Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:15, 26 January 2014

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 41 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 108 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 87 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

would like to see what close is. seems like it was option 1 in general, possibly 1/2 for IP area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 78 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Australia#RFC: Should the article state that Indigenous Australians were victims of genocide?

(Initiated 77 days ago on 8 November 2024), RFC expired weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Catholic Church#RfC: Establishing an independent Catholicism article

(Initiated 28 days ago on 26 December 2024) Requesting closure from uninvolved impartial third party to close a discussion that has not seen a novel argument for a bit. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Taylor_Lorenz#RfC_on_Taylor_Lorenz's_comments_on_Brian_Thompson's_murder

(Initiated 33 days ago on 21 December 2024) Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 18#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 35 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 23:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Category:Misplaced Pages oversighters

(Initiated 34 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster:  Relisted. ToThAc (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 10#WP:DISNEY categories

(Initiated 20 days ago on 3 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Redundant WPANIMATION categories

(Initiated 17 days ago on 6 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 9#Category:Molossia Wikipedians

(Initiated 14 days ago on 9 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 13#Redundant WP:COMICS categories

(Initiated 10 days ago on 13 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 08:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Timrollpickering. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  14:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 15#Redundant WP:RUSSIA categories

(Initiated 9 days ago on 15 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Free and open-source software#Proposed merge of Open-source software and Free software into Free and open-source software

(Initiated 251 days ago on 17 May 2024) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Free and open-source software § Proposed merge of Open-source software and Free software into Free and open-source software? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 01:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 121 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 87 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Dundas railway station, Sydney#Requested move 25 December 2024

(Initiated 29 days ago on 25 December 2024) – The discussion has reached a point where there is some agreement in favour or acceptance of moving most of the articles concerned to 'light rail station', with the arguable exception of Camellia railway station which may be discussed separately in a pursuant discussion.

There are, however, points of disagreement but the discussion has been inactive for twenty days now.

I wish to close the discussion so as to migrate and subsequently fix up the articles to reflect the recent reopening of a formerly-disused railway line.

Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 27 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Selected Ambient Works Volume II#Proposed merge of Stone in Focus into Selected Ambient Works Volume II

(Initiated 17 days ago on 6 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; proposal is blocking GA closure czar 11:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal to supersede consensus #50

(Initiated 13 days ago on 10 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; its degenerated into silly sniping and has clearly run its course. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yup, the discussion does need to be closed. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Xiaohongshu#Requested move 14 January 2025

(Initiated 9 days ago on 14 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; its been more than 7 days and there appears to be a consensus. There haven't been new opinions for almost three days now. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

 Closed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  09:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

RfC of interest

Administrators and other editors here may perhaps be interested in Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#RfC about listing discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Crashsnake

Crashsnake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am looking for input on what to do with User:Crashsnake. I have seen his name pop up a lot both on my watchlist, and in other places. A perusal of his talk page going back over three years, many editors have tried to reach out to him to get his attention and try to communicate with him. He does not respond on his talk page, and rarely leaves edit summaries. I am concerned that we have a basic competence issue with this user , who is apparently often described as disruptive and engages in edit warring.

I considered starting a user RFC to bring up these issues, but this user's particular non-communicativeness makes me concerned that such a thing would be pointless. Reviewing his contributions list on user talk pages (with none on his own page), article talk pages, Misplaced Pages pages and Misplaced Pages talk pages reveals fewer than 10 total edits between those spaces in over a 3 year span. While a user is not required to communicate in any of these venues, it is important to respond to people when they bring issues to your attention, and the fact that he has used these at all tells me that he does know how to use them, so the only conclusion I can come to is that he chooses not to communicate with other editors.

His block log reveals that he has been blocked twice by J Greb and once by Nightscream, both of whom made multiple efforts to reach out to him before blocking him. Spidey104 has also made quite a bit of effort to reach out to him, again with no response. What, if anything, can be done to get this user to communicate with other editors rather than shutting everyone else out and going back to the same behaviors to get his way? If there is nothing that can be done, should we consider a topic ban or more serious measures? BOZ (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Given that they're not responding in any way, a topic ban is largely meaningless. A wake up block might be necessary. Blackmane (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that he has had three "wake up blocks" already – one just two months ago – which failed to catch his attention. Since, as far as I can tell, his editing is limited to articles about comic book related topics (characters, movies based on comics, etc.), topic banning him from comic-related articles would definitely catch his attention. If and when he is able prove to the community that he is here to work collaboratively, the topic ban could be lifted. If he just decides to "become someone else's problem" by moving on to another subject area and exhibiting the same behavior there, then he would likely face an altogether ban. Please tell me if I am going about this all the wrong way. BOZ (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Topic bans are not a valid solution for anything. All they do is shift the problem from one group of editors to another. My feeling is, if an editor is causing problems on a persistent, ongoing basis, and refuses to acknowledge warnings, then he/she should be blocked, indefinitely, until he/she responds. Period. Nightscream (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Real nice suggestions. You guys make it sound like the "persistent, ongoing problems" I cause are edits that are completely irrelevant any said page that I've edited. I mean the way you all talk about me makes it sound like I make edits that are completely repetitive (or even inappropriate). Crashsnake 10:50, 21 January 2014

They are. Nightscream (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@Crashsnake: Communication is vital in any collaborative editing atmosphere. A quick glance at your talk page tells me perhaps wikis aren't a good fit for you. -- œ 13:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, Crashsnake, although it is unfortunate that it took a ban discussion to get a response from you, but perhaps this can be a good starting-over point for you? While we have your attention, would you please explain why you usually do not respond to other editors when they bring up concerns on your talk page, and why you do not usually use edit summaries on your edits? BOZ (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

One of the main problems with your edits, Crashsnake, is that you make large changes in one edit without any explanation in the edit summary. Because you have a history of edit warring or making bad edits it is hard for other editors to assume good faith without an explanation of what you have done, especially when you remove large portions of articles. I will admit that some of your edits are helpful, but the unexplained changes, large removals, and no response to questions far outweighs those helpful edits. The point of this discussion is to stop all of the negatives and increase all of the positives of your editing. Do not take this as a personal attack, but as our last resort to help you so you do not have to be blocked. Spidey104 19:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Crashsnake made a two line comment three days ago and he has not done anything to change his behavior. Obviously he is aware of this discussion because he posted that comment, but clearly he doesn't care if he is doing nothing to change his behavior. I was hoping we could change his behavior without a block, but I think he's shown that he won't change his behavior without some sort of repercussion to show him he needs to change. Unfortunately I think we need to block him to get his attention and hopefully he will fix his behavior after the block expires. Spidey104 14:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping to address this today as well. Yes, Crashsnake's brief response above was more than we ever see from him, but it does nothing to address any of the criticisms laid out here and elsewhere, nor does it even attempt to suggest that he may be willing to implement any changes. I may assume good faith that an editor is willing to change if they at least make an attempt or promise to do so, but I see nothing like that here. He continues to not use edit summaries, and although I have not checked for any further edit warring, I see no reason to think that will simply change on its own either. I think it's clear from responses above that my earlier suggestion of a topic ban has no traction. The question I must pose, then, is do we think another block will do any good, or should we have a discussion on whether the community would place a ban on him? If a block is the solution, it should be more than just a few days, which will expire and then he can just go back to business as usual; I would suggest an indefinite block in that case, with the proviso that if he can demonstrate a willingness to collaborate with his fellow editors on an ongoing basis that he be unblocked at that point. BOZ (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm in support of an indef block. This kind of smug attitude of indifference to the community is simply rude and uncivil. Editing Misplaced Pages is a privilege, not a right. -- œ 16:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough - I think we have enough to move forward with such a proposal. I'm not sure if I should include something about mentorship as an option for a return. BOZ (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for indefinite block/ban

I propose that, based on the discussion above, Crashsnake (talk · contribs) be indefinitely blocked (or alternately, banned) by the community until such a time that he can demonstrate a willingness to collaborate with his fellow editors on an ongoing basis. If you wish to oppose this measure, please suggest an alternative approach which you believe would be effective to encourage the user to improve his approach. BOZ (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite block, as proposer. BOZ (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite block per BOZ's reasonings. Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per BOZ's reasonings. An indefinite block seems to be the only way to start making progress, because as Nightscream said, a ban would only push this issue onto another group of editors, if he chose to edit elsewhere. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per above. Nightscream (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I am all for blocking him, but I think we are moving too quickly by jumping all of the way to an indefinite block. His previous blocks have only been for two weeks or less. I think we should take a larger step up from two weeks than a month, but I don't think we should jump to indefinite. I think blocks could fix his behavior. I recently went from this to this with another editor who seemed to have no intention of changing his behavior because of a block. Spidey104 03:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Spidey, you may have run into the exception that confirms the rule. The idea with an indefinite block like this is typically that at some point the editor kind of gets it and has to make an effort to get the block undone, not just wait it out. Indefinite is not infinite, that's the rationale. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Right, that is what I was thinking - it puts the onus on Crashsnake to decide that he wants to improve his approach, which is what I am saying in my proposal. I also thought about suggesting that accepting a mentorship would be a good way to demonstrate good faith on his part. Indefinite could mean that he thinks about it for a few days and bites, or he could say never mind and remain uncommunicative and stay blocked for however long. Indefinite just means that there is no specified duration - could be days, weeks, months, years, or continually. BOZ (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• Query What is this "willingness to collaborate" going to look like? Too often these blocks turn into a demands for groveling and penance. I'm not saying nothing should be done; I'm saying I'd like to see specific things we want from Crashsnake to allow them to continue to contribute to Misplaced Pages (that's the goal, right?) NE Ent 04:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I suppose that is entirely subjective... I imagine the answer you are looking for would have to be up to whatever admin would be unwilling to unblock him. BOZ (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef block per discussion above. -- œ 07:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block - œ™ is absolutely correct in saying that "Communication is vital in any collaborative editing atmosphere." An editor who is perfect in every other way might just barely get by without communication but I can't imagine such a scenario. And as Drmies says, indefinite is not infinite. Dougweller (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Some WP:SPI constipation

(Probably not the best metaphor (admins are laxatives?)) There are currently 45 cases listed: 28 open, 11 curequest, 3 endorsed, 3 checked. Regards, vzaak 06:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A reminder that any open cases not requiring CU can be handled by any admin willing to review the evidence presented. There are only two cases that have been endorsed by the clerks for checkuser attention, and 11 awaiting (completely underrepresented, overworked and underpaid) clerk review. That leaves the majority of the requests (22 at last count) that require admin eyes.--Jezebel'sPonyo 19:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who works on SPI - I've decided to double your pay in recognition! Aren't I nice? ;). Ironholds (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've gotten the message that this was a bad joke. Sorry, no disrespect/offense was intended. vzaak 15:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It was a good joke, and many admins have sprung into action and helped out with the problem. I do not have any jokes. People who helped are to be thanked. Your reminder was good and you are to be thanked. That is all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Lucia Black's editing restrictions

User:Lucia Black has been under editing restrictions for less than a month, including an interaction ban between herself and User:ChrisGualtieri, as imposed by the community. In this short span of time, she violated it (reverting Chris directly, requesting proxy editing, discussing the content of his edits), which led to a one-week block and an additional topic ban from Ghost in the Shell (manga); she admitted she didn't mind being blocked because she got her way. This was not the first time she disregards editing restrictions.

