that ganged up on other editors on the page, but mais non, they conspire and collaborate together. They have a history of doing this together--working together for their own benefit--to meet their goals of the article in question.
    If you go to Veriss1's talk page, you can see several conversations which they use "code names" for myself. I am "E". You will also see that they mutually conspire and turn a blind eye to another editor in question, Sayerslle, doing the exact same thing that Veriss accuses me of, but more importantly, turning a blind eye to Sayerslle removing my comments from the talk page, per their conversation on Veriss1 talk page (taken from his talk page):
    Asma al-Assad
    Hi, I don't want to get into an edit-war on her Talk page. I actually agree with S's removal of some of E's post. The Talk page should not be used as a forum for her to discuss her personal views about Syria and the subject. I did not like his edit summary, though, which I thought was attacking, and I left a message on his Talk page to that effect. I'll leave it up to you whether to leave in the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    I understand and appreciate both your and S's positions as I too tire of E's lectures. I normally take a very dim view of editing other's posts though except for the most extreme policy violations. I'll look around for some policy on that practice, if you have any leads, I would appreciate them.
    If the pruning should be reverted, I will revert it. I agree, his edit summary was a personal attack and to make matters worse, we all know how volatile she is. Cheers,Veriss (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    I don't think her comments are a policy violation, just a violation of Talk page guidelines, which is why I haven't reverted your reversion (heh). At the same time, the combination of the Talk page guidelines, the sensitivity of these particular issues, and a bit of WP:COATRACK thrown in for added flavor, makes me more inclined to agree with the trimming. And she does have a habit of making these kinds of inappropriate comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    I have reviewed WP:TPOC and find this may be in a grey area given the long, disruptive history of the user E in question making posts that some may wonder are just vehicles for propaganda. Normally I do not condone editors changing the content of other's talk page posts but will undo my reversion of S in this case since his action may be within policy, though it appears to be quite a stretch, and I am of course, not an adjudicator. If E protests, she may very well have grounds. They both have very short fuses, here's to hoping this does not blow up into another ugly drama fest. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    You are a model of moderation. I agree with your analysis. I'll hope along with you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    Sadly, "hope is not a method". We should prime our fire extinguishers. Veriss (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    You see that both accuse me of "propaganda" and turn a blind eye to the attacking, the removal of MY comments on the talk page, and talking about my "habits". Unfortunately, this is what I have had to deal with. The conspiring of these two gentlemen, who have an alliance, if you will. Furthermore, please note the "'WE' should prime our fire extinguishers." You see, these two editors in question work as COLLECTIVES. Birds of the same feather, so to speak. Collaboratives, basically.
    Further conspiring of together, taken from Veriss1 talk page:
    Thank feature
    Look at the contribution history of an article. At the end of each entry you should see things like rollback, sum, x - and at the end thank. If you hover your mouse over thank, it tells you what it does. Frankly, I've never used the feature and wish I could remove it, but that's how it's supposed to work. I'm not sure when it was added but it wasn't that long ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
    I knew and respected you as a fellow editor long before you were "saddled with being an Admin", a concept you smirked at on Asma al-Assad's talk page :). I respect you for taking on these responsibilities. "You are a better man then I Gunga Din". Veriss (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
    You were a great help on that article. Do you know that it hasn't even been edited in almost a month, and that edit by an IP was reverted by another editor? Ain't life grand when it's quiet?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
    I know I shouldn't, but I do miss E and S sometimes. Veriss (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
    How sweet. Veriss says he misses me sometimes. Reminder: I am "E", which is a code name that Veriss has anointed upon me.
    Ironically, Veriss has filed this notion after I have recently, yesterday, requested for 3rd party editors to review the article in question. I worry, perhaps, that Veriss and Bbb23 may be concerned that a third party opinion may turn the balance out of their favor, in terms of editing of the article. After all, until now, Veriss and Bbb23 have had absolute monopoly over what and how they conduct things in the article. For example, on the Asma Al-Assad talk page, we have another editor, FormerIP, who has expressed on TWO occasions a wonderful suggestion of which both Veriss1 and Bbb23 have not/refuse to acknowledge. It's a true shame. Especially since Bbb23 has been elevated to admin status, of which I believe he abuses his powers. Mais, I rest my case. What can I do when these two gentlemen, who claim monopoly of the article in question and talk behind the backs of other editors on their talk pages, simply want to silence, belittle, and conspire against those who walk a different line in life? C'est la vie!
    Unfortunately, I must further add that Bbb23 in particular, continues to talk behind my back and make startling accusations.
    'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard
    Asma al-Assad
