Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive800

user:Geebee2 is a WP:SPA and has serious COI, see this talk page section foe details. issues on the Murder of Travis Alexander article. Quite simply Geebee2 is engaged in advocacy as she believes the woman convicted of killing Alexander is innocent. She has used her own wiki as a source, even after being told she cannot. She uses her own wiki and her research on it to support her arguments on the talk page. She is a regular at the jodiariasisinnocent.com and has used that as a source[4] Her most recent edits show she is incalpable of following NPOV, here she says in her edit summary "Moved media interview information to Discovery and Investigation section, removed summary" What she has actually done is remove that Arias had give nthree different stories over the killings. Here she removes the section on the discovery of the body which according to GeeBee2 "it adds nothing to article" I request she be topic banned from the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I will support a topic ban for the user as the user has proven it can not objectively edit material about the subject. The user is ofcourse entitled to their opinion about guilt or unguilt but it can not be the users aim to remake the article into a pro-Jodi article a Wiki article should remain neutral. The user has so far been unwilling to change even though several users has tried to reason with it and an admin has warned the user. --BabbaQ (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• You are very badly informed.

(1) I am male not female.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(2) I have not removed any content, other than minor tidy up with no semantic change. I have simply re-organised to make the article clearer.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(3) It is you who has repeatedly vandalised the work I have done.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(4) There are issues which I have probably got wrong, related to the use of primary sources. The wikipedia guidance on this is extensive and ambiguous, so I make no apology for that.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(5) My POV is certainly that the article is wrongly titled. There is nothing whatsoever notable about the death of Travis Alexander, and everything notable about the trial.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(6) Notwithstanding (1), there is a misogynistic double standard at wikipedia. See the Trayvon Martin article, which is nothing other than a defense website.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Per my note further down in this thread, and because of Geebee2's belligerent and uncollaborative attitude in this very discussion, I'm changing my support for a ban to a proposal for an indefinite block. Please don't let's stand by and see constructive editors worn out by trying to contain this timewasting disruption. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC). I agree with the descriptions above by Darness Shines and BabbaQ. I'll also note that Geebee2 is clearly an overwhelming contributor to collaborate with. Apart from his large demands for detailed talkpage discussion on every point, merely reading the history of Murder of Travis Alexander is exhausting. (Unfortunately that'll probably also affect people here who try to get a grasp on the issue.) I was in fact asked to help on my page recently, but had to (whinily) decline because of time constraints.[5] The trouble is Geebee2 makes a myriad edits with extreme rapidity, most of them small but with larger removals intermixed, and that method makes it hard to pinpoint the problems. He started editing Murder of Travis Alexander two months ago and has made 468 edits to it since then, accelerating all the time. The last 36 edits were performed in the space of three hours.[6] I'm not suggesting he's being deliberately overwhelming in order to OWN the article, but it's in fact impossible to keep up with this. Darkness Shines deserves our thanks for giving diffs to some problematic edits hidden in the jungle, especially this removal of important material with a misleading edit summary. That edit alone makes me worry about GeeBee2's claim above that "I have not removed any content, other than minor tidy up with no semantic change. I have simply re-organised to make the article clearer." Incidentally there also seem to be problems of advocacy in Geebee2's editing of David Camm.[7] Possibly all BLP-related articles broadly construed should be included in the topic ban? Finally, Geebee2, please don't be so free with your accusations of WP:vandalism, here and in edit summaries; they're baseless and uncivil. You see how nobody's accusing you of vandalism? Bishonen | talk 11:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC).

• I suggest the burden of proof rests on the person making the accusation. I repeat, I do not believe I have removed any significant content, certainly not within the last 24 hours. The page history is available. Please substantiate, and we can discuss what was removed, otherwise Darkness shines should withdraw his false allegation. The edit Bishonen references is because I resourced that material with proper dates today Note, one part went into the pre-trial section where it logically belongs. Geebee2 (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I believe the "burden of proof" lies with the user that makes 36 edits on a single article within the space of 3 hours and over 400 within a 2 months time span. Also you bring up discussions but from what I have seen everytime users try to discuss with you, you simply say they are wrong and you justify your edits and are not interested in discussing it further. When I contacted you, you stated that I should remove my comment. You need to realise that if you want to have discussions you have to be willing to have discussions and not see them as people "attacking you" at every given time. And all of this combined with you throwing accusations around against Bishonen and Shines who is just trying to reason with you makes me think a topic ban for you is needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I said you should move the comment out of that section, as it was not relevant there. I have been subject to multiple attacks, but none of these people are contributing to the article, and generally the attacks are non-specific. I'm sure I have made mistakes, for example, yesterday someone supplied source, and asked for that to be included somehow, I went ahead, but it turned out the source was not appropriate, and the detail was not appropriate, and now I get the criticism. Other criticisms I get are completely non-specific. e.g. Darkness shines "I object to everything you do to this article". It is not possible to respond to such a vague charge. Geebee2 (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• See how you edit too fast? Why would you include something somebody else requests, without even checking if the detail is appropriate and the source is appropriate? You're simply making work for others. Yes, you will "get the criticism" for edits that you do to the article, it's no good blaming the person requesting them. Don't add anything you can't take responsibility for. Bishonen | talk 13:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC).