Today, I was contacted separately by three editors, including ChrisGualtieri, that get a strong feeling that since the expiration of her block, Lucia has been systematically involving herself in topics that were previously the subject of disputes between her and Chris; since he is obviously not allowed to engage with her at the time being, this could be an attempt to use the IBAN to her advantage in "having her way" with the subjects of these disputes. Examples: Ghost in the Shell, Sailor Moon.

The last discussion was aptly summarized by User:TParis who pointed out that "There is strong opinion that Lucia Black is wearing on the community's patience.", and the situation seems to have failed to get better, even with the imposition of editing restrictions intended to minimize disruption without having to further remove Lucia from the project.

I am not sure how to proceed with this; escalating blocks don't seem like a good idea to me, a wider topic ban seems like the restrictions would become just too much to be practical, and an indef-block would no doubt be contested and discussed (so I thought discussion might as well take place beforehand...). Something needs to be done, I think, but I can't make up my mind as to what exactly, and I trust the community's judgement in reviewing & handling these matters.

(Just to make it clear, the active restrictions include forbidding Lucia from starting a new thread on an administrative noticeboard, but she's obviously allowed to respond to this if she sees fit.) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

All I know is that it seems she's already violated her "last chance" set up twice now with these sorts of antics. How many last chances do we give? Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It depends. For established editors (more or less equal to "people whose names you recognize"), the answer is usually "a lot". For newer people, the answer is usually "one". (That might make an interesting research topic.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that - I recognise Lucia Black's name only too well. And given the reasons I recognise it, I'm of the opinion that the last 'last chance' she was given was at least one too many. She seems incapable of contributing without creating drama and conflict, and since she's demonstrated that she isn't going to comply with restrictions the community imposes, an indefinite block would seem entirely reasonable on the face of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on, you guys. You know this website just won't be the same without everyone constantly bickering with Lucy Black over the most petty shit imaginable. Whoever else will come with stuff like keep your personal opinions to yourself, or i will save it for a time to put in ANI. it's that simple in case she's gone? Lucia Black related drama is an essential part of the Misplaced Pages experience. --Niemti (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Although your statement is obviously dripping with sarcasm, I agree that it highlights an important issue, which is that Lucia seems to expect drama to be the result of her actions and does nothing to avoid or minimize conflict. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I came in, ready to levy a long block for IBAN violations, but then I re-read it and realised that you were linking to an old violation as an example. Has Lucia done anything that, by itself, warrants sanctions right now? Your point about the systemic involvement may be a good reason for further sanctions, but we definitely need discussion on it. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nyttend, unless there has been something recent that has not been addressed then I really do not see what the issue is here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

A couple of users addressed me with the concerns laid out above that she was using the IBAN as a tool in disputes, and after personally reviewing the issue I was unable to decide what (if anything) should be done, which is why I'm submitting this for review, in light of the other recent violations. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Knowledgekid misunderstands me. I'm acknowledging that the review you want may be grounds for sanctions, and I'm acknowledging that there might be something recent (I've not checked either way on that); my question was purely "has there been anything specific?" Long-term patterns are sometimes disruptive when nothing individual is; most arbitration cases, for example, deal with disruptive patterns that lack specific problematic edits. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

As for requesting closing of WP:GAR, that was consensus reached in the GAR. i'm only trying to get carried out. I personally would've preferred that it just get GA pass right then and there.

I don't know why Sailor Moon is an issue, if i had any dispute with Chris in the past regarding Sailor Moon, i would've remembered, or was too petty to discuss and in the end was resolved. But taking advantage of the interaction ban? I'm only bringing up an issue that had received consensus along time ago but didn't have the means to doing it because no one was interested in it (at that time).

This is ridiculous, I've been avidly interested in Sailor Moon for a long time. I was just about to contact User:Knowledgekid87 on the issue to see if he can make sense of this when i noticed something. ChrisGualtieri private messaged Knowledgekid87 asking he could make the article into GA. Here i thought "oh crud, how was i supposed to know he got involved before i did". But i noticed he removed it, and then i thought why he needed to remove it if this was evidence enough to get me blocked forever. so i took a closer look and noticed he asked 5 hours after I got involved in the discussion and i decided to help. i dont know if he's trying to "hide" this information, but i can see why he would. Now if this is the issue of "getting my way" and taking advantage of the interaction ban, the editor was asking for help publicly in WP:ANIME in which I accepted to help on my own. Anyone from WP:ANIME can tell you that I've had my own personal interest in Sailor Moon for a very long time, practically since the time i joined.

Gaming the system would be if i did the exact same thing Chris did just now. If Chris accepted to help another editor and getting involved, but suddenly i choose to go around the discussion by bringing it up in the talkpage. So basically, WP:BOOMERANG at its finest. i have a pretty clear idea on who these editors are.

HOWEVER, if i accidentally get involved in a public discussion that was brought up by the person i was banned from interacting with through private messaging, per WP:IBAN i would prefer if you mention either one of us in the discussion so that we don't accidentally get involved in a discussion that was brought prior to it being made public. Sounds like a quick and easy way to get banned. although from now on i suppose i could look into talkpages before to double-check.Lucia Black (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

For the record I did reply to Chris here addressing the issue with some ideas: which was reverted on his talkpage as "No comment" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

And even more i'm in the dark. i wish this WP:AN didn't even started. Salvidrim, you should consider analysing the situation and actually discussing it with me BEFORE bringing it in WP:AN.Lucia Black (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this is why you're banned from starting discussions at AN/ANI. You have no idea when it is or is not appropriate to start a discussion here. This was a very sensible move by Salv, and you go and try to lecture him about it. Get a clue. Sergecross73 msg me 02:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Lucia has been a member of the anime/manga project though longer than Chris has and has made constructive edits on Sailor Moon, I do not see where the dispute between her and Chris was regarding Sailor Moon. As for the request for closure in Ghost in the Shell the edits made by Lucia were before the interaction ban between her and Chris. The latest edit for a request for closure seems warrented given that over two months had gone by, in addition another editor seemed to be in agreement with this: - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

There also appears to be a history between Lucia and User:Verso.Sciolto from the very start that raises more questions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: WP:CLUE is all about having the better reason to move discussions along. We should focus on the real issue. Chris intended to game the system here, and with 2 other editors tried to make it look like i was trying to do that when there's nothing suggesting it. that's a serious issue, regardless if you're irritated or lost patience with me. Now, we been down this road before...but should your view on me outweigh actions of these 3 editors?Lucia Black (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I have been following the edit histories of several contributors because I’m looking for indications on how to proceed with the improvement of the Nausicaa related articles. I’ve had a conflict with Lucia Black about the Nausicaa (manga) article in the past, do not know what her intentions are for those articles and have kept an eye on her edits for that reason. I was aware of ChrisGualtieri’s edit history as well because of his edits to Nausicaa related articles but also because of his interactions with Lucia Black. There was a marked difference between the way each of them approached me and that certainly has influenced how I evaluate each of them individually. It is for this reason that I’ve read previous discussions on these pages and have on previous occasions also voiced my own opinion about Lucia Black’s, in my opinion disruptive and unnecessarily confrontational behaviour.

Before the interaction ban was enacted between Lucia Black and Chris Gualtieri, but as the discussion to implement such measures was unfolding here earlier this month the discussion had already reached a point when it was clear that corrective measures would be applied. Lucia Black nevertheless reverted several of Chris Gualtieri's edits on Ghost in the Shell related articles. While this was before a ban was imposed it seemed hardly in the spirit of trying to resolve the issue or working towards consensus to do so while a discussion of this kind was in progress.

After the interaction ban was imposed Lucia Black indicated not caring about sanctions because her edits had been the last ones and would therefore be preserved as the status quo. After Lucia Black and ChrisGualtieri had both been blocked from editing one particular segment of the contested set of Ghost in the Shell articles. ChrisGualtieri has been advised to abandon the entire set of articles and I thought it unwise for Lucia Black to get involved in any Ghost in the Shell related topic at that point. Since the underlying dispute was for the Ghost in the Shell articles in their totality it was not a topic she should have addressed in any form within two days of returning from a general editing block. That was the opinion I expressed on the Ghost in the Shell reassessment page.

When I noticed that Lucia Black had also indicated a desire to work on Sailor Moon related articles again that too seemed an unwise decision because of a dispute she had been involved in with a different editor. (That dispute did not involve ChrisGualtieir directly but involved Malkinann who disappeared shortly after mediation was initiated. Malkinann had previously been involved in editing Nausicaa related topics.)

I thought it would have been wiser for Lucia Black to select topics with a less troubled past for her return to editing. I did not comment at this point. Lucia Black followed up her initial comments on Sailor Moon by using Dragon Ball Z as an example for her intentions. At this point I questioned her decision because it seemed unwise to invoke that particular example to make a point to demonstrate the supposed necessity of either splits or merges.

The choice of example seemed unwise to me because Lucia Black was well aware that ChrisGualtieri would want to comment on the applicability of Dragon Ball Z but was restricted from doing so as a result of their mutual interaction ban. Dragon Ball Z is another topic she is well aware has been the subject of heated confrontations over the split and merges of that article - with ChrisGualtieri being one of the primary voices of those who opposed Lucia Black’s own interpretations.

If avoiding rekindling conflict is the goal why not pick a less contentious example? That was my thought and that’s why I questioned Lucia Black’s choice of topics and examples. This is what caused a few exchanges on my talk page and I left a comment on those topics on Lucia Black’s talk page.

I had also noticed that ChrisGualtieri had indicated, on Knowledgekid87’s talk page, that he was interested in editing Sailor Moon related content and that too seemed an unwise move to me given the interaction ban and Lucia Black’s earlier indication that she would like to work on Sailor Moon related articles again.