    Asma al-Assad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | views)
    This article has an extended history of coatrack-related problems. Noneless, it has been relatively quiet for some time. However, a WP:SPA who wants to "protect" the article subject has returned after over a year of no editing and slashed the article. Two editors (not me) have reverted the SPA, but she insisted. I warned her for edit warring (she was up to three reverts). Her talk page comments have been singularly unhelpful.
    I just started a topic on the talk page to encapsulate the history of the problem (it has to do with Joan Juliet Buck and an article she wrote in Vogue) and the history of the SPA. The topic is fairly long, but it still doesn't completely capture everything that happened in 2012 and since. I have also reverted the article to the status quo ante.
    More eyes would be helpful on the article, and any comments on the talk page would be even better. As I stated there, I have no objection to revisiting the issues. Indeed, content-wise I probably think the material in the al-Assad article is too prominent (and repetitive of what is in the Buck article), but my views are just those of one editor and not necessarily the consensus of the community, or at least of those editors who are interested in expressing an opinion. In the meantime, the SPA cannot unilaterally impose her views on this or any other article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
    First of all, the fact that he has the audacity to say that I want to "protect" the subject is hilariously atrocious. That would be, for example, similar to myself accusing Bbb23 of trying to "trash" the article subject. It's funny to me that this editor/ADMIN wants to accuse me of trying to protect the article subject.... what exactly am I trying to protect???? And how???? This is precisely the kind of corruption that I feel plagues the integrity and ethnics of Wikipedia. I must make it clear here, on this public forum, that my intention is not to "protect" anything or anyone, but rather, to maintain a objective and neutral article that is not muddled by the personal views/opinions of select journalists/news agencies, and of course, biased editors.
    Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    An edit summary saying "Personal life: Have you, Veriss, ever heard of a Oxford comma? A.k.a serial comma? Look it up. It might help your writing to know that for three or more names, a comma should be included after the "and".) Directed to Veriss1/Editor" is not a personal attack. I had not heard of the "Oxford comma" - so this edit summary is (for me) useful and informative.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the support, Toddy1. Not a lot of people know about the "Oxford comma" aka "serial comma". It is also known as the "Harvard comma". I'm glad you found it useful! :) As noted earlier, the only reason why I wrote that edit summary to Veriss is because he undid the comma I had applied twice (after two edit reversals!) and then in his edit summary, wrote "minor, excessive punctuation. there is no need for a coma in a list of three items before the 'and'". I figured he didn't know about the "Oxford comma", which is why when I again added the "Oxford comma", wrote him the personalized edit summary to inform him that in fact, there IS a need for a comma in a list of three items before the "and". If you have time, please also visit the Asma al-Assad page to make edits or give critiques, as you see fit. We definitely need more objective eyes on this article. Have a beautiful day. :) Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 10:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor fluff. The serial coma is covered in some detail here on Wikipedia: [[93]]. Some writers are trained to minimize punctuation and the use of commas and instead structure the sentence so excessive commas are not needed in most circumstances. Other writers prefer them. Using them is a matter of taste and experience and as the linked article discusses may be controversial in some circles. That is a rabbit hole though as though I prefer minimal punctuation for ease or reading and properly structuring sentences to remove ambiguity, it is not a big deal. The issue isn't commas, it is cooperation, personal attacks and tendacious editing. Please don't get distracted. Veriss (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But the example you gave was not a personal attack.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I submitted 14 examples to illustrate a pattern. If you would like to focus on the tamest example, then all power to you. Veriss (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, obviously it was not minor (or not too "tame") if you wanted to use the personalize edit summary as a example of an attack? Also, if it wasn't such a "big deal" why did you and Bbb23 reverse the comma edit? You are continually contradicting yourself through words and in action. You say, "I prefer minimal...." - this isn't about YOU or ME or anyone else. This is about doing things proper. Ironically, the whole point of utilizing the Oxford comma IS to REMOVE AMBIGUITY. If you need me to provide a detailed explanation from a grammar book, I am happy to do so, as the Oxford comma is covered in most respected books on grammar. You, yourself did three edits on the article yesterday, so you should probably take your own advice. And in regards to "cooperation": if cooperation means having to be submissive to you and Bbb23, it won't be happening anytime soon. I would like to ENCOURAGE you to again, heed your own song on cooperation and perhaps cooperate with FormerIP on the talk page for the article in question so that something productive can be done about the issues raised on the talk page? You nor Bbb23 should be complaining about "cooperation" when you two, as a duo, refuse to cooperate with other editors who differ in opinions of the two of you, as a collaborative. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reviewed the three items listed under "Personal Attacks on article talk page":