• Support. This is very difficult to sift through, but it seems to me that Geebee's only real objective in editing that article is to obfuscate any hint of criminality directed at Arias. Some of the removals performed to further that goal, such as fundamental information about the finding of the body etc. are particularly damaging. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• : Can anyone say what was actually wrong with the article when it was reverted by Darkness shines? [8]. My POV was (and is) that testimony belongs in the trial section, that was why I moved it there. There seemed to be some kind of violent objection - so I offered to move it back, but that was rejected, and 2 hours of hard work is lost. Sure I work quickly, and I make mistakes, the antiquated user interface at wikipedia is frustrating. I do make small edits, this is intended to allow people to see what I'm doing, not obfuscate. Where is the wikipedia policy on this? If there is one, why doesn't an experienced editor direct me to it? And by the way, have any of the critics actually contributed to this article at all?Geebee2 (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• I support a topic ban. In fact, I support an immediate block for every edit that even smells of advocacy. It is indeed hard to separate the wheat from the chaff in those many edits; the edit pointed out above I did see yesterday, but it was one of many and I wish I had looked more carefully to see what it was sourced to (I believe that edit was reverted as a BLP violation?)--that edit alone, after a week of such voluminous editing and warnings/discussion, is probably blockable already. Geebee is active on a few other articles as well and those articles and Geebee's edits are very problematic. Given the evidence of external interests I think it is established well enough that this editor is here to make a case, and it's not an encyclopedic case. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I encourage editors and admins to look at this edit I just made to Trial by media--an edit invited by this list of contributors and further explained on Talk:Trial by media. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd support Drmies's edit absolutely - the material removed was nothing but WP:OR and advocacy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, does your account need to be blocked for being compromised? No cussword, no disagreement? :) Thanks, BTW. I pondered doing this yesterday already, and having slept over it I was sure that it needed to go. Pity there's little left right now of what could be a decent and important article. I wish we could require "only academic articles and books" as sources for some articles. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• That re-insertion is a big problem, but I believe the burden of the editors to prove their accusations still remains. The ongoing edit war alone needs to be stopped as that alone is blockable.[9][10] Edits like this also show unacceptable POV pushing. But other edits seem to be acceptable, and useful.[11] Other additions to articles like Trial by Media push POV; which Drmies just took care of. [12] Over 150 revisions to that article made for one huge BLP concern. Geebee needs act within BLP policies or else should be blocked; the speed of the edits aren't the problem, its the edits and POV pushing itself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks. I see the point at "Trial by Media", I would point out that when I came across that article, it was already a list of cases, I just added some extra cases I happened to know about, and thought it would be interesting to do a comparison, looking at things like motive. Sure there is some kind of subjective selection here, the cases added are obviously cases that people for whatever reason perceive as miscarriages of justice, whether rightly or wrongly. Are there not places in wikipedia where lists get built in a collaborative way? I did ask a talk question about it a day or so in advance, and got no response. But Drmies thinks that is unacceptable, fair enough, I'm not going to argue, I think the article may as well be deleted entirely, there is nothing left except a single dodgy reference to the Bill Clinton case and an external reference to India.Geebee2 (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Geebee2, this is the administrators' noticeboard. It's primarily for getting comments from uninvolved, neutral, users, so you're shooting yourself in the foot with your repeated complaints that people here haven't contributed to the article. That's the way it's supposed to work. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a battleground, it's a collaborative site, and your response to the complaints about your editing methods is the last straw for me. "Where is the wikipedia policy on this? If there is one, why doesn't an experienced editor direct me to it? I want to change my "support" for a ban, above, to a proposal for an indefinite block. Over the years, it's been my invariable experience on this site that when new users are urged civilly to avoid editing in a way that inconveniences others and they respond by demanding to be directed to a policy that forces them to comply — then they're not here to write an encyclopedia, they're here to wikilawyer and get their way by tiring everybody out. Never fails. Go ahead, Drmies. Bishonen | talk 15:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC).
  • Bishonen, I can't make possibly controversial decisions for a few weeks, you know; it hurts me in the ratings (in the court of public opinion--Trial by media, you know). I am not yet at the point that Bbb apparently is, but also I have not yet seen what I'm hoping to seefind--a commitment to encyclopedic editing and an acknowledgement that they haven't been doing that so far. And I must say, Bbb makes a convincing case in his latest post. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I support an indefinite block. I realize that jumping to an indef without any preceding blocks is unorthodox, but a review of Geebee's edits warrants the sanction. I have been reviewing his edits since I read Basilisk's support. During that time, Drmies posted his views, which largely coincide with what I found in my review. I spent a fair amount of time working on the David Camm article, which Geebee extensively edited (280 edits, or almost 75% of the total edits to the article). Putting aside sloppiness, there were a significant number of copyright violations, which I have removed from the article, and Geebee committed at least some of them (I got tired looking). This edit is a copy-and-paste from the source. this massive edit (220 consecutive edits) includes other copyright violations as well. This edit is absurd. Geebee copied text verbatim from the Indiana Court of Appeals opinion, didn't give it any attribution, and incorrectly cited the Indiana Supreme Court. I don't believe it's a copyright violation so I left it in as a long quote and attributed it properly - probably should be done differently. Then, on top of all this, you have the edit removing the death section, which has already been mentioned, and this edit, which removes negative material about Arias in the guise of summarizing. Then, there's the off-wiki blog, which was started by Geebee at roughly the same time as he started editing here again after almost five years of inactivity. If others are still uncomfortable with an indefinite block, then I propose broadening the topic ban to any pages on Wikipedia that are law-related, broadly construed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I did not remove negative material about Arias, it was either moved to another section in the article or expanded giving more detailed date information derived from CBC News timeline ( and possibly redistributed elsewhere in the article to the most logical point ). It might look that way looking at a single diff, and maybe I did it the wrong way, but that's the truth. Geebee2 (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• That's false. It's true that some of the material you moved to other locations, but you often removed material at the same time as you moved it. Moreover, some of the moves shifted the emphasis. Thus, for example, where there had been a separate section about Alexander's death, now his death was deemphasized by being put into a much longer section about the investigation. I'm not saying that I disagree with every single edit you've made. You've made far too many for some of them not to be problematic, but the bigger picture stands out that you have a clear bias and an agenda, whether you want to admit that or not. The diff I noted above was part of another of your infamous series of consecutive edits (32 of them in this instance) and is here. Interestingly, the article was reduced by 3,410 characters - hard to say that would be an expansion, isn't it? After you removed the material, you edit warred with Taroaldo and Darkness Shines about it until you realized you were in danger of breaching WP:3RR (DS left a warning on your talk page), although you already had.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, let me describe what I believe I did. Yesterday, I found an updated timeline, which gave dates for the televised interviews. Next I added these dates, and then thought these items belonged in the discovery and investigation section, so I moved them there from the media section. I think I also added another interview with "The Republic", and did some other minor changes. The 2009 interview went into the pre-trial section. Now, as a result of these changes, the "summary" (which has a hint of OR about it I think and also differed in style from the other entries in this section), was redundant, since the information was in the adjacent paragraphs, so I removed it. As a result, the number of characters in the article was reduced, but the information was increased. I also did some other changes to the discovery section, putting things into chronological order, but with Arias and Alexander treated separately. Finally (and I admit this was probably a mistake) I thought Dr Horn's testimony belonged in the trial section and moved it there, with the result that the "Death" section had no information left in it.Geebee2 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not real keen on endless back-and-forth. However, I'll reply once more. Let's assume just for the sake of argument that everything you say in your last comment is true. You have't addressed the edit warring. You haven't addressed the self-righteousness with which you edit, either ignoring other editors' warnings or at least pushing it to just one step before you might be sanctioned. You haven't addressed the major changes you make to this and other articles without any real discussion with other editors (I've read some of your intense quibbling on the article talk page, driving most other editors crazy). You apparently plunge ahead. You haven't addressed the copyright violations in the Camm article. It appears to me that you are very biased and that those biases impel you to contribute in the fashion that you do, including occasionally apologizing so as not to appear to be a fanatic, as well as generally keeping your cool. We need neutral editors, or at least editors who try to be neutral as we all have our biases. You came here to edit in a certain way, and it's unacceptable. You eat up too many resources. You cause too much disruption. Whatever positive things you might contribute are far outweighed by the negatives. And I see no likelihood you'll change.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• On the copyright issue, at the time I wasn't properly aware of the need to reword. I hadn't noticed your post on the talk page previously, I will go and attend to that now.Geebee2 (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Based on the discussion in this thread and a review of Geebee2's editing, I have blocked him indefinitely for tendentious editing. MastCell ^Talk 21:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please (a) block User:Kevin R. Guidry as a blatant sockpuppet and (b) use checkuser tools to see if you can figure out who is behind that and if other accounts or IP addresses need to be blocked? I ask for these extraordinary steps because it's quite alarming that someone would register account in my own name and edit my employer's article using that account. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You should make a report at WP:SPI. _→AzaToth 18:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm hoping to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy given the obvious facts in this instance. ElKevbo (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked him for vandalism only account. _→AzaToth 18:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you can only have a "check user" done by doing an SPI. This might reveal what other accounts this person was using.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This is Mangoeater. I blocked a bunch of sleepers. T. Canens (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a topic ban for Lucia Black targeting Anime, Manga and Video Games. The reason for this proposal is an ongoing pattern of behavior that has stunted growth and development of articles in these catagories.