Contrary to Lucia Black's assertion I did not single her out for revenge but contacted several other editor's to alert them that the situation between the two of them might require attention to avoid reigniting the drawn out conflicts related to Ghost in the Shell in particular but also mentioned the desire expressed by both of them to work on Sailor Moon related articles. I did so because of the contentious issue of splits and merges of other manga and anime articles and because Dragon Ball Z had been mentioned by Lucia Black.

It seemed to me that the continued efforts to edit in overlapping areas would cause further conflict. I did not say that there had already been violations but I indicated that a situation was brewing with the potential for reigniting the conflicts. The status quo is untenable, imo. There is no clarity on which articles or parts of series each individual can or can not address or edit and that is the reason why I posted my messages.

Because of my own prior conflict with Lucia Black I contacted 2 editor’s for their input and disclosed my own previous conflict with Lucia Black in those messages. Sometime later I also messaged an other editor, Salvidrim, particularly after the exchanges on my talk page. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

A)The edit was done prior to the ban, so gaming the system would be reverting my edits in any fashion (and no, it was not discussed in the talkpage at all) regardless of prior to or after. Which is why i couldn't discuss in any discussion Chris was already involved in even if i was already invovled (and the same for him). It's still violation of the interaction ban. And its not a win-win situation for me either. For example, i've been intending to heavily reduce the gameplay from Ghost in the Shell (video game) but the ones i want to remove involve Chris's edits. I've consciously avoided removing them as that would be violating WP:IBAN by removing the content "he" added. So per status quo, i can't touch that specific information.

B)Chris and I were topic banned Ghost in the Shell (manga) specifically not the topic as a whole. And were to avoid any topics that have had previous disputes with him. In Ghost in the Shell (video game) there are none that were left unresolved. Also note that we were not specifically advised to avoid the entire topic. I've been editing Stand Alone Complex for quite a while without worry because Chris does not make an large contributions there. if he ever planned, i wouldn't know, but i'm free to edit other articles that i have not disputed with him. Chris more or less involved in the Ghost in the Shell film articles which i've avoided for some time, i'm in Stand Alone Complex series articles aswell and he hardly makes any edits there. the main dispute with me and Chris would have to be the franchise article and the manga article relationship as it has been the longest dispute ever (mainly due to a specific edit liking to do edit wars when he doesn't get his way). and we should both be avoiding them (not out of rules, but out of etiquette to follow further disputes).

C) I was advised to avoid articles that have had issues with Chris in the past. That does not mean you should HOUND any discussion that has had any issues in general. I brought up Dragon Ball Z as an example of how Sailor Moon fit the situation of being able to split (an issue Chris shouldn't have to begin with as he's pro-split for big series such as these). the discussion was NOT to discuss Dragon Ball Z in any way other than using it as an example as to allow a Sailor Moon (anime) article. Which means, Dragon Ball Z was not in danger of being re-merged anytime soon or being a major topic. And trying to make it look like it was cringe worthy for Chris to avoid is only falsifying information. Even if he did, i only brought up the other example to further allow a split of another article. And for the record: this was a topic long before Chris even joined Misplaced Pages.

D) If you construed the information here, as much as you did when you informed the other editors, especially if there's only one unbias editor that made the email, then it only shows bad on your part. (which i don't doubt the third emailer was unbias isn't because the only editor willing to follow this e-mail campaign rather than straight out would have to have had an issue with me, or some form of bias already. So right now, if you, and Chris, are the 2 out of 3. You can see why the 3rd anonymous editor isn't so hard to pick out).

Salvidrim! should've known, why couldn't you all OPENLY have asked? you see, it only shows more on you and your intentions.Lucia Black (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I contacted 3 editors independently and although the comment above is more elaborate than the e-mails were, my message to them already contained each of the topics addressed. Each of the editors can identify themselves if they see reason to do so but ChrisGualtieri was not one of the editors I contacted.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

theres so much more to say on how you construed the information, but its best to end this now. because theres nothing here. Lucia Black (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I wrote my comment on the Ghost in the Shell reassessment openly, appended an example showing that Chris Gualtieri had been advised to avoid all Ghost in the Shell articles. It seems appropriate to suggest you do the same. I also asked you openly about your choice of topics and examples on the Manga and Anime talk page regarding Sailor Moon and Dragon Ball Z. I also openly addressed your responses on my talk page. The message I left on your talk page was also posted openly. I suggested that you remove the Dragon Ball Z reference for the same reason you removed my comment from your talk page. There was no revenge motive nor was there subterfuge nor was there any collusion but I would still like clarity on the topics addressed. The status quo is untenable and my decision to contact three other editors was supposed to be preemptive. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 08:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

No such advise was given to chris. and i have the link myself to prove he was not advised to avoid all Ghost in the Shell articles. and i was not advised either. this shows that Chris (and I0 were warned to avoid discussing Ghost in the Shell (manga) not the topic as a whole.

Sailor Moon is an even more ridiculous because i had no prior dispute with Chris, and this only show more on your part. Sailor Moon has nothing to do with Chris and me, which means i'm free to discuss it and edit it. IN fact, it shows how he was willing to game the system by forcing his foot into a topic i already stated i was going to be involved in. And there's no reason for me to avoid those articles. You just mentioned how you knew Malkinann in the past through Nasicaa articles and how we had disputes about sailor moon, so you already show a strong sense of Bias here by admitting the connection to Sailor Moon could also be through Malkinann NOT ChrisGualtieri.

Keep in mind, you continuously chose to discuss ChrisGualtieri in my talkpage and in urs, something you know i can't discuss about and i've warned you several times and refused to discuss it with you. So knowing full-well i was banned from even "mentioning" his name, you continued to bring him up.

Seriously, can someone just close this. Verso.Sciolto have made serious accusations based on what he believes, but theres links to show how construed his basis is. And we should just close this now.Lucia Black (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Why would we close it now? Have any of the concerns been addressed? I feel like you've only added more fuel to the fire; as soon as you actively joined the discussion, the drama/rants/wall-of-text responses flared right up again. This is the sort of crap we're trying to cut down on. Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You know, you've been commenting a lot, but you haven't addressed any of the issues i brought up. SO i don't understand where you coming from when you say the concerns haven't been addressed. you're too focused on the reaction i get rather than what i'm actually saying.

And...Chris intended to game the system, and bringing up Sailor Moon and trying to make it look like "I'm " gaming the system is a big big BIG insult. I have been editing Sailor Moon articles for a long time without any dispute with ChrisGualtieri that i know of, and trying to get me from editing so another editor can push his way in, is an insult. it really is.Lucia Black (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

But this is why Salvidrim started up this discussion though: here you are, ranting and raving about the person you're supposed to have interaction ban with. All the proof you need to show that it's not working. It's only been a week and we're already dealing with this again. Sergecross73 msg me 21:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Whoa there Serge, I'm pretty certain that it's perfectly fine for her to discuss outside the IBAN on a thread at AN about the IBAN. Preventing anyone from doing so would be completely unfair. I consider this discussion to be exempt from the IBAN; I'm not saying she's right or that her attitude is perfect, but she's only here because this discussion was started. I, for one, am glad to hear her out. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If you say so. I'm all for her defending herself, but most of her responses are seems like they're centered around going on the offensive, not defending her own actions. (Like her last comment, for example.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Section break

Doesn't the interaction ban go both ways? This particular episode all started because Chris commented on one of Lucia's edits. That would be a violation of the interaction ban between Chris and Lucia. Verso.Sciolto also is not clean in this as he has been stalking my edits and implying that I've been engaged in disruptive activity because I haven't been logging into my named account, which I've already requested that the baseless sockpuppet case s/he filed be oversighted (so I won't link it here). Apparently, Verso.Sciolto is engaging in similar behavior with Lucia. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

In his next comment, he says that he thought he was allowed to report someone else breaking the interaction band due to one of the clauses in WP:IBAN, which is either correct, or a good-faith misunderstanding. That strikes me as a lot different than Lucia, who recently got blocked for a week for purposely breaking her IBAN to get her way, something she openly admitted to. Sergecross73 msg me 21:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Chris's comment is still a violation of IBAN, and if Lucia was blocked for similar actions, then the same should be for Chris. As for Verso, it's clear that they have been WP:POKING at other editors in order to cause trouble. I wouldn't doubt that Verso's comments to Lucia was an attempt to provoke Lucia into violating the IBAN from her side by getting her to comment on Chris. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:IBAN - it does literally say that he's allowed to contact an Admin if he feels the other person is breaking it. Alternatively, that is not why Lucia was blocked, she was blocked because she literally reverted one of his edits and referred to him in one of her edit summaries. Sergecross73 msg me 22:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Be that as it may, Chris's continued comments about Lucia, even after warned that doing so is a violation of IBAN should be more then sufficient grounds for a block. But Verso's actions at provoking Lucia into an IBAN violating should also not be ignored either. If no action is taken on Chris's comments, then no action should be taken on Lucia's comments (which doesn't even mention Chris) either do to the attempted provocation. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am well-within WP:BANEX to report the a suspected violation to Salvidrim. This brand new IP's appearance (today) seems to be no coincidence to Verso's opening of a sockpuppet investigation and for my support after encountering the IP-hopping editor multiple times. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

IP hoping? Do you know what a dynamic IP is? It changes every once in a while or whenever there is a service outrage (like I had earlier this week do to the winter storms). Your comments, are impaling that some sort of nefarious activity is going on simply because I've not bothered to log into the named account. But there is no policy stating that I must have a named account or that I use one so long as I don't use both accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. Also WP:BANEX only permits one notice, however you made several comments on that talk page about Lucia.