    • 30 Nov 2013 section: Vogue Veris claims that there is a "personal attack in last comment." This accuses a named editor of "he was faking like he had no idea what discussions on this Vogue article were had previously", but did not give any evidence in the form of diffs. If a diff had been given it would have been 100% OK.
    • 30 Nov 2013 section: Repetitive Information Veris claims that there are "multiple attacks in last comment." There are no personal attacks in the last comment.
    • 30 Nov 2013 section: Rewrite of article by Etoiles Veris claims that there are "multiple attacks in last comment." There is one personal attack in the comment, where she referred to "the two thugs on this page". This was not appropriate conduct.

    --Toddy1 (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for that thorough review, Toddy1. I am a passionate person. At the time, the only adjective that could come to my mind to describe the two gentlemen was "thugs", as I felt that I was being ganged up upon. As mentioned earlier, there are two primary editors for the article in question (Veriss1 and Bbb23). They as a duet, literally monopolize the article. Recently, a new editor, FormerIP, joined the discussion but both gentlemen have ignored her comments. I apologize on this public forum for calling these two editors "thugs". Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Etoiles can be a very difficult editor. She can also be helpful. It might come as a surprise to her that there are areas in which she and I agree. When she returned after over a year's absence from Wikipedia, my biggest problem with her was her approach. Unfortunately, my attempts to reduce the rhetoric and the disruption to the article were met with attacks. Her insults didn't really bother me much, actually. I just wanted her to see reason and that she had to play by the rules no matter what her substantive arguments were. When she refused, I filed a report at AN3, and she was blocked for 24 hours. Her unblock requests, unfortunately, were not promising as they gave no indication that she knew what she was doing wrong.

    I was pleasantly surprised, though, when her block expired, and she posted a rather reasonable message on the article talk page. She tends to be impatient and reads too much into what people say and what people don't say. So, the fact that I didn't respond to FormerIP's comments about what should be included in the article caused Etoiles to think that I was ignoring FormerIP. Quite the contrary. I read FormerIP's suggestion. I wasn't sure if I agreed with it, but it was constructive and reasonable. And if the consensus was to go with it, it was also a model of concision. The only reason I didn't comment was I had already suggested language for the article, and I wanted to see if other editors had anything to say before injecting myself back into the discussion. I also give credit to Etoiles that other than her adding a serial comma to the article (a minor issue - fwiw, I like serial commas), she has not attempted to restore her version of the article. Also, I believe she has struck some of her more personal negative comments from earlier. Toddy1 helped her with that, for which she thanked him effusively (Etoiles is quite effusive :-) ).

    Veriss1 is an understated and non-confrontational editor. His edits and comments to the article over the last year+ have always been civil, focused, well thought-out, and helpful. As he stated in his opening statement here, he is unfamiliar with ANI. I, on the other hand, am more familiar with ANI than I'd like to be. Personally, I would not have brought Etoiles here at this point in time because, as I said, in my view things were improving. But for a consistently respectfful editor like Veriss1, Etoiles's style can sometimes be hard to take. However, if everyone just takes a deep breath, keeps civil and focuses on content, I am hopeful we can come to a consensus about what should be included in the article, at least with respect to the Vogue/Buck material (I haven't looked closely at Etoiles's other complaints yet given that seemed to be her biggest objection).