A - Lucia Black operates as an owner of several key articles in these topics in violation of WP:OWN. Many of the user's revisions stem from his/her personal opinion rather than concensus or RS.

B - Said user often edits tenditiously and makes frequent use of personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA.

C - Said user often makes edits that contain numerous typographical, spelling and grammatical errors. Such errors require time to correct (often in addition to the time required to verify the info edited into a given article).

D - Said user may have ties to notorious sock puppet masters/trolls with whom he/she may be cooperating in order to harrass other editors.

These behaviors have a chilling effect on wikipedia and are responsible for intimidating new users from contributing in a meaningful fashion. In full disclosure, I was a registered, confirmed editor involved in cooperating on the Anime/Manga articles, but felt compelled to leave Wikipedia due to harrassment from Lucia Black. I have since abandoned that account and am nervous about disclosing who I was due to the possibility of on and off wiki harrassment in retaliation. She repeatedly reverted additions with little or no real justification and has accused me of being a troll.

I'm not sure if it is the nature of the topics, but perhaps it might be best if Lucia Black were given a break and encouraged to edit other topics.

User has been notified. Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A brand new user account arrives to propose a topic ban? Quite clearly either an invalid WP:CLEANSTART or as a minimum an improper alternate account as an attempt to distract attention from their regular account. I'm sorry, I can AGF for days, but not for something like this (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, it doesn't sound like you've AGF'd at all. I have never been banned or blocked. My regular account has been defunct for at least six months. I gave up on account of harrassment from the above user. I'll assume good faith and not accuse you of being in cahoots with the above mentioned user. Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose- A) You need to show diffs that demonstrate this behaviour. B) Ditto. C) This problem seems to be related to Lucia Black's editing in general, not specific to anime and manga, therefore a topic ban will not solve it. D) Unsubstantiated innuendo. Reyk _YO! 00:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to show the diffs if someone can walk me through how to use the coding involved (I've never done so before). if you bear with me, I'll post them. Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

See Help:Diff - take note in particular of the section 'Linking to a diff'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime, you might want to check out TheSyndromeOfaDown apparently had communication with her on her/his talk page (since deleted, but the deleting admin can provide a copy Writ Keeper reverted it on 3 June 2013).Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, the thing I revdeled had nothing to do with Lucia Black. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Support as proposer Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Relevent Diffs

[29] - example of ownership

[30] - example of tenditious editing

[31] - overt hostility

[32] - WP:HOUNDING

Also, take a look at the pervious two AN/I topics focusing her (one is at AN/I archive 798). Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Assuming this editor is ChrisGualtieri, I have had it with this destructive behavior of this user. The first link shows absolutely no sign of WP:OWN. The other 2, this editor is involved and has been hostile and poison the discussion. Why else would this editor need to make an alternate account out of fear?

Also, this editor isnt afraid of me because of my hostility, its because of my wrongfully ban that in which if I bring it up to the highest power in wiki, will see a bunch of inconsistencies and will get this editor blocked too for his poisoning.

Idk why some user would feel the need to be a sock just to get a third opinion known. I smell conspiracy against me. I would NEVER use a sock. And I would never need to make one just to prove my point.

I cant bring links, but I have witnesses directly involved with ChrisGualtieri who can provide links for me and verify his destructive behaviour.Lucia Black (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Lucia stop being trolled. It clearly isn't me and your personal attacks are wearing thin. Admins, please check the revdel versions of my talk page.[33] I do not know their content, but I suppose it may be enlightening if the edits of User:KuroiNekoko-chan aren't.[34] Considering the last history the SPI will be obvious and I'm going to cross-post this. Not sure where the obsession comes from but Jonathan Yip made clear an effort to focus on both of us in the rev del from KuroiNekoko-chan's last talk comments. This trolling is really lame. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Close and SPI please - I have zero interest in Anime, nor familiarity with the names above but "My regular account has been defunct for at least six months. I gave up on account of harrassment from the above user." = "I created a new sock to get back at an editor, but I'm not telling you who I am"? ..... surely this ANI should closes here and next should be an SPI, shouldn't it? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ugh...im far too tired for this stuff. How am j suppose to know when a sock is coming up.Lucia Black (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - While I object to many instances of how she handles herself in discussions, there is no way this warranted. She does good work when she's not tied up with arguing with people. Sergecross73 msg me 03:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose It is at SPI. I just posted the evidence there. Sorry, I've had a rough day and I come home to this. And Lucia, don't take it seriously, that's the intent. I'm going to watch this, but work on a few things in the mean time. But just to be clear, this "topic ban" thing is nonsense, Lucia does good work at WP:ANIME and has opened up to the community; I intend to back her in her efforts; past issues are as good as forgotten. Though let's end this "topic ban" with a snow close just to make sure its not taken seriously in the future; even if the nominator is not a sock. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Chibi Kusanagi is confirmed as a sock. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This article has been vandalized for years, and been protected on-and-off for the same period of time. The vandalism is usually the same edit. Is there no better solution than the current pattern of waiting for the vandal to hit, revert, report, protect the article from anon editing for a short time, block offending IP address for a short time. Can we please just block anon editing on this article, period? --HighKing (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Not worthy of this board. This is kind of lame. And, of course, it seems to all stem from a "British Isles" thing.[65] Lucky guess. Doc talk 11:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest indef block IP per WP:NOTHERE. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't indefinitely block IP addresses. Doc talk 12:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• The rest of that sentence doesn't belong anyway, regardless of the name. I've removed it, semi-protected the article for a month, and will watchlist it. Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• KumiokoCleanStart (talk · contribs)