I consider Chris' post on my talkpage not to be an violation of policy per WP:BANEX. He first posted something, I wrongly considered it an IBAN violation, he pointed out his BANEX justification, I accepted his concerns as potentially valid and posted at AN for community review. That's all. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

As a side note, I request a courtesy deletion of the SPI case as it was filed under punitive intent and is being used against me (as demonstrated by Chris) in order to unfairly color my contributions. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Request it somewhere else, it's off-topic here. If anything, you deserve to be admonished for being passive-aggressively being difficult and repeatedly using "Christ" instead of "Chris" despite being asked not to. Sergecross73 msg me 01:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Passive aggressive? How have I being passive aggressive. By pointing that Verso was provoking Lucia, who didn't take the bait while Chris took it hook, line, and sinker, and is part of a pattern of behavior to stir up trouble for other users? By questioning whether there is a double standard being applied on the IBAN? And where have I've been asked "repeatedly" to not use "Christ", which is a typo BTW which I've now fixed? 24.149.117.220 (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Do a control f. There's still one that you haven't stealth-edit changed yet. Couldn't help but notice the one you just removed was done right after he just asked you to stop, which was in response to the one you haven't changed yet. Sergecross73 msg me 01:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the other one as well, so thanks for bringing that to my attention. However, I do not see anything in Chris's previous comment above, where he basically accused me of bad faith because of the SPI, where he said anything about the typo. The only reason I fixed both was because you, Sergecross73, was the one who mentioned it. And it is not a "stealth-edit" when I stated in my comment that I was fixing it. But by calling it as a "stealth-edit", you are implying that I'm engaged in disruptive behavior. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Just calling it like I see it. You did it. He asked you to stop. You did it again right away. I called you on it. You stealthily changed one instance. I called you on it. Then you admit to your stealth changes. Not sure how that makes me the bad guy, but however you'd like to twist it I suppose... Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Then you must need glasses. Both mistakes occurred before Chris even commented on them. But to his credit, he quickly realizing that the mistakes were mistakes and that complaining about it would reflect poorly on him. When an editor strikes their comments like that, we are suppose to pretend those comments didn't occurred. Also, I stated that I was correcting the first mistake. But by calling it a "stealth-edit" and continuing to beet on a comment that was struck before anyone replied, it shows that you have a very strong bias in favor of Chris and probably should not be recommending actions be taken against Lucia or anyone else involved in this matter. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Chris hadn't struck the comments the last time I had read it and commented. Your complaints are a mess - you complain about that I didn't see things in the right order, then you go and make accusations that involve you not seeing the correct order of things. And how in the world would using the word "stealth-edit" in reference to you somehow shows a bias against Lucia? If anyone should be blamed for being biased or twisting words, it should be you, for coming to ludicrous conclusions like that... Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like the editor using the IP address 24.149.117.220 to address the Sock Puppet investigation in the comment section for that request. I would further like to request that the editor who now uses this IP for his editing goes to one of the venues I suggested prior to filing a request for Sock Puppet investigation (The suggested venues are the talk page of the Manual of Style or the talk page for the Mangaka article since these seem to me the right places to discuss whether or not the term Mangaka should be changed throughout Misplaced Pages.). Neither my interactions with Lucia Black nor my interactions with the editor using the IP address above were to solicit punitive action. It was not my intent to harass but rather to get clarity on the activities of each of these editors, extent of the underlying guidelines, policy decisions and advise from administrators. In my interactions with both these editors I have sought to correct what I considered unwise or improper behaviour and approached what I consider the right people to seek guidance on these matters. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Verso, SPI is not the place to discuss disputes, policies, or guidelines. And filing one to "force" such discussion is an abuse of process. The only reason to file an SPI case is if multiple accounts are being used to disrupt Misplaced Pages. But since you did not provide any evidence for disruption and it is obvious that the SPI case is baseless, there is no need for me to comment further on the specifics of the case. To an outside editor, it would appear to them that the SPI case was opened out of spite. That same spite can be implied in your agitation of Lucia by repeatedly bring up Chris's name in a matter that Chris wasn't even involved in, knowing full well of Chris's and Lucia's IBAN.

As for starting the discussion on the use of foreign terms that are not in common use in English, that is up to you and should be brought up at WT:ANIME. If you have a question about the interpretation of a certain guideline or policy, then YOU need to bring the question up on their respective talk pages. Not skulking away to a remote talk page. It is irrelevant to mangaka as to what terminology is used in other articles. Also, it is not up to me to start a discussion on something that previously had a consensus, appears to still have a consensus, and conforms with Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• I object the subheading title added by 24.149.117.220. Can someone make it neutral. Or collapse this as offtopic? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this anonymous IP is TheFarix is about, but let me clarify that it the ban had passed and should move on from it. I dont care who didn't got banned, who should've got banned, its over, and i just want to stop this to be closed so i can feel secure on the discussions that i'm already involved in. I've warned Verso.Sciolto that i could not discuss anything related to Chris (without even trying to make him a subject) and he brought him up again. So with that also as a factor in all this, i do find it to be a valid reason of WP:POKING, although i personally see it more as WP:HOUND. Right now though, just accusations of attempt to game the system using the IBAN, which is a stretch. I really don't see a case anymore, all i see is that more smaller points being discussed left and right, and in the end there's nothing here saying I've done anything since the 1-week block. What other points do i have to address?Lucia Black (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Since this topic involves several other editors besides myself I hereby request that the header is edited again to include their names.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Verso.Sciolto (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Lucia Black, I do not know if this anonymous IP is the Farix either. It could be but since I can't be certain I've requested that the editor using that IP places his comments on that topic in the comment section of the Sock Puppet Investigation page and I have added a remark about this sub-thread and its original title in that page myself as well.

I've originally stated my opinions more forceful than I should have and although it looks to me like I'm only one out of perhaps several dozen editors who keep an eye on your contributions, some of whom have already commented in this thread, I nevertheless want to apologise and will obviously abide by any measures deemed appropriate for any transgressions (for Poking or Hounding or any other applicable category). Since you ask, however, what other points you can address? I wonder if you could answer my original question? I don't think you have yet. Why did you choose specifically Dragon Ball Z as the example to illustrate the point you were making? It still seems to me that you could have picked from a thousand other articles to illustrate your point. I could have ignored it but I do wonder, did you not expect that someone would question you on that point given the history of that particular article? As indicated above that was one of the things which rekindled the situation for me this time.

Editor using the IP 24.149.117.220 please use the suggested venues for further comments on those topics. The Mangaka talk page is here and the Sock Puppet Investigation page is here.

General comment. I still think the Ghost in the Shell topic as a whole is in a state of limbo because it seems to me that no editor can comfortably edit across all related articles. I noted that ChrisGualtieri was advised to stay away from that entire topic and the link I provided on the Ghost in the Shell reassessment page shows that two administrators involved with settling the aftermath offered that advise to him. I would like them to acknowledge that here in due course. In that same discussion a different administrator suggested a narrower restriction. Which ChrisGualtieri acknowledged. If my use of this example was misleading I apologise for that as well and will take the consequences. I also still think there is not enough clarity on the boundaries of the overlapping spheres in which Lucia Black and ChrisGualtieri can or can not edit. I hope that gets clarified soon. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC) a typo and two links.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

In reply to comments left below in the proposal section: I did not only ask questions: My comment on the Ghost in the Shell reassessment page is here It shows that in that comment I made several suggestions as well. a. That it is closed as failed because the current situation can't be considered stability for any article related to any Ghost in the Shell topic. b. That Lucia Black recuse herself from further editing in that area. (noting that ChrisGualtieri had been advised to do the same. c. That the articles needed to be evaluated by an editor who can edit without conflict or the appearance of meat puppetry (which I stated would be hard to find). I did not write that on behalf of ChrisGualtieri nor do my suggestions there favour his position. My suggestions indicate that he too should not edit in any of those articles but that a neutral editor reassess the Ghost in the Shell topics and make changes as required since I consider the topic as a whole in limbo as a result of previous splits and merges. Some of those articles are essentially frozen because the suggestion of meat puppetry has been raised in the previous discussions, in the statements clarifying the ban enactments and in the reactions to my comments.

I asked Lucia Black a question on the Anime and Manga topic regarding her expressed intent for participating in editing Sailor Moon related topics and her choice of example to illustrate her intentions for splits or merges. When Lucia Black responded to me she did not indicate that she had been a party to the previous conflict with Malkinann over Sailor Moon requiring mediation. She noted only that an other editor had been causing problems. I replied on her talk page to write that she had been one of the parties involved because in my opinion Lucia Black has the tendency to see only the activities of other editors as problematic. She did not see fault with her end of the dispute with Malkinann. An editor who disappeared shortly after a mediation attempt was initiated and has not edited since.

In the same comment I once again questioned her choice of the example - Dragon Ball Z. Lucia Black has still not responded why she did not choose a less contentious example to illustrate that point. Above in the present discussion Lucia Black did not answer why she had not picked a different example but noted, quote:
"I brought up Dragon Ball Z as an example of how Sailor Moon fit the situation of being able to split (an issue Chris shouldn't have to begin with as he's pro-split for big series such as these). the discussion was NOT to discuss Dragon Ball Z in any way other than using it as an example as to allow a Sailor Moon (anime) article. Which means, Dragon Ball Z was not in danger of being re-merged anytime soon or being a major topic. And trying to make it look like it was cringe worthy for Chris to avoid is only falsifying information. Even if he did, i only brought up the other example to further allow a split of another article. And for the record: this was a topic long before Chris even joined Misplaced Pages."

A reply like that is exactly why I questioned Lucia Black's choice of example. Because of their mutual interaction ban, ChrisGualtieri can neither express disagreement nor agreement with Lucia Black's interpretation of the Dragon Ball Z situation. I did not say that ChrisGualtieri had been involved in earlier disputes over Sailor Moon but have already noted that, in my opinion Lucia Black should have avoided Sailor Moon because of the situation between her and Malkinann. I suggested that it would have been wiser to avoid any article with a troubled past and choose an entirely clean topic to return to editing.

I also wrote those comments to suggest that both ChrisGualtieri and Lucia Black should be more judicious in their choice of topics. I wrote that because I had noticed that ChrisGualtieri had expressed an interest in editing Sailor Moon as well - which I thought was an unwise decision. As indicated above I made note of all these points and my own prior disputes with Lucia Black in my e-mail to two editors. I later followed up with an other e-mail to a different editor, Salvidrim!. None of these people I contacted was ChrisGualtieri or Sergecross73. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The flaws in your reason #1: Trying to make look like helpful advice, as a general rule Although Chris has been advised to avoid Ghost in the Shell articles, it was just normal "advice" and does not mean if he ever made an edit there, (depending on if it affects interaction ban) he will not be reprimanded for it. Same for. With that said, Ghost in the Shell (video game) is an area where neither of us have any disputes on whatsoever for me or Chris to consider WP:IBAN violations. I have been editing that article in the past without Chris asking an editor to review my edits. And thats merely because theres no controversy to Ghost in the Shell (video game).

Unlike Ghost in the Shell (manga) and Ghost in the Shell. those articles are articles that me and Chris both have issues with.