    I am, of course, too WP:INVOLVED to close this discussion, but with my sincerest respect to Veriss1's good intentions, that would be my recommendation.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    One thing I did miss in Veriss1's report were the comments Etoiles made after the block on the article talk page in which she called Veriss1 and me "thugs" and some other choice names. However, even though such comments are uncivil, I've certainly seen worse (as we all know, what constitutes incivility at Wikipedia is a contentious issue), and, as I said earlier, she struck those comments, so I think we can let them go. My recommendation above is the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Cue Comment – Was this reported at WP:ANEW before? This can be more easily solved there.I see that it has been reported at WP:ANEW. Forget my previous comment. Epicgenius (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    With Toddy1's help she has started striking out much of the vitriol from her earlier comments. It appears that she wants to mend her ways so I believe the desired outcome may have been achieved. In light of that, this can be closed by the next available admin. Thank you. Veriss (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin closure) Okay, closing. Epicgenius (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    user Zyzzzzzy

    This user has been making vast amount of edits without any sort of discussion. He also does not appear to have grasp of Armenian language, which are in any case not common usage. Many of his edits are not align with WP:COMMONNAME, which is also used for foreign languages. He has made so many edits that its going to be hard to revert all of them. I suggest a block. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please notify this user that their name has come up at ANI. Also, for reviewers: Zyzzzzzy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Jprg1966 (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Proudbolsahye: Instead of a block, how about mass rollback? Epicgenius (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Epicgenius: Okay, I think that's a better option. It's going to be a real pain doing this. Also, the mentioned user knows about the ANI report due to a message on my talk page. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry; for editors with rollback enabled it would be easy to revert the edits. I have just rollbacked Zyzzzzzy's past 10 article space edits. Epicgenius (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my! Thanks so much! :) Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. Do you want any more of Zyzzzzzy's edits to be reverted? Additionally, consider applying for the rollback permission so that you can do this yourself next time it happens. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vnisanian2001

    Vnisanian2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User has long-term pattern of making unreferenced edits or attempting to include sources that do not meet WP:V. Blocked for 48 hours on August 2, 2013 and two weeks on August 24, 2013 for similar behavior. Warned repeatedly over several years on talk page, most recently in October for similar and WP:OR edits. Most recent edit to Sale of the Century (U.S. game show) included WP:OR and a URL in the edit summary that does not provide backup to the information added.

    Since this is not a vandalism only account, I am making a request here that additional steps be taken to prevent this user from continuing to engage in the behavior pattern. Please advise if this should instead be discussed at WP:AIV. AldezD (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That most recent edit seems like a good faith attempt to date a particular episode of a show, and though you could call it WP:SYN on one hand, dating things like that doesn't seem outlandish. Provided the case is that in episode X, someone said "station Y was founded 35 years ago today; happy anniversary", and you have a source stating the founding date of station Y, you can simply add the numbers. However, this ignores the possibility that the statement was incorrect (e.g., it referred to a projected airing date that was missed, referred to the taping date which was different than the air date, or was outright incorrect), or that the source stating the date of founding is incorrect or refers to a different founding date than was used as a reference for the show (corporate founding dates can be contentious sometimes). In short, that particular dating argument is, while in good faith and facially reasonable, probably not something we want to rely on. Looking at other edits Vnisanian2001 has made that you've contested (I further note that it seems like you and you personally are the only person warning Vnisanian2001) it seems like a lot of those have been unreferenced changes to facts, figures, and dates that were themselves already unreferenced; while that fact doesn't cure the problem of making unreferenced contributions, perhaps it should counsel an attempt to reference those figures (or do so in a more obvious manner if they are referenced) or remove them until references can be found, rather than enforcement of the status quo through warnings escalating to blocks. But this isn't something you need an administrator to enforce, and frankly, I don't think Vnisanian2001's edits rise to the level of something requiring immediate intervention. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This user requires a healthy dose of CLUE to become a competent editor. Their understandings of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR are deeply flawed, as shown in this edit summary, for example—or their citation of a YouTube commenter here. I also really wish this user would use edit summaries more often. --Jprg1966 (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Outside of bringing additional attention to this editor through WP:ANI, what next steps would you suggest taking in order to have this editor comply with WP:V and WP:NOT#OR? Repeated warnings are clearly ineffective, and Jprg1966's comments about WP:COMPETENCE are certainly valid. AldezD (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    "Franks Cock"

    Non-issue. Move along. --Jprg1966 (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Did you people really lead a major website with the title "Franks Cock". It's a joke right? It says cock and it's not about a bird, whatever your intentions, your websites main paige was about a mans dick. Your collective intelegence of a world renowned resource had "Franks Cock" as the title. Nice. Reeeeaal nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.218.31 (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Frank's Cock is a featured article today. I don't see any problem with that. Epicgenius (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually about a short film, 37.142.218.31. -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 21:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:NOTCENSORED. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=584166620"