User and I have previously disagreed (See also WikiProject United States scope, WikiProject United States absorbs WikiProject Texas, WikiProject United States attempts to absorb WikiProject Dallas/Fort Worth). After I commented on an ANI in which they came to my talk page and began to significantly annoy me with baseless complaints, I formally dis-invited him from my talk page (diff of dis-invitation). Today when I tried to give, what I considered a semi-friendly, nudge to remind Kumioko on how to get more positive reactions from other editors, only to have him come on to my talk page again denigrate my comments at AN and to claim that they have more investment based on their tenure and quantity of contributions. I responded somewhat intemperately as was presented to me by their intemperate initial posting. I dis-invited them again from my talk page, and they then persisted in maintaining their "Last Say" on the talk page after I exercised my rights under User Page policy (specifically WP:UP#CMT) multiple times and warned regarding harassment. After I gave a warning via edit summary that the next post would invoke a request to AN. What I want is for Kumioko to respect my wishes and leave my talk page. In addition I'd like Kumioko to be stronly suggested to that their conversational style (including insulting other users, random admins, and unregistered users) is fundamentally incompatible with standard operating procedure. Hasteur (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you want admins to do? Just give this strong suggestion, or do you want something in addition? Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I want the admins to remind Kumioko about the best practices regarding user pages, user talk pages, and in general making himself to be an entitled user on behalf of his quantity of edits and length of membership with the project. We're all supposed to be editors. Some have been entrusted with additional privileges based on the community evaluating their need, whereas others have been restricted in their privileges based on the failure to adhere to the standards that the community has judged. Hasteur (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not discluding any other options, however based on this editor's history I think the time for cautions and warnings has already passed (See also their recent POINT RfA attempt). Hasteur (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur made a comment which was obvious trolling on my request for an edit above (Facepalming). I left a notice on their talk page telling them it was innapropriate trolling and to knock it off. They further insulted me and told me not to come back. Then when I opened up a verbal asswhooping they stomped their feet like an impetuious ppouting little child and reverted my comment. Hasteur made the inappropriate comment and since no one else told them it wasn't appropriate I did. The only think I did was what an admin should have done and didn't. I hurt hasteurs feelings for being a dick. That's all it was. There is nothing worthy of ANI in his request and this discussion is a waste of everyones time. I would also like to add that I am not insulting to anyone who doesn't insult me or another user first. Certainly not an unregistered one (I would like to see an example if I have). If another user or admin wants to insult me, then they should expect that I will have somethign to say to them about it. I am not a sheep and I do not act like one so to assume that they can say whatever they want about or to me just because they are an admin or whatever is an incorrect assumption. Kumioko (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

So, you (Hasteur) made a snarky comment, you both retaliated at each other in escalating degrees of stridence, and then there's a childish edit war over whether a certain comment gets to stay on your talk page? Sounds like another day at ANI. Neither of you distinguished your respective selves here, and you both have made it quite clear that your talk pages are off-limits to the other. So let's all stop being utter jerks to each other, respect the mutual talk-age bannination, and leave it at that, shall we? (By the way, for anyone curious: I silently reverted Kumioko's post on Hasteur's page in the forlorn hope that it would somehow go unnoticed and that this dispute would die the quick, silent death it deserves, but it was not to be. If we want to play the blame game, my blameometer puts the blame on Kumioko at 70% and Hasteur at 30%; not evens, but nothing to write home about.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, it's very simple - if another editor removes your comment from their talk page then you should not re-add it. GiantSnowman 16:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd made the attempt to head this off by pre-emptively doing an NAC as I have previously seen that Hasteur and Kumioko don't get along, I see that failed. Quite frankly, interaction ban the two of them and move along. Blackmane (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You all can call me names all you want. The fact remains you failed to call the users attention to the inappropriate comment so I did. You don't like how I did it, next time do it so I won't have too. This also would not have happened if I could have implemented the changes I spent hours doing rather than wait a month for you admins to do it because I can't be trusted. And then have you ignore the request for edit because you don't understand it. You don't trust me, then make the changes you don't trust me to do. I should not be doing them if I cannot be trusted to implement them. Kumioko (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

And after waiting a couple hours for a response from Hasteur about how I am being abusive to new users as suggested above he/she can provide no examples. Because they don't exist. Their just another editor who is mad because I'm not an admin and called them out for acting inappropriately. This thread should be closed as a pointless waste of time. Kumioko (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, a couple hours is enough time to formulate a response. No, I've just elected to leave this tombstone on the trail of tears that you leave behind you whenever you don't get your way. I bet that true to form you won't leave this as is and instead will DEMAND the final say in the conversation so it appears that you had the upper hand in the debate. Prove me wrong. Hasteur (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