The flaws in your reason #2: Speaking for the other editors: This also goes along with the advice given, but mentioning Dragon Ball Z as an example, was merely an example. Dragon Ball Z is in no part the main discussion of wanting to split Sailor Moon (anime). and no, there's no other example that i could've thought of that allowed an adaptation to be split other than perhaps Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters although reasons why i didn't bring it up is because there was never really much of a consensus to have them split, unlike Dragon Ball Z. Which meant it could cause another discussion. But with Dragon Ball Z, the consensus was reached and it leaves less room for deviating from the main discussion.

Regardless if i referenced it in, the idea was to use Dragon Ball Z's history, not article-status. Dragon Ball Z was an anime that grabbed a lot of attention back when anime hit the mainstream, however manga did not, which is why Dragon Ball Z the anime was able to be more independent than its manga counterpart. I was only comparing the example of the too so that Sailor Moon could get its own anime article. So let me make it clear, Dragon Ball Z is not the main topic. Chris Gualtieri is free to edit that article without me getting in the way.

With that said, you trying to say that Chris was tempted to be part of the discussion doesn't matter. If he was or he wasn't, trying to make it look like Dragon Ball Z was a bait for Chris is ludicrous because it was only for one example. ANd again, Chris should have no issue with another split, and just because it was mentioned, it does not mean that i'm interfering the areas that Chris needs to be involved in. With that said, if Chris did the exact same thing. I guarantee you, you're not going to say a word. so put things in perspective.

The flaws in your reason #3: Bad-faith there's no meat-puppet here, and there's no evidence of it. and we've been warned before hand to not even try it because they will know. So why even risk it? Also, where's the meat puppet coming from? whether i asked in GAR for a close, the GAR consensus was already for closing. and WP:VG have mentioend how fed up with the GAR they are in the first place. You're entire basis is still in bad-faith. and when we question you, you revert to "i simply wanting to ask about the situation". but you weren't "just asking" you were trying to inform the other editor on the situation and you tried to do it WITH bad-faith. me on the other hand, i came in here knowing nothing on the issue at hand, until i had to do my own investigation.Lucia Black (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Since this leaves Ghost in the Shell as a whole topic in limbo I didn't think it appropriate for you to comment even on the reassessment of one part and I noted in the comment that I suggested you recuse yourself from further edits. Several editors keep an eye on Ghost in the Shell topics and would have dealt with the processes without your further input. In my opinion you should have avoided the topic altogether and picked a clean topic for your return. I did not then nor do I now solicit sanctions for your decision to edit there but will note that ChrisGualtieri could not express either agreement or disagreement with your interpretation at that point in time.

2. Thank you for answering this question. I disagree with your assertion that a less contentious alternative example could not have been found. In your response you suggested that etiquette was optional and when I asked you to change your example after informing you that ChrisGualtieri could not comment on your interpretation you didn't do so but asserted bad faith on my part and accused me of baiting you into commenting. I asked you because they seemed like bad choices to me and I explained why. It was not done to bait you or to solicit sanctions. The topic of Dragon Ball Z is intricately linked to the disputes on merges and splits involving you, ChrisGualtieri, Ryulong and a whole host of other editors. Why not avoid that altogether? Because merges and split discussions are among the most contentious topics - in my opinion - you should have picked a cleaner topic for your return and you could have picked a different example if avoiding conflict was your goal.

3. The conditions of the ban stipulate proxy editing - reverts of previous edits have been contested on those grounds and leave the topics as virtually unapproachable, imo - and as noted above several people, including yourself have now accused me of proxy editing on behalf of ChrisGualtieri. I did not choose the topics you selected for your return and I did not choose the topics ChrisGualtieri has been asking administrators and other editors about either. I could have ignored these things but I did choose to question your decisions and approached administrators as well.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

again, you're speaking for ChrisGualtieri and even if he did have issues with my edits, the IBAN is there. But keep in mind, that Ghost in the Shell (video game) is still an article that we can both edit without problem so long as i don't remove the content he's added, and vice versa. Not only that, but all my edits were in favor of the GAR. Which was only grammar issues. Like i said, I've been editing that article without problem, and even prior to the IBAN, i never received a single revert from Chris regarding that article other than one dispute that was handled quickly. Keep in mind, advice isn't enforced. Which is why we've been topic banned from Ghost in the Shell (manga) alone. not any other topic. if we do edit, we edit with discretion of the other editor like i have with Ghost in the Shell (video game).

For example: Sergecross said that so long as the other doesn't remove content that the other provided, there is no action to be done. (then again, when i stated if the other editor removed the content, he said to let it go. so it shows some fault on his part for taking such a bias approach)

I don't need to clarify Dragon Ball Z any further with you. its not the main subject, Sailor Moon is. and you're pushing your own personal ideas. this is not gaming anything. the discussing for splitting it was done years ago, before chris was involved. i only "enforced" the idea more with Dragon Ball Z as time passed since that time.

You're actually being accused of harassment more than proxy editing. and that's because of how you approached this. Rather than asking an admin "neutrally" you've done a lot of accusations, and it shows throughout this entire discussion. And in the end, Chris tried to game the system. and i wonder if you care at all. I know you don't. you've admitted in the past you have a great interest in "my" edits.Lucia Black (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't restrict my comments to you to issues involving only you and ChrisGualtieri. My comment to you regarding Sailor Moon was because of the previous disputes between you and Malkinann.

I'm being accused of harassing and also of editing on behalf of ChrisGualtieri. I've been addressing both those topics.

I have never hidden my interest in your edits. I've stated that my own comments to you this time were were voiced too strongly and have apologised for doing so but disagree that my interest in your edits is unhealthy given our shared interest in the Nausicaa articles. When I approached the administrators I disclosed my previous conflicts with you as well as the other topics mentioned above.

I did not speak on behalf of ChrisGualtieri but find it impossible to talk about these topics without mentioning him or being confronted with the previous conflicts. That has been one of the primary points. Boundaries. I've stated that I didn't edit on behalf of ChrisGualtieri and stand by that statement. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is Malkinann an issue here? the editor vanished years ago, and was the only editor out there that was against the merger/split. Right now, you've extended this discussion over Sailor Moon over just using an example of Dragon Ball Z, but now you're saying that its because i've disputed with Malkinann in the past. why does that matter?

How is this relevant at all? are you just mad that i brought up the discussion and just want to make a case out of it?Lucia Black (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Malkininann vanished shortly after disputes between the two of you. I've stated my reason from the very start. I thought you made unwise choices in your selection of articles to edit and the examples you picked to illustrate a point. I questioned if it wouldn't be possible to select completely clean topics where you had not encountered any previous conflicts at all. I think I made that clear in my comment you deleted from your talk page and in my replies to you on my talk page right from the start of this. Particularly this sentence: "Are there really no other subject you can both choose to edit which don't cause potential overlap in editing spaces, discussions and commentary?" excerpted from our exchanges on my talk page.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

thats not your call, and you're only harassing me at this point.Lucia Black (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

New proposals? New blocks/bans?

And once again, these discussions have devolved into pure chaos. When will the community have enough of this? I really don't think it'll stop until something major is done. Anything short of that just leads us back to these ridiculous time-sink arguments.

I think the problem right now is the interaction ban alone seems to lend itself to "playing games". There's too much "claiming of territory" and mind games going on, where one seems to start working on something purely to keep the other away from it.

I think its been established that Lucia cannot "play nice with others". Should she be topic banned from any article that falls under the scope of WP:ANIME? This is where every single one of there spats have occurred.

I'm open to other ideas as well, but I think we need something more objectively hard-lined than this constantly changing interaction ban. Otherwise I think we're just leading down the path of either infinite bickering, or both editors getting an indef block, which would be a shame, because I don't feel they both deserve that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

There really is nothing here, other than a few editors chose to harass me. If you had enough of this, then by all means, don't get involved anymore. Not saying to kick you out, but if you don't like it, other more neutral admins can get involved. The fact that you get involved and are fed up with discussing shows just how compromised your opinion or will to listen is. and its easy to see throughout the discussion. You have not addressed a single point other than the ones the anonymous IP has brought in which weren't completely relevant. Most points were ignored because you've had a problem on how i approached it. which you're going to have to get used to if someone makes me the subject of a discussion, and quite frankly, i dont act any more different than you Serge.

Salvidrim claimed i'm trying to game the system of the IBAN by using "Sailor Moon" article, which I still find a difficult to even consider a valid point. The only thing that the anonymous IP did make a point was that this editor was harassing me by WP:HOUNDING and as much as Verso.Sciolto says that he just wanted to get an answer, i highly doubt it considering he went through the email, and he continued to bait me into talking about Chris.

look at this for what it really is. One editor misinforming others, in which somehow all made simultaneous reports to Salvidrim (doesn't that sound not even a bit suspicious if Verso.Sciolto just wanted to get some advice on the situation, yet everyone manage to find the exact same admin?) And here we are...there's no gaming the system (at least on my part considering i provided enough info that it was indeed Chris who was trying to do that, Serge, are you really going to ignore this bit of info for the 6th time?) My edits are completely of my own decision and i don't have Chris in mind except for information that he alone has added so that i don't violate the IBAN.

more restrictions, would be because other people gamed the admins for knowing how fed up they are, and how quick and easy they want the discussion to be over. and really...lets look at this objectively. What have i really done after the 1-week ban? nothing really. SO take a breather and lets look at this for what it really is.Lucia Black (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

None of that is right. The problem is that people keep coming to Admin like myself and Salvidrim, to complain about you...and most of the time their complaints are very valid. We can't just go and ignore that. The fact of the matter is, almost directly after we went through a huge discussion that lead to your interaction ban, you violated on purpose to get your way, something you admitted to yourself. Now, there are reports of you gaming the system. I'm sure you'd love it we just dropped everything and let you do whatever you want, as you've suggested above, but we can't just delude ourselves into thinking that nothing is wrong here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You haven't addressed any of the point I've made....i provided info on how Chris indeed attempted to Game the system and again. I'll just bring that up to a more neutral admin, because that is a violation, and it is clear. Keep in mind, none of what these editors have emailed Salvidrim, none of it is being made public. So i don't know what they've said specifically, i don't know what other issues are being brought up. The only think i do know is what Salvidrim himself brought up, which is the example of A) Ghost int he Shell (video game) GAR closure request (by consensus of WP:VG) and B) My involvement of Sailor Moon articles (which the fact that Chris attempted to game the system with Sailor Moon himself, shows so much more on the other editors that came up to Salvidrim and trying to make it look like i was gaming the system).