A couple of hours is more than enough time to provide a couple links of how I am abusing unregistered or new users which you specifically mention above but you can't because its just madeup by you. And I'm just responding to your comments hasteur. Although your comments above are basically gibberish without any coherent meaning as usual so there isn't much I can respond to really. Someone needs to close this thread as the obvious waste of time it is. I would but someone would undoubtedly fuss about it being innappropriate. Hasteur is just wasting everyones time here and he knows it. So does everyone else. He's just spouting crap trying to get me blocked or something and doesn't have anything other than his own bad behavior to prove I did anything wrong. If he wasn't being such a child about the whole thing it would be funny, as it is its just irritating and sad. Kumioko (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, please find a quiet spot in your house and read your last response out loud. Then ask yourself how successful that response is going to be at defusing this situation. It might be a baseless complaint (I don't know), but responses such as this do nothing to help prove that point. Please calm down. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see anything. The user accused me of being harassing to new/unregistered users which is patenly false. The user was being a dick and leaving snide comments in a discussion which were clearly negative in nature and of no use. No one said anything so I did. There is nothing to see here. The user submitted a baseless complaint to get my into trouble and you and others are so focused on my comments you don't even care about theirs. It should be obvious to anyone that the user is just being shitty. But no one except me seems to care. That's why I am irritated. You will let the user say anything they want and be as dickish as they want but if I say something to them about it, I am the asshole. You want me to drop it, fine. But don't get mad at me for telling the user not to be an asshole because you and your fellow admins didn't have the time or inclination to do it. And contrary to the users comment about us having a disagreement 2 years ago we don't have any "history". Their just some random user that felt compelled to snipe a worthless comment at me because they knew that no one, including you was going to do anything about it and I'm sick of it. I'm not sorry I responded only disgusted at you, yet again, singling out my comments and completely ignoring the comment from the user who I commented about. That is at least the second time you have done that to me so my suggestion to you Ultra would be to tkae a couple minutes while I find a corner in my house and look at all the facts before passing jusdgement. Its a rare thing for admins to do these days but you'll be the better for it in the end. Kumioko (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I made this revert on the article for Mud, as it was unsourced and looked wrong (a score of 105.184% for a review?) and got this response from that user on my talkpage. This user doesn't make many edits, but the little they do make seem to be disrputive, as per their talkpage. This comment on my talkpage is not acceptable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You should really have used an edit summary to say why you were reverting, but the response is indeed unacceptable - I have blocked for 48 hours. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I made an edit on the Men's movement page and included material from the SPLC. The discussion has been here [80] and was taken off the page here [81],[82]. My good faith was seriously questioned by Binkersnet [83]

The material is certainly contentious, but I should add that RSN has repeatedly discussed the reliability of the SPLC and RSN also declared fairly unanimously that articles of the SPLC are the the voice of the SPLC and not the author, (with a few dissensions). The SPLC has been used frequently in the past to criticize the Men's Rights Movement, but seems out of bounds when the larger movement is discussed. I seem to get blocked at the drop of a hat and need help here. CSDarrow (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I feel like CSDarrow is not responding well to being warned for a copyright violation, something that I feel they don't seem to be mentioning at all in this thread which should end with a block for disruption and wasting time--on this page, on Bbb23's talk page, and on the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh my that is a very serious-looking matter! For what it is worth, I think it would help you if you linked to the diffs of the actual material that was reverted or removed. As far as I can tell from the chat page communiques only, it is not so much that the SPLC material is controversial but that you (according to your detractors) copied and pasted it directly from the site which is considered to by a copyright violation regardless from the source unless it is attributed in a specific and certain mannerism as detailed in WP:COPYVIO. I personally do not feel that if you are being bullied based just on those diffs but if you had the diffs of the actual edits that were reverted I could revise my opinion and stick up for you if it turns out that you were being accused unjustly of copying material from a site wholesale. DrPhen (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow's outrageous behavior in his handling of this matter warrants a block. Please see this discussion on Bbb23's talk page and this disucssion on CSDarrow's talk page for context. Thanks. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• The diffs are this one with copyright violation, and this one with attributed quotes. The material that CSDarrow wishes to add is without context, difficult for the reader to understand. It makes a statement about some not-very-respected types of men who can be found in the men's movement, but it does not set a larger context about what the main types of men are, what the main demographics are of the men's movement. The CSDarrow text is not encyclopedic; it does not help the reader. I cannot tell what he was trying to communicate to the reader, and I would like to have him explain it. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I fail what your comment has to do with this issue. However the argument you present is beyond belief and could be used to remove anything you so pleased in Wikipedia. Similarity I am still waiting for you to withdraw your accusation of bad faith, when I fact I truly do believe these quotes to be VErY significant from a VERY significant organizationCSDarrow (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

this one this one seems like it was sourced and quoted appropriately; the other (second) one wasn't - but it was simply a matter of adding quotes around the correct sections, I don't think CSDarrow was trying to plagiarize, he just didn't quote it the second time as he should have. I think this matter is best discussed at the correct talk page, I don't see any need for admin action here, the revert was proper but could have been more gentle.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow committed a clear copyright violation (taking material from this webpage and inserting it without quotation marks or paraphrase into an article here). When he was called on the copyvio, CSDarrow responded unconstructively and cast himself in the role of victim. I don't see any bullying here. I see someone who's committing copyvios and then reacting obnoxiously when called on them. And I'm considering blocking CSDarrow until we can be sure that he understands what a copyright violation is and that he will not insert any more of them into our articles. MastCell ^Talk 03:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

There was essentially no discussion when all that was needed were quotes as now I know. I was simply issued with a very officious warning and 3 other Admins jumped in. The question of Binkersnet questioning my good faith I trust will be addressed. Let me be clear, I truly believe the SPLC commentary is significant, it is a VERY controversial statement made by a VERY significant organization. The material has now been removed for reasons that are also imo opinion entirely spurious.

Frankly I think the links I have presented concerning the discussion speak for themselves. I also find suggesting sanction for those who attempt to use a dispute resolution system troubling. CSDarrow (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

CSD, I warned you previously about the boomerang. You report at your own risk. Frankly, I find it absolutely outrageous that you find it inappropriate that editors would suggest you be sanctioned. Do you think that someone who reports other editors for improper behavior, especially an allegation as serious as bullying, should be immune from receiving any adverse consequences for their own inappropriate actions? I would now ask that you please provide diffs that support your claim that four editors have bullied you? If you are unable to provide such proof, then I concur with Drmies' recommendation that you be blocked. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Confidence in safety from unreasonable sanction when making a complaint to a justice system is one of the most fundamentals pillars there are. Sanction should only be used for the most egregious of incidences, else it becomes a tool of the totalitarian state, (forget who said that). Talk to those who lived in Cold War East Germany. CSDarrow (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry CSD, but this is Wikipedia noticeboard, not a court of law. We don't give immunity to anyone who feels like making an accusation against someone. Again, I clearly advised you about the boomerang effect after you continually were calling editors bullies and threatening to report them here. Do you think that falsely reporting a a crime is acceptable? Or legal? And let's be clear... leveling an allegation of bullying against four editors without any proof whatsoever is egregious. So show us the diffs that support your claim. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I can see why he chose not to provide that diff of the actual material. That is clear and unambiguous copy violation and I do not quite clear understand why he construed the reminders on his talkpage as bullying. this ANI report reminds me of boomeranging... DrPhen (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Obi, I appreciate your good-faith effort, but CSDarrow's edits were not positive and the aftermath is just a waste of time. Here we are again at ANI, with the MRM, and a conflict caused by too much zeal and too little know-how, coupled with a temper. The copyvio charge was not a matter for the article talk page, and why CSDarrow didn't just accept it is a mystery to me. I called for a block because of that disruption on a number of pages, accusations and all. For the record, I believe the IP likewise suffers from a high zeal content. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I find it very difficult to understand what CSDarrow is trying to accomplish. He seems to be getting increasingly irrational and confrontational. If I understand right, CSDarrow is sympathetic to the MRM and is frustrated at the approach to sourcing by the other editors of those articles (who emphatically are not). His perception is that sources are judged suitable or unsuitable according to whether or not they back a pre-determined political position. At the heart of the issue is that most of the sources come from feminist literature and it is true that stuff published in those kinds of journals must adhere to a particular ideology, so I can't say that CSDarrow is completely wrong; and I have no respect at all for that attitude- it is not conducive to honesty or academic integrity. However, the material CSDarrow is arguing about on Bbb23's talkpage is indisputably a copyvio, and it was not "bullying" anyone to remove it. He is putting himself in the wrong through this misbehaviour, and I urge CSDarrow to stop shrieking so much. Reyk _YO! 03:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• I honestly don't think even CSDarrow himself knows what he was trying to communicate with that edit. He simply copied and pasted two sentences, verbatim, from the SPLC website and slapped them into the article. I showed the comparison of the sentences from the source vs. the article in this thread. Beyond the blatant copyright violation, the other major concern of course is CSD's use of material from the SPLC website as a reliable source. Although I'm not saying I disagree with SLPC's positions on matters, they are clearly anything but neutral. CSD was told that if a truly reliable, independent source - newspaper, magazine, etc - has encylopedic information about an SPLC position, then it could be added and sourced to them. But, as another editor told CSD, "posting an insulting quote from the SPLC, cited to the SPLC" is inappropriate.[84] In any case, I think the content issue is simply a huge distraction from the real issue at hand. We have an editor here making outrageously bogus claims of other editors bullying him, when the fact is that everyone has told him he is wrong and all he wants to do is argue with them and hurl baseless accusations. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The worth of the SPLC's word seems to vary depending on who wishes to use it, which is the deep deep root problem here. Lets not pussy foot about this. Any pejorative it cares to spew about the Men's rights Movement is the Word of God CSDarrow (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Slow down! I feel like the temperature on this is getting turned up way too high. CSDarrow, please, listen to me, as I am not an admin and didn't revert anything you did. All you have to do is apologize, and say "Ok guys, you got me, I shouldn't have copy-pasted". OTOH, everyone else, please take a chill pill, this is not the place to discuss sourcing of materials or MRM (but the IP may be interested to know that CSDarrow is absolutely right, SPLC and their blog posts are taken as highly reliable sources over at Men's rights movement.) Frankly, I think an aggressive copyvio tag (and then a bit of ganging-up) for a minor error which could have been easily corrected goes a bit too far. I would have settled it through a revert and a gentle note on the talk page explaining, rather than a direct attack on the editor who, it must be admitted, has demonstrated zeal for this material in the past (the admin in question may not be aware of the history of this material being added/removed/etc). So let's start by turning down the temperature, everyone, nothing dramatic or dangerous or terrible has happened here, mostly just a misunderstanding and hurt feelings. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think my violation of copyvio was more against the letter than the spirit of the rule. When I was aware I adjusted it, but now another reason has been found to exclude this material. CSDarrow (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Obi, it is not reliable in the context that the content was inserted. Further, the content is not even encylopedic. The fact of the matter is that the admin made a proper revert and issued a proper warning based on CSD's prior editing of the article and his recent two blocks. And the admin did so with absolutely no malice. I'm sorry, but when an editor goes around making an allegation as serious as bullying against another editor, let alone four editors, s/he better have the proof to back it up. If not, they should be blocked. Otherwise, editors could go around making baseless allegations with immunity any time they feel like making someone's life miserable. So unless CSD shows proof of the alleged bullying, or issues an apology, s/he should, as Drmies recommended, be blocked for a bit. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not getting into content discussions here - I was just making an aside. Yes, the revert was "proper", but then everyone got all fired up and there was a bit of a beating administered in various talk pages which was not helped by CSDarrow playing the victim. I suggest that everyone drop the pitchforks, come down out of the castle, relax, and have a beer. CSDarrow, you violated the law and the spirit, as you copy/pasted text. Yes, quote marks are small, but they matter. What Binksternet did afterwards, I wouldn't have done (e.g immediately revert) given the temperature, but whatever, *that* should be dealt with at the talk page, not here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