So keeping account that these editors emailed Salvidrim about Sailor Moon and presumably knowing full-well Chris was actually the one trying to game the system (not me), I'm willing to think there are editors out there playing some form of meat puppet or gang/tagteam. and this is not ludicrous idea as Verso.Sciolto admitted to emailing these editors rather than needing the only 1 admin and discussing it publicly. And saying their complaints are valid doesn't really provide much when nothing specific is being brought up, and these editors (right now its just 1 or 2) being kept anonymously. I'm willing to bet, that if they came out publicly, a form of history and bias realted to me will be obvious.Lucia Black (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

And how convenient to bother you and Salvidrim, rather any other admin out there. Yes there's something wrong, and its not me trying to game the system, but I've addressed all the accusations that came to light. And other editors have further cleared my name throughout this discussion. only one making a fuss is Verso.Sciolto (in which switches from accusations, to just wanting to get advice on the situation). At this point, you're going to have to address everything I've stated.Lucia Black (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Great, another winding, 2,000+ byte response to a question no one asked, further bogging down any real discussion. Someone alert me if a proposal is made. I'm looking for inputs from others, not arguing circles infinitely with Lucia. Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You know what...i'm going to ask another editor on the situation. because its clear you're only focused on me, despite so much proof here that there is a bigger issue than just me. does it relate to me? sure. but is it me that's being disruptive? i'll be asking another admin.Lucia Black (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Feel free...but you do realize we're currently already talking on the Administrator's Noticeboard, right? If you really want more input, then stop bogging down the discussion with these massive comments that that make it such an effort for someone catch up enough to give their input. Sergecross73 msg me 02:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No. that's not going to happen. every point i make is relevant. if you admins don't want the trouble to listen, then don't listen, but if you're not going to listen at all you might aswell not make a vote.Lucia Black (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't you see that's exactly what happens though? I mean, don't get me wrong, I believe you're typically in the wrong. But anyone who would just maybe be interested in hearing you out, probably sees all of your text, says "no thanks", and doesn't !vote. It happens all over the project. You seem to forgot that we're all volunteers, and have no obligation to read these long, winding, rehashed bickering. Sergecross73 msg me 02:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to volunteer, live up to the responsibility. if not, then don't. that means you Serge, because you've chosen to ignore a great deal of information. not just from me, but from the anonymous IP and from Knowledgekid.

Here's what you've been ignoring: Chris attempted to Game the system with Sailor Moon. How? i'll tell you how.

Knowledgekid publicly asked for help, and i have agreed to help him along with another editor Sjones23 in WP:ANIME. However, Chris about 5 hours later tries to bypass WP:ANIME discussion on sailor moon and asks Knowledgekid directly onto his talkpage. Now if any admin caught me doing something like that, they would've banned me on the spot for violating WP:IBAN.

But it gets worst. other editors made it come to light by making it look like "I'm" the one trying to game the system with that article. And it doesn't add up with Sailor Moon...because ChrisGualtieri had no involvement prior to the discussion that i came in. It really looks like a variation of WP:GANG and WP:MEAT. Verso.Sciolto for example has attempted to make me break the IBAN by discussing ChrisGualtieri more than once. And i refused to even mention that he was a topic at all and refused to discuss such an issue at all with him.

Now lets say you call all this accusations on my part WP:CONSPIRACY, but you can't ignore that there are holes on these editor's accusations. whether they intended to or not, they tried to make it look like i'm gaming the system over an article that didn't affect the IBAN at all.Lucia Black (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable. That's your response? That's your mentality? That approach has already gotten you 2 (or 3?) blocks, an interaction ban, and a ban from starting discussions at AN/ANI. Its only a matter of time before you get yourself indefinitely blocked. I only hope that ChrisG can keep himself from getting pulled into one as well. Sergecross73 msg me 03:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Am i wrong though? Did Chris bypass public discussion of Sailor Moon by to a certain editors talkpage? Did Verso.Sciolto immediately get involved after discovering that i was part of Sailor Moon discussion and tried to make it look like "I'm gaming the system" when Chris was not part of the article? Did Verso.Sciolto emailed several editors rather than asking just one specific admin? Did Verso.Sciolto attempted several times to discuss ChrisGualtieri even though i've warned him that i'm not going to discuss it with him further?

You can say "Lucia Black is unbelievable" but that makes these points WRONG? Didn't this all occur? You haven't brought up a single point Serge for why i'm wrong. all you have been doing is simply stating it. I haven't gamed the system, and theres little to no evidence here at all. All you have been saying is "editors e-mailed us, they have a valid point" but none of those points are present in this discussion. I can guarantee you if i report this to a neutral editor on what just happened (unaware of the WP:AN), some form of block WILL occur to ChrisG.

So go ahead and trivialize this. But what i've said is true, Chris indeed tried to bypass public discussion of Sailor Moon. And whats worst is editors tried to make it look like the other way around, and i'm not so sure you got these e-mails either. I'm sure Salvidrim has them, but you've been referencing them, but don't provide the backbone (their "valid points") of what they've said.

Lets be honest...i have alot to say because i'm involved. you dont have much to say at all, and there's a reason why.Lucia Black (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to add a proposal

Apart from some discussion on the last ANI (gawd how many does that make) concerning Lucia, where I supported an IBAN, I've had no other interaction in any other space with her. Given the state of things here, I can see that many editors are loath to propose the obvious choices, obvious to me any way. So, the way I see it, though I'm sure some may disagree (and I'm sure I'll get a long reply from Lucia on this, but it is what it is)

1. Taking this whole fiasco to ARBCOM OR
2. An indefinite topic ban from all articles under WP:ANIME, violations of which will incur and immediate indefinite block OR
3. an indefinite block right off the bat

Of course, these are just my views at the moment, which I may have further thoughts about, once I've had breakfast. Blackmane (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

actually this will be a short one. Can anyone here properly explain how i even "gamed the system"? Only Verso.Sciolto has provided (a very poor) discussion on it. There's no gaming the system within the IBAN. Honestly....this particular AN report perplexes me the most. And quite frankly, the reason why this hasn't been quick and simple, is because i continue to ask this. What exactly am i doing?

Nyttend didn't see anything in particular, neither did Knowledgekid, and anonymous IP has suspected foul play from Verso.Sciolto (and i agree considering how the discussion has shifted from violating IBAN to discussing a problematic article due to a retired editor). The only editors here active are Sergecross (who again, has trivialized every comment i made so far, but continues to not add reason behind it), Verso.Sciolto (who tries to reason, but does a poor job at it) and then Chrisgualtieri...(who as you see in his final comments, made every shot he could by discussing about the irrelevant past).

I know as i continue to talk (regardless if i'm right or wrong) my view weakens, but the further it gets ignored, the more i feel like it has to be addressed. so i ask again "what exactly am i doing thats gaming the IBAN?

look down in the summary of all the points provided.Lucia Black (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The comments I made, on this page, on the Anime and Manga Page, on your talk page and on my talk page, always contained references to Sailor Moon and the previous conflicts between you and Malkinann. It was among the initial reasons which prompted me to suggest that you should have chosen different topics and examples for your return to editing. The discussion here didn't shift in that direction, as far as I'm concerned that previous situation involving yourself and Malkinann was always part of this. I think my explanations here are born out by my original comments and my comment on the Ghost in the Shell reassessment page comment as I consider them to have been unwise in their choice of topics than that will hopefully be evaluated properly. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)as well. I hope my comments will be considered in the light of my own explanations and not merely from the perspective of bad faith explanations as offered by a few editors above. I don't think the anonymous IP editor gave an accurate summary of the situation, starting with an erroneous description of the timeline of events. I did not pick the topics selected by Lucia Black or ChrisGualtieri but I did elect to comment on their choices. If I was as unwise in that decision to

Orginal comment appended A subsequent edit appears to have resulted in a change of this message: "The comments I made, on this page, on the Anime and Manga Page, on your talk page and on my talk page, always contained references to Sailor Moon and the previous conflicts between you and Malkinann. It was among the initial reasons which prompted me to suggest that you should have chosen different topics and examples for your return to editing. The discussion here didn't shift in that direction, as far as I'm concerned that previous situation involving yourself and Malkinann was always part of this. I think my explanations here are born out by my original comments and my comment on the Ghost in the Shell reassessment page as well. I hope my comments will be considered in the light of my own explanations and not merely from the perspective of bad faith explanations as offered by a few editors above. I don't think the anonymous IP editor gave an accurate summary of the situation, starting with an erroneous description of the timeline of events. I did not pick the topics selected by Lucia Black or ChrisGualtieri but I did elect to comment on their choices. If I was as unwise in that decision to comment as I consider them to have been unwise in their choice of topics than that will hopefully be evaluated properly. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC) " Verso.Sciolto (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me clarify that you baited me twice to discuss Chrisgualtieri both on my talkpage and yours. Malkinann was barely a topic (on your page, not mine). And even then, I'm not breaking any rules with bringing back an old discussion (which had consensus to do). Right now, Everyone (and even Chrisgualtieri) is taking advantage of that particular article and claiming that i'm gaming the IBAN. It was very UNWISE. So you must clarify to everyone in this discussion that Sailor Moon specifically was not a subject of gaming the IBAN as others believed it to be.

As for ghost in the shell (video game), neither is that, only that Chris has been "advised" (not warned) to avoid the Ghost in the Shell topic as a whole. I have not touched Chris's contributions in that article nor have i brought up a discussion to it to tempt Chris. And that's because that specific article was never an issue between us. and i get that you want to act like it could, but in the end you're going to have to let Chrisgualtieri make his own comments. He's allowed to here, and he has not mentioned anything wrong with the actions I've done in Ghost in the Shell (video game) YET. But even so, no disputes have been done, no large-scale potentially controversial edits have been done to Ghost in the Shell (video game). And ignoring a precaution isn't gaming the IBAN. that article has always been my safe-haven at least when it comes to editing Ghost in the Shell articles (the other is Stand Alone Complex).Lucia Black (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I questioned why you picked the Dragon Ball Z example because it would - in my opinion- inevitably necessitate someone mentioning ChrisGualtieri and that example would almost inevitably prompt ChrisGualtieri's own interest in commenting on that topic. My comments on that topic were not meant to bait you but rather to question you about your choices and to persuade you to choose different topics. The conflicts between you and Malkinann required mediation which was unresolved because Malkinann disappeared. I already indicated above in a previous comment that there was no connection with ChrisGualtieri and the conflicts between you and Malkinann. My comments were not restricted to the interaction between you and ChrisGualtieri but your decisions as a whole.