76.189.109.155, Read me response to you further up. CSDarrow (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, I am still looking for your explanation of what you wanted to communicate to the reader by adding the text in question. Please provide the requested context. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely the wrong forum for this Binksternet. This should be for issues requiring admin intervention, not content discussions - temperature is way too high here right now for that. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but that goes both ways. Obi, I'm clean out of good beer but there's some Pinot Grigio here if you don't mind having it with some ice cubes. If CSDArrow can swallow their pride and end this thread (basically, by dropping the "bullying" charges, I suppose) we can put this complaint to rest, as far as I'm concerned, and move on (on the talk page). For the record, I wasn't involved in the article talk page discussion and Binksternet's edits and comments, or CSDarrow's responses and comments there. But perhaps we can let bygones be bygones, for now, and start fighting over men's rights again tomorrow. Which reminds me that I'm being oppressed since my wife is out of town and now I have to feed the dog and sleep all by myself. It's just not fair. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It's been two hours since CSD started this report, yet we're still waiting him to provide the diffs that support his claim of being bullied. After all, that's why he came here. So, CSD, either provide the proof or apologize for your false allegation. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I would urge CSDarrow to drop this. Personally, I don't think he needs to apologize, as I read his talk page (IP, if you want diffs, thats where they are), and it did become rather aggressive rather quickly, with 3 separate people drubbing him within minutes, but he should say "Sorry, I shouldn't have copy/pasted", and "I will drop the charge of bullying", and then lets close this and get back to arguing about really fun stuff, like is SLPC a reliable source or not! Stay tuned!!! CSDarrow, I hope you realize that you aren't likely to get further satisfaction here, and the fact that you committed a straight-forward copy/paste does not help your case. Many people on many sides did things I would not have here, but lets let bygones be bygones, partake of some of Drmies delicious Pinot (let's ask him to chill it first, what a host!), and move on. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Any system of cooperation requires a set of rules, either codified or assumed. If that system is to have any degree of sophistication it requires points of discretionary power, that are policed by those whose judgment and good faith we trust. Ultimately it is the good faith of the system's members together with the rules and their arbiters that defines its success. Wikepedia falls short on a number of these points, and as a concept is beginning to fail. I think this exchange is a snap shot of why.

I find this all very saddening as Wikipedia is a wonderful idea, but shows that as a species we weren't designed to operate in groups of more than a few hundred. If Wikipedia is to succeed it needs to attract higher quality people with diverse sets of views, it has a long way to go. People getting their endorphin kicks, from playing the system; winning the argument at all costs; highlighting their personal views and biases; and droves of people hamstrung by confirmation bias isn't going to do it. Wikipedia is repeating the same story history as told us a thousand times not to.

What I have seen here today is a disgrace. Obi's comments do however give me hope. I have nothing more to add to this discussion.

Edit:- And no Obi the SPLC is not a reliable source on gender issues, with the same going for half the other crappy sources used. But Wikipedia will continue to consider them reliable until the issues I've outlined above are addressed.

CSDarrow (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I propose that someone close this--maybe they'll get a kick out of it, since I sure don't. There is no evidence that there was bullying and no consensus for any admin action (that's how my Pinot-infused mind reads this discussion), and I see no good coming out of any hypothetical and at this point certainly unnecessary boomerang pertaining to this particular thread. Drmies (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Drmies. Our time has been wasted far more than necessary already. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Congratulations to Obi on the 7th anniversary of his first edit, June 10, 2006.[85] --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Need to lock the page List_of_burn_centers_in_the_United_States -Abhishikt (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Done by Soap (talk · contribs). Drmies (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• In addition, protection related requests should be made at WP:RFPP. You can do it easily using WP:TWINKLE gadget. --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 06:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Playstation101abc (talk) blanked the whole PlayStation 2 article, and replaced the content with vandalism. User:ClueBot NG reverted the edits, but this user undone the bot's reversion afterwards. The bot reported on the user's talk page about the reversion, but this user replied by swearing (using the f*** word) and rudeness (don't tell me what to do). After the second bot message, the user once again sweared. I propose this user and its IP address to be blocked to avoid any further vandalism and other violations. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

While I agree, this account does not appear to have edited since 3 June. Put it another way, if this report showed up at AIV I'd mark it stale. No objection to a VOA block, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to do with this. All of this user's edits over the past few months have been to amass some sort of index on his user page. I bounced it back there a couple of months ago after he tried to turn it into a WP project page, but that's all they've been working on since then. It's pretty evident that the user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but I have no idea what would be an appropriate course of action here. Thanks, Deadbeef 05:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I see two alternatives:

* take the page to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, or

* ignore it.

(No prizes for guessing which path I support.) --Shirt58 (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

MFD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Carrrr. Peacock (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)