I consider the Ghost in the Shell topics unwise to revisit in any form because they require an editor independent of the conflicts. Advise is given to avoid restarting conflicts. Since ChrisGualtieri had been advised to recuse himself by two administrators it seemed proper to suggest you to do the same in order for other editors to clean the aftermath. My comments were meant to be pre-emptive not bait and were not designed to solicit sanctions. You have amply clarified your position and I have attempted to clarify mine several times as well. Maybe time to give potential readers time to catch up. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I have not broken a single rule here. And i have no idea what the word "recuse" means. But all i will say is that i didn't break a rule here. and you shouldn't be causing trouble where it doesn't matter to. If no one is fighting, no one should. but Sailor Moon is something Chris si using as you can see in his final comments. and right now, you have to clarify to everyone that. I dont want explanations, i want you to fix the problem you caused.Lucia Black (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Recuse, the way I meant it in that comment was for you to halt all involvement in Ghost in the Shell related topics. To step down and walk away. I did not choose the topics you selected and will let others decide if I was unwise for commenting the way I did. My suggestions and question were written to prevent rekindling not cause it. (edit to add: I will repeat that I did not write any of my comments to solicit punitive sanctions.)Verso.Sciolto (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Verso.Sciolto (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You should know yourself. Because you did bring up 3 anonymous editors, and in the end your reason. And theres no reason why i should stop editing those articles, or at least the ones that Chris doesn't contribute (so long as i dont make any big controversial edits). again, i'm not going to step down, especially in articles that Chris has had no prior issue with me in. And you should advise them anyways. Because no one is listening to me. and you dont have to say its "unwise" but clarifying the issue. No one here is touching the topic. only you.Lucia Black (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Because my own motives for getting involved in this situation have become topics of the discussion I can no longer do that. Only two of the editors I contacted yesterday have not commented yet. For one of them it may be a long time, if at all, before that editor can address this. I'm sorry to be cryptic but that editor is unable to comment at the moment but I can assure you it isn't ChrisGualtieri. One other editor has not responded. Salvidrim!, as you are aware, has opened the topic on this page.

A reason for you to stop editing any of the topics mentioned would be to make a fresh start. Free from pervious histories and any and all previous conflicts. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Some fresh start, you're the cause of this. And you've caused more problems by your approach too. And no, i dont need to stop editing Ghost inthe Shell-related articles to stop. and as much as you claim you had good intentions, i cannot see it that way, when you change your reasoning left and right.Lucia Black (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• :::: What happened with my previous comment? Did something go wrong when comments were added afterwards? The signature is now in the middle of a sentence and the last sentence appears to have been scrambled. How can that be fixed? I've appended the original comment above. Can someone have a look that? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Final comment by Chris

Lucia Black is the editor who famously yelled "GIVE ME WHAT I DESERVE OR YOULL SEE ME MAKE A BIGGER SCENE OR GET OUT!!!" and "youre not going to make both sides happy. Because the only way to make one side happy is to make the other recognize their faults and apologize for them. I hate (ChrisGualtieri), and I hate (ChrisGualtieri) with a passion. I see (ChrisGualtieri)s name on my talkpage and I see red. We've all been down the WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDHT and other routes. This misdirection and bad-faith here is the same as always. There at least 5 are simultaneous discussions with past disputes that have all been started or involving Lucia since the Iban. Sailormoon and Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist/GA2 which lead to Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Fullmetal Alchemist/1 were directly related to the MOSAM matter. In particular, the anime split was on our mutual suggestion and stance and the RFC filed a mere 4 days after the IBan by Lucia Black. The effect: Forced silence. Yes, I saw Knowledgekid's post, I believed it to be a response to the issues raised, but who knew that time-sensitivity with real life would result in conspiracy theories! I'm happy to stall or throw away my drafted work, it's no secret I've been holding content ready to drop an GAN since before Sven's lengthy RFC. The core issue is that Lucia is using the Iban as a shield and a weapon to force a preemptive or flawed consensus over article splitting. I am the person who committed to work and improve those examples, but am unable to interact. The choice of examples like Dragon Ball Z harken back to the very circumstances which lead to Lucia Black's first topic-ban and a one-way interaction ban. Forget your crazy conspiracies - anyone who frequents ANI will recall all the discussions related to these disputes.

Right now, this is sucking more than throwing away 40 hours worth of work. No sane individual would wade into this mess willingly, its why getting 3rd opinions, RFCs, and several Dispute Resolutions and even mediation failed. Every response begets another response from Lucia, its the WP:LASTWORD which counts, like being "right". For Lucia, conflict is a way to make other editors see it her way or are just plain "biased". The very same term Lucia used upon our first meeting just over a year ago to describe my GA review - which touched off this whole mess. I've grown a lot in the last year, enough to stick to work and my beliefs, yet not enough to overcome the misery this matter has spawned. If anything, Misplaced Pages is not therapy and for Lucia, the bad-faith and battleground and circular arguing over nothing serves only to wear down opposition. I've rambled on enough, myself. We may be volunteers, but we should not be expected to be gluttons for punishment. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

irrelevant, and just mid-slinging. but not that any editor cares, because to them, i deserve it.Lucia Black (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Chris, this has nothing to do with last word....this has to do with clarifying what needs to be clarified. in WP:ANI, theres no "last word". i'm only clarifying what needs to be clarified.Lucia Black (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Reasons why we should close this (for those who don't want to read walls of text, allow me to summarize)

There's a lot of accusations here, but nothing to prove action-worthy (which means the accusations are based on bad-faith and not facts). And as much as Sergecross is so dead-set into believing i'm wrong and these editors provided valid reasons, the editors he's talking about are still anonymous editors that all simultaneously e-mailed Salvidrim!. And he refuses to elaborate. Whenever i do bring up points, he acts like i provided nothing and over trivializes the points i brought up. However, not once has he denied them to be false.

Now, claiming i'm trying to "game the system" with the IBAN, is a very VERY big stretch. there are two "evidence" these editors have brought up: Sailor Moon in which Chris had no prior involvement yet he chose to force his show in even after discovering i was involved by bringing it up to the talkpage. I still at this moment cannot understand why Sailor Moon is such an issue when it comes to gaming the IBAN. And i still don't understand why these editors choose to ignore that specific situation. i'm sure you all know that is a cear attempt to game the IBAN.

The only supposed reason is by Verso.Sciolto when i provided Dragon Ball Z as an example to allow a Sailor Moon (anime). Now, although i had prior connection to Dragon Ball Z discussion (and no, i was not topic-blocked because of it. so don't believe that), I did not make the focus on Dragon Ball Z (such as i would not want to bring up Dragon Ball Z as a main discussion and try to game the system by keeping Chris uninvolved).

the next is Ghost in the Shell (video game) which i have had no real disputes with Chris in the past. The GAR consensus was to close as not GA listed. in which I've decided to help it move forward. Verso.Sciolto about previous topic-ban from Ghost in the Shell (manga) and were only advised to avoid the topic overall. But that's simply because Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell (manga) is a serious dispute that never reached consensus. Ghost in the Shell (video game) is of no concern to Chris when it comes to my edits, so long as i don't remove any content he provided (and lets face it, 80-70% of the content was provided by me).

Now i dont know what these "5" other disputes. the only one i can think of is Fullmetal Alchemist (anime) RfC, which existed prior to the IBAN. regardless this is more about how two irrelevant TV series are merged together due to previous GAR stating that the animes were two large. NOW if i'm banned from discussing it, so be it. but i just came back from my 1-week ban and haven't provided a comment since. Either way, Chris showed no interest in it prior to the IBAN (and the RfC was there for a really long time). Why he brings it up now? Probably sour grapes.

Right now i'm deeply insulted by this AN report. mostly because this allowed Chris to interact with me and just promote past discussions (keep in mind all those discussions brought up by Chris, i did in fact offered the editor a peace offering which didn't work because he still chooses to allow our perspective in editing PERSONAL. and i have the links to prove it. all you have to do is ask if relevant) but also because admins refuse to listen. and when they do listen, they over-trivialize without reason. Only a few editors actually questioned the AN report.

The only two editors that defended me was anonymous IP claiming to TheFarix, but despite being disruptive by claiming to be him (if he's not), he still provided clear points. and i don't think they should be ignored (the only time Serge decided to use reasoning) and the points i'm mainly talking about is how Verso.Sciolto attempted to harass me and intended bait me to discuss ChrisGualtieri despite being banned from having any interaction with him.

These are all just baseless discussions....i just came back from my 1-week block. I've been careful on editing or editing the contributions of the other editor. And all they have are links, but they don't provide the connection of how its Gaming the system, and when they try its a big stretch.Lucia Black (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarification of IBAN

• I think the IBAN must be clarified, otherwise we are going to have here kilobytes of irrelevant text every second week, similar to what we have now. Possible options:

1. LB and CG may not mention each other (including each other's actions) on any English Misplaced Pages page;
2. LB and CG may only mention each other at ANI in relation of specific incidents and may not address each other, only third parties.

Otherwise we are likely to have repetitions of the situations like above, when LB discusses CG at large, but the first reply of CG would get him blocked because of IBAN.

An alternative is to community ban both of them, but I am generally not a supporter of community bans, and will not support it here.

I request that involved parties do not edit this subsections to avoid flooding.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

What you are describing in points 1 and 2 are already what is in effect. Salvidrim just allowed to Lucia to comment this time to defend herself, but outside this discusion, we're already there. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, then may be next time restricting any defences to 500 words, like ArbCom enforcement, would be a good idea. Right now we have shit all over the place.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. Also, I think another discussion, one with the interaction in place, should occur, so Admin/others can actually discuss what to do. That was the intention from the beginning, not to open up another avenue for all this mudslinging. Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Devanampriya keeps reverting at Yoga Page

A specific version of the page was clearly agreed to on the talk page by multiple people, including well respected Joshua Jonathan. Devanampriyakeeps reverting these edits. HathaYogin (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I see two reversions over three days by Devanampriya, same as HathaYogin. I also see no attempt to discuss the matter with Devanampriya (and no notification of this thread as CLEARLY stated is required). Instead of running to tattle on someone when they do something you don't like please first try to work things out by talking with them. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It is up to Devanampriya to discuss things on the talk page. There is not a single comment by Devanampriya on the entire talk page! He is not a regular editor on the Yoga page. How can we force someone else to engage in dialogue? HathaYogin (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

And it is up to you to make an effort to resolve conflicts before seeking intervention... A friendly note on someone's talk page works wonders; talking about "forcing" people do things does not. It is quite possible that Devanampriya is not even aware of the discussion on the talk page. Please try to assume good faith about other editors. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, ThaddeusB. It's surprising that a two day old user has the sophistication to go to ANI at the drop of a hat and is suddenly supporting a "respected and senior editor" (with whom I'm in DRN for another issue as we speak). The timing is even more fortuitous considering I just asked an admin to tell said "respected and senior editor" to stop stealth editing during DRN...I suppose that's why I always preferred sandals to sox...Anyhow, I know admins are very busy, so I don't want to waste any more of your time. Good day, sir. Devanampriya (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You're out of line here, Devanampriya, with the term "stealth editing". I removed info I'd added myself, in response to Bladesmulti, with a clear edit-summary. Which can't be said of you, twice removing a {{dubious}}-tag diff diff without mentioning this in his edit-summary, and changing "Vishnu, the Vedic god of preservation" to "Vishnu, the Hindu god of preservation" diff, also without mentioning this in his edit-summary. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It's just dawning on me, that you seem to be accusing me of sock-puppetry. Now you're really out of line. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Wow Joshua, that quarter dropped slowly! :) Devanampriya, you better put your money where your mouth is. You're accusing a named account of having another registered sock--you either file an SPI, or you take it back and apologize. Or you do nothing at all and lose a bunch of respect. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I usually don't support when people make changes to main page(especially lead) and then challenge others to prove them wrong, especially when information is already established for weeks/months, and/or has sources/obviousness. Neither I support any changes made by 3 days old account for such huge articles. It is only one page, and somewhat not really controversial edit either. Don't know what is this fuss about. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• Based on the report at WP:AN3, I blocked both editors. I took a narrow view of the matter. Otherwise, I would have gotten bogged down in incredible content/conduct sniping. The report filed at SPI consists of walls of text by both "sides".--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Any reason why Devanampriya and JJ are blocked for different amounts of time? Erpert 20:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

User:AXiS CreepyPastas

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

Please check history, why other user created userpage to other user ?--Musamies (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it, the named user hasn't edited for 5 months. Probably a throwaway alt account. Ansh666 20:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, and that account is now blocked (not here to build an encyclopedia). I deleted that user page: we're not a dating site. Let's close this--all is well. Thanks Musamies, and can I just say that your user name is almost as cool as mine? Drmies (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You broke the rules! Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

How To Stop Stalker Admin

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

Just wondering how do users prevent Admins from stalking them? In particular ones with possible multiple admin accounts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 19:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, you could stop editing in a disruptive fashion requiring your account to be blocked. You could also not make unfounded and obviously frivolous accusations of socking when multiple editors and admins have informed you that your edits are disruptive. --Jezebel'sPonyo 20:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes. admin abuse. Killiondude (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb

I have been holding an editing discussion with User:Joefromrandb on the article Joe E. Ross. The entire discussion can be viewed on the article's talk page. When an established uninvolved editor came in and gave their opinion on the matter, Joefromrandb attacked the person, stating "I had little doubt someone would have the admin's back sooner or later. I guess I'll have to sort through this pile of shit piece-by-piece to find out how much, if any, of it is actually true. Congratulations, the both of you." When the editor defended giving their opinion, Joefromrandb stated "I'm wrong? Perhaps you can show me just where the fuck I'm wrong." When I told Joefromrandb to stop the personal attacks, he said "Do I need to stop beating my wife, too?"

It turns out that Joefromrandb has already been blocked six times in recent months for disruptive editing and personal attacks. In addition, he had been the subject of a number of admin noticeboard discussions, including this one from earlier this month. Based on this history I would have immediately blocked Joefromrandb. However, as an admin involved in an editing discussion with him, I will not do so. I hope other uninvolved admins will examine this case and decide what to do.

I don't have an issue with edit disputes or even losing your cool once in a while. But attacking editors who are merely expressing their opinion is not something we should tolerate, especially when the user has a long history of doing this.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You could have just told the truth and said I've been blocked five times over the course of more than a year. The gist of your argument would have been the same. How, exactly, does fudging the numbers benefit anyone? Joefromrandb (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. I should have said you were blocked four times in the last few months, and 6 times in the last year. But adjusting the time frame doesn't change the pattern I'm seeing here.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

That would have also been untrue. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, how many more times will Joefromrandb have to be brought before AN/ANI before the community finally agrees on an indef block? GiantSnowman 14:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable. What an incredibly fallacious argument. Honestly, it's scary that you're an admin. You should be required to understand logical fallacies before being allowed to use your admin tools. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

But it's not. This an editor with well known problems. I've lost count of how many times his conduct has been raised at the drama boards, and there's of course his recent RFC. Oh, and if you think you can do a better job than me/us, WP:RFA is thataway... GiantSnowman 12:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Again with the same fallacies? I don't care how many times he's been brought here, as that has no bearing on his guilt or innocence. And having been the subject of a bogus RFC myself, that again has no bearing on this thread. Your entire "if there's smoke, there's fire" line of reasoning is fallacious, and editors who rely on it tend to misuse it, such as filing AN/ANI/RFC's against users who they don't like. You can have your precious RFA. You know what to do with it. I don't believe it is improving Misplaced Pages, and one doesn't need it to edit. Viriditas (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Not to comment about editor behavior, but that article obviously and currently has some weight and accuracy issues. I can already see a quote that's attributed to the subject in the article, that another source attributes to someone talking about the subject. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

And that's why we're holding an edit discussion. But when other editors join in the discussion, and are immediately attacked for their opinion, that has a chilling effect on the ability to reach editorial consensus.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's my general recommendation in cases that are about editor interaction rather than article content, misuse of tools, or an editor who simply has an uncontrolled combative personality (I'm not seeing any of these in the complaint above - the 5 blocks I can see are spaced far enough apart that "combative personality" probably doesn't apply): IF it's clear that the accusation is just AND the accused realized he did something he shouldn't have AND he apologizes, then nothing more needs to be done. If the accusation is just but the accused doesn't want to apologize or refused to admit there is a problem, a temporary "until you see the folly of your ways" interaction ban, page-ban, or broader ban (but no broader than necessary) may be in order. I would hope that "temporary" would be measured in hours or days not longer. Basically, I'm looking for reconciliation and restoration of good editor-editor relationships so that we all can get back to building the encyclopedia, together. Of course, if it's not clear that the accusation is just then none of the above apply. If the accusation is clearly malicious then the whole thing turns on its head. By the way, this is a general statement. I have not read the diffs so I do not know if it is specifically applicable to this situation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the linked discussion and at the merits of the allegations being made against the named editor. I see an editor understandably frustrated at having to wade through poorly sourced negative material while editors and admins who should know better attack the messenger. Eventually people like Joefromrandb will be run off while the encyclopedia is filled to the brim with civil POV pushers slapping each other on the back. As usual, the priorities are backwards. You can be civil all you want and it won't change the underlying problem. Joe's curt responses and impatience are the symptom of the problem, which is not being addressed. Bringing up the fact that he's been blocked before proves nothing. Viriditas (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Has anyone looked at Joefromrandb's recent edits to Joe E. Ross? Here is a sample:
  • Remove "Ross's personal life was as noisy and troubled as his screen characters." diff
  • Correct spelling of "Oo!" to "Ooh!". diff
  • Remove gossip attack section, sourced to a blog. diff

  Joefromrandb may be overly blunt, but at least he seems to understand what should be in an article. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

All those edits you mention are perfectly fine and should have been made. And as I mentioned, I have no problem with the edit discussion, or changes to the article, which are indeed being made and, it appears, consensus now being reached on the article. But Joefromrandb was not being too blunt--he attacked an editor who joined the discussion. This is a pattern which he seems to repeat over and over. This isn't POV pushing. This is about an editor attacking other editors and having a history of doing so.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I personally think Misplaced Pages would be better off if joe was less combative and less profane; I full listing of how I think WP could be better would be seriously tl;dr, so my opinion isn't terribly important. What is important if we remove all the imperfect there'd be no one left to, you know, write content. alf laylah wa laylah did not "defend themselves" so much as counterattacked with snark "That must be a comfort to you." I'm not really interested in trying to sort out the relative merits of the slung mud.
What I'd like to see in the next AN / ANI / RFCU on Joe is examples where the other editors involved were being 100% compliant with with guidelines on content and conduct and Joe just teed off of them out of the blue. Until that happens, I encourage other editors just to ignore his snarky ad hominem and stay focused on the content discussion. NE Ent 14:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Range block needed again for disruptive IP

Please see WP:NPOVN#Marian Dawkins biased editors removing criticism from RS and WP:NPOVN#Marian Dawkins. An IP hopper has been editing disruptively and using edit summaries to attack other editors for some time at Pain in animals, Animal welfare and their associated talk pages as well as earlier posts to NPOVN and here where a 48 hour rangeblock was imposed. See also . Thanks. Um, sorry, I should learn how to do this myself but ranges scare me. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm hoping User:Kww will do this. Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It's too large of a range, and will require a filter to perform. Those take a little while to create, test, and maintain, so I'd like to see a bit more of a consensus that it's required.—Kww(talk) 16:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• All in favor: aye. I'll get my sockfarm to agree as well, Kevin. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• I also support a range block. The same person has caused disruption on animal-rights related articles too, going back many months, and has been spamming someone's PhD thesis into various articles, including articles unrelated to the topic of the thesis. SlimVirgin 21:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Under test.—Kww(talk) 04:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Kww, maybe you'll find some stylistic fingerprints in this rant. I'm not sure if you can capture their many grammatical errors and typos, but the numbering of Really Important Points is a giveaway. Maybe they'll change that now--that wouldn't be a bad thing. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Request admin attention to close the move review for Cannabis (drug)

I am requesting that admin perform what I believe should be a non-controversial close on the move review at WP:Move review/Log/2014 January#Cannabis (drug) as Overturn and relist, thus allowing discussion to continue on the talk page.

I was the nom for this WP:RM to Marijuana which was closed as keep by a non-admin on January 11 after 6 days 20 hours. The move was never carried out amid various complaints alleging that that a consensus hadn't developed, that debate should have gone longer, that only an admin should done the close because admin attention was required to do the technical deletion of the target page and that the closer presented his own evidence and that, if he wanted to do that, he should have !voted instead.

The move review has now gone on for 2 weeks and responses overwhelmingly favor overturning the close. I now join that, having changed from endorse to overturn and relist.

Discussion has moved back to the talk page where another editor has opened an RFC soliciting !votes on the same move proposal debated at my WP:RM. Discussion has been lively but is hampered by ambiguity because my original WP:RM remains in limbo. There being no good reason not to, I ask that the original WP:RM be reopened, this new RfC discussion be considered appended to it and that a new close be taken after a suitable relisting. Msnicki (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog