Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive794

User talk:Dave Bowman - Discovery Won

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

---

Ok, so I happened to have recently commented on a user's talkpage and so still had it on my watchlist when this user gave them an "award" [1]. In this award he refers to Wikipedians as retards and wretched geeks, and says that all Americans are buffoons. So, I gave him the standard warning for personal attacks.I checked in today and there is a whole long conversation on his talk page where he apparently thinks he is talking to me when he is in fact talking with User:The359. That distinction doesn't seem to bother him as he goes on to repeatedly attaclk me and the the American people (we're all retarded as it turns out) and to drag in unrelated incidents that he is taking out of context that have no bearing on my warning to him. He still does not seem to realize that the warning I left him is the only edit I have made so far to his talk page, although of course I will be notifying him of this discussion momentarily. I don't know what his problem is but he seems exceptionally angry and hateful toward me, WP, and Americans, which suggests he is going to have trouble being part of the community here if he can't behave like a civilized person, even if he is from a country "made of retards, by retards, and for retards".

So, I am going to be completely unavailable for the next several days but before I go I thought it might be wise to bring this situation to the community's attention as this user is obviously headed for trouble. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, somebody just beat me bloody with a blunt object. It would feel a lot better than reading that guy's talk page. If you argue with him it is because you're either a nationalist, racist, or a religion nut. Ohh, and he's the perpetual victim. Love it.--v/r - TP 18:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Indef ASAP, with talk page access revoked. I can see plenty of personal attacks and racist comments on there, as clear-cut case of WP:NOTHERE as we'll get. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Having a bit of car trouble so my departure seems to have been delayed. Just noticed this charming edit sumarry [2] which is also a personal attack. I believe I am not really WP:INVOLVED as my only contact with him so far was the attack warning and the notification of this thread but since he is already decrying my conspiracy against him it would probably be best if some other admin handled this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm a Christian, conservative, white guy so I am triple whamey on this guy's list of assholes on Wikipedia. So I'll let some atheist, liberal, non-white admin block him.--v/r - TP 22:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. I don't exactly fit that definition either, but then again, I don't really care... :-) Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Since the comment was against a range of unacceptable behavior not anyone in particular, I am shocked that Admins would go after this user and ban him. He was justified in being frustrated by abuse directed at him for posting photos released by the FBI. Wow is all I can say. Legacypac (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• The talk page ruckus is a bit academic as the user is now claiming to be an indefinitely blocked individual. Tiderolls 23:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • They are likely User:TechnoFaye. -- Dianna (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I should've said previously indeffed individual. Tiderolls 00:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a liberal, non-American, non-Republican, atheist asshole (TParis, I checked almost all the right boxes) and I revoked their talk page access. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Worth pointing out he claims (plausibly imo) to be American himself - it's just a domestic. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Wilkinsons

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

---

• Wilkinsons...the Opticians (salted) by #user:Dippoldtheoptician
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilkinsons...the Opticians
• user:Dippoldtheoptician (24 hr block)
• Wilkinsons... the Optician by user:Mr Dr Teacakes.

Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Could some admin warn a person to just stay away from my talk page

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

---

I have asked Scolaire to leave my talk page at User talk:Dmcq#RfC and they refuse. Could some admin give them a warning to stop harassing a person on their talk page when asked thanks. Dmcq (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) At a certain point, the best option becomes the {{collapse top}} / {{collapse bottom}} templates. Try those, and if the problem persists, then there's a serious problem. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is no rule that requires him to leave. You'd be better of ignoring him. That said, I've left him a polite but stern message to just leave.--v/r - TP 22:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully they should avoid my talk page except where obviously necessary rather than treating it as their playground. Dmcq (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nepal–Papua New Guinea relations

without contacting a particular admin, this requires closure as it has gone past 7 days. I understand there has been issues with notifying the 7 day expiry of AfDs. thanks. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and closed it. Normally, I wouldn't worry if it is just a little overdue, like this one was. We admin don't jump on them the minute it hits 7 days, we are sometimes off doing other things, but someone will usually get to it within a day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone should probably block me for this comment

When trying to extinguish a fire, lighter fluid is usually not going to make it go out Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I left a rather nasty but heart felt and sincere comment to User:Beyond My Ken one his talk page which he rightfully reverted here. I do not regret my actions in the least because I feel he is the type of user and does the type of childish and inappropriate edits we do not need here. With that said, as I have been harping about abusiveness on site someone should probably block me for a couple weeks for abusing another editor. Two weeks to a month seems reasonable to me but use your discretion. Kumioko (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Additionally, my last block for calling another editor a piece of trash is here and was 24 hours so the 2 weeks+ is based on the excalation rule. Kumioko (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC) As far as I'm concerned, this is the only result: don't make personal attacks like that again, and please try to avoid WP:POINTy trolling in the future. Can somebody close (and maybe hat) this? Thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Long term problems with WP:VERIFY

• Withdrawn -- see comment near end of section. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 23:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

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

I am posting here following an administrator's suggestion. I am seeking a block for User:Vjmlhds for prolonged disruptive editing. Let me be clear: this is user has a long term problem following WP:VERIFY – he habitually adds, removes, or modifies content without providing reliable sources to verify his claims. I myself have been editing for just over two years, and all that time I have struggled to resolve this issue in a civil and constructive way. I have tried to engage this editor with discussions on talk pages, including both his and my own, but he frequently breaks up these discussions, or deflects or denies (or outright ignores) key points. WP:TRUE is often the only justification given for his edits. He also resorts to personal attacks, referring to me as: "a real pest", "article c***blocker", "bet you reminded the teacher to give out homework", "buddy boy", "minutiae guy", "pain in the @ss", "wiki hall monitor", "wiki-police", etc. This view is not mine alone. Despite editing with regularity for more than five years, Vjmlhds often uses a declared lack of familiarity with "wiki-ese" as an excuse to edit however he chooses and blames others for not fixing his edits.[3][4][5]

This request is not made in haste. Though I've had problems with Vjmlhds for years now, it was only last November than I became particularly concerned with this user's editing pattern. Specifically, I noticed he was adding content which was blatantly inaccurate. In the case of Joe Banner, Vjmlhds added content which stated Banner was hired as "President" of the Cleveland Browns. Not only was this claim lacking a reliable source, but it was also flat wrong. I then corrected the edit with a reliable source from The Plain Dealer in which Banner himself states that no such position exists – he was hired on as "CEO", and as of the date of that article, hadn't decided whether or not to hire a President. Since then I have paid closer attention to Vjmlhds' edits. The following are examples – since the Banner edit – where he has added content w/o providing a reliable source to verify his claims. Please bear in mind that this list is no way exhaustive:

• 12/04/2012 – that radio station WWGK airs weekly Ohio State basketball program
• 12/10/2012 – that radio personality Java Joel "promoted" to afternoon shift
• 12/28/2012 – of programming changes at radio station WXLW
• 01/02/2013 – that radio station WLQR-FM dropped affiliation w/ ESPN
• 01/16/2013 – of programming changes at TV station WLMB
• 01/18/2013 – that Michael Lombardi hired by Cleveland Browns
• 01/29/2013 – that radio station WMMS is Cleveland Indians "FM flagship" (source reserves "flagship" for WTAM)
• 02/02/2013 – that WDLI-TV station logo is same as TBN network logo (and w/o providing WDLI-TV fair-use rationale)
• 03/05/2013 – that Matt Fontana co-hosts morning show at radio station WKNR
• 03/06/2013 – that Matt Fontana co-hosts morning show at radio station WWGK
• 03/06/2012 – about Cleveland Indians broadcasts on TV
• 03/12/2012 – that Michael Lombardi "officially" promoted to general manager of Cleveland Browns
• 04/01/2013 – that May 1, 2013 is start date for new WKRK-FM HD3 digital subchannel
• 04/12/2013 – that WLFM-LP has new midday host
• 04/16/2013 – about Cleveland Indians radio and TV 2013 broadcasters
• 04/16/2013 – about media outlets carrying Cleveland Indians baseball during 2013 season
• 04/16/2013 – that WMMS is radio "flagship" for Cleveland Indians (source makes no mention of WMMS whatsoever)

This is not the first time Vjmlhds has had a problem with editing policies. He has been blocked three times (twice last fall) for edit warring, and he continues to violate these same policies despite repeated warnings.[6][7] I was very clear with Vjmlhds: continue this disruptive editing, and I will seek a block for long term disruption. Yesterday he failed to provide a source at least three times in three different articles [8][9][10] (incidentally, I normally would not revert these type of edits as they extend to topics beyond my normal focus, but I felt compelled to intervene). If you have any further questions regarding this issue, please do not hesitate to ask here for diffs, etc. Thanks. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 15:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear about some things: 1. Any personal attacks waged against Levdr were in the past. Those were years ago, I've long since been warned about them, and I haven't gone that route in a very long time, nor do I intend to. 2. I've paid for my edit warring sins, and haven't engaged in that activity since I've been back, nor do I intend to. 3. I was in error about the Joe Banner thing, as some reports referred to him as President/CEO, especially after the firing of president Mike Holmgren. That was a mistake on my part, due to thinkng President/CEO were interchangable. 4. I make concerted efforts on major changes in articles that I do indeed include sources. If I need to to do so for what would usually be minor changes, then I'll redouble my efforts to do so there as well, as most changes I make are usually just either rewording things for grammar and sentence structure purposes. 5. I also need to say in my defense that I feel as though Levdr has a personal issue with me, as he has himself admitted that he's looking at pages he doesn't normally bother with just to look for things in which he can play "Gotcha!" with me. Any issues that I have with WP:Verify is not a matter of any deliberate attempt at distruption, but just simply a case of absentmindedness that can be rectified on my part by just simply taking a couple of extra minutes. I just need to focus a little more, that's all. I've already paid for all other past sins with past blocks. This isn't (in my view) block-worthy...just a case of me needing to pay more attention. Thank you. Vjmlhds 15:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Deny and deflect. On personal attacks: here are three since August (two this year).[11][12][13] On Banner: could not find a single source online or in print which at the time referred to him as "President" (otherwise I would have used it and left "President" in the Banner article); even if there was reference to Banner as president, it was in error (as Banner himself states), and that *still* does not address the fact Vjmlhds did not add a source. On "personal issues": I mostly focus on Northeast Ohio media articles, and I treat Vjmlhds exactly like I treat all other editors of NEO media content. Ordinarily I don't edit pages like The Brady Bunch or Leave It to Beaver, but I do focus on related media, and I felt compelled to intervene in those cases given Vjmlhds' ongoing and willful neglect of WP:VERIFY. There are countless examples where I have *not* involved myself in Vjmlhds' edits. And I am only requesting this block following an administrator's suggestion. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 16:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• If they're that "long term" then I'm certain someone can point me to an WP:RFC/U where multiple people have certified and discussion these issues, and some conclusion was reached? I'm all for WP:CIR, but this is not wholly-competence based (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I am using "long term" as it was used by another administrator here. As for "not wholly-competence based", are you referring to my initial post? Levdr1lostpassword / talk 16:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Nevermind on the question. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 16:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if mentioning that a small local TV station in Toledo is airing Green Acres instead of The Brady Bunch without a reference is causing this much trouble. I would also like to say that if I were inclined to, I could say that Levdr1lostpassword could be in violation of WP:Witchhunt, but I won't push it that far. Vjmlhds 20:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not about a single edit or small group of edits. This is about an editing pattern, mostly concentrated in various Northeast Ohio broadcast media articles (most of which are on my watchlist). I treat Vjmlhds exactly like I treat others who edit those pages. My only real concern here is Vjmlhds' habit of adding content without verification. I tried adding {{citation needed}}, {{Unref}}, or {{Refimprove}}, but he either removed these templates, or worse, his contributions entirely. Personally, I feel content added in good faith with a "citation needed" template is better than no content at all. But you can only quote the same core policies to the same editor so many times before you realize the futility in doing so. That's where I'm at, and I made that clear to Vjmlhds first here, and again here. After that first post on his talk page, an administrator (User:Qwyrxian) said that my approach was "quite generous" and suggested that it would be entirely appropriate to request a block for "long term" problems with WP:VERIFY. And that's why I posted on this noticeboard. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 20:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

When it gets right down to it, is this more about protecting Wikipedia from harm, or is this about trying to find something that gets me in trouble somehow? Levdr has had personal issues with me ever since I called him out on his actions on another discussion board. He tried to out an anonymous blogger Ohio Media Watch, and I plus other posters on that board (including User:Nathan Obral) got on Levdr's case about perhaps ruining OMW's career and/or life by trying to reveal his identity due to his withchunt on this individual, who merely writes a blog about news in NE Ohio media, and keeps his identity secret because he himself works in the field (yes it was a witchhunt, as he tried to find every little nugget he could and put 2 + 2 together). The Barnstar on my user page is from Nathan as a thank you for sticking up for OMW on the other board. Ever since, Levdr has tried to get back at me for that by going after me for every little ticky-tacky thing he can think of here on Wiki. By his own admission, he's been zeroing in on me since November, which just happened to be right after Nathan gave me the barnstar for laying into Levdr on the other board. Also by his own admission, he's been going to articles he normally wouldn't for the sole purpose of trying to find something on me. Levdr's bending over backwards trying to find any little dirt he can on me, and why? Is this a real attempt to try to protect Wikipedia from harmful edits? Or is this a plan to stick it to another editor? What is this really - a noble fight for Wikipedia's integrity, or a petty revenge plot because someone got rightfully drilled on a different board? Vjmlhds 21:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I was not planning to post on this noticeboard until an administrator suggested that I do so. Apparently, I was being "quite generous" with User:Vjmlhds – letting him know that I would revert any future contributions lacking reliable sources to verify them. As for the blog, I posted a discussion on the Reliable Sources noticeboard last October regarding http://www.ohiomediawatch.wordpress.com/ ("Ohio Media Watch" or "OMW"). Vjmlhds was welcome to add to that discussion, as was User:Nathan Obral, the blog's own "secondary editorial voice". Neither contributed to that discussion. However, three others did weigh in on the reliability of "OMW". The discussion was subsequently archived, and based on that archived consensus, I removed any use of "OMW" as a source on WP. As for the discussion board, another administrator (User:Bbb23) made it clear that outside issues should remain outside Wikipedia. I followed Bbb23's advice then, and I'm following Qwyrxian's advice now. The reality here is that both Vjmlhds and I tend to edit Northeast Ohio broadcast media articles and related content. In general, I never let any new unsourced content remain in place w/o either posting a citation-needed template or making some other kind of modifications. There is no "revenge plot" here. There is no "zeroing in" on Vjmlhds. Rather, I have made a honest attempt to revert any contributions this editor makes which lack verfication in articles I monitor daily on my watchlist. That's all. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 22:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that an editor persistently adding material to Wikipedia without verification, and occasionally making an error is "disruptive" and therefore worthy of some kind of admin intervention, presumably a block? If so, I don't think you're going to be satisfied by the outcome of this thread. --Dweller (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Dweller- I'm not "saying" anything. To reiterate, I only posted here because an administrator suggested I request a block. If requesting a block is not the appropriate action here, then please clarify. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 22:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd personally strongly oppose a block on those terms and I suspect most others here would too. --Dweller (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This isn't about whether OMW is a relible source (Wiki says it isn't, fine. I haven't used it here since the announcement was made.) Levdr personally attacked OMW on the other board (something Levdr is coyly not addressing), he got chewed out for it there, so now he's taking it out on me here. This is about the fact that Levdr has a habit of witchhunting people he has an issue with. He did it to OMW on the other board, and he's doing it to me here. And this is a witchhunt, every aspect of what he's doing here fits in perfectly with WP:WITCHHUNT. He's more interested in having it stuck to me, than he is in protecting Wikipedia. Can any of the edits I made that Levdr has pointed out really be considered "harmful"? Is mentioning the fact that a new guy has taken over as host of a radio show really a harmful edit even though there's no reference? I mean, if I were to say George Washington is the current president instead of Obama and edited Wiki accordingly, then I could see the problem. But the radio host thing or the TV schedule or the other stuff Levdr pointed out can all be seen on the station's websites, which are all referenced on their various pages. A block by it's intent is meant to protect Wikipedia from disruptive edits, not to punish any particular user. All I'm saying is that Levdr is using the fact that I don't add a reference to every little edit I make (which is mainly do to the info being readily availible on websites that are already referenced in the articles) as a way to see me get blocked for his own personal reasons, and not because of what I am doing is hurting Wikipedia. Are my edits really that disruptive or harmful? Or are they just being used to try to hurt me in some way for personal revenge? Vjmlhds 22:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I will address the discussion board this one time (I avoided addressing this directly b/c I was under the impression I should let it lie as it deals will off-site matters). Rather than re-hash old issues, though, I'll just quote myself from the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 23:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

... observations I made on the Radio-Info.com message boards (now RadioDiscussions.com). At the time, I had only posted there three times, all relating to Cleveland Browns football coverage. Since then, I have started posting with more regularity. Others on the RadioDiscussions.com message boards have asked just who exactly the primary contributor of Ohio Media Watch is. I often scour the Internet (and sometimes microfilm) to find sources for Wikipedia; recently I stumbled upon information online which I think reveals who the primary contributor is. Following a recent local radio station podcast, I shared that info on the message board (two public Blogspot entries, a public news site profile, and a Wikipedia page at its creation). This upset User:Nathan Obral, he chose to revert my July/August edits as some kind of retaliation, and that led to a dispute. Currently there is a related discussion on my own talk page at User talk:Levdr1lostpassword#Ohio Media Watch.
— User:Levdr1lostpassword 26 October 2012, 06:57 (UTC)

Whatever disputes Levdr had with Nathan, he's now taking out on me. Nathan called him out on the RadioDiscussions.com board, and took the fight here. Nathan has since kept a low profile, so now he's got a bullseye on me because I too called him out on the RD board. It was not his place to try to "expose" OMW, and multiple posters on the RD board told him as much. I haven't used OMW as a source in months. If it's not allowed, then I accpet it, and I'm not arguing that point. My point is that ever since then Levdr has been gunning for me, and trying everything in the book to nail me somehow, some way. The dust-up on the RD board was the genesis of this whole thing, which has lead to this witch hunt. I'm still waiting to be told how the edits I made that were brought out as examples were harmful to Wikipedia in any way. Vjmlhds 23:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Vjmlhds-- How do I think your edits "harm Wikipedia"? You add unverified and sometimes inaccurate information. I thought the whole point of this encyclopedic endeavor was to create cogent, readable, and reliable content. That's not me quoting anything specific, just what my gut tells me about WP:VERIFY. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 23:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Everyone else-- Withdrawn I am not sure how exactly to withdraw this request, but hopefully this edit will suffice (if there is something additional I must do, could an admin please specify here?). I only requested this block because I was under the impression that it was what I should do. Qwyrxian provided some input on Vjmlhds' page, and based on that input, I came here. However, Dweller has informed me that this probably isn't the appropriate place, nor is this block request the appropriate action. Thank you to anyone who provided input (or read through this discussion). Levdr1lostpassword / talk 23:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute before this is "withdrawn". As pointed out above, I'm the one who suggested Levdr1lostpassword come here, in part due to my lessened WP presence, and in part because I thought a community based block would send a stronger message than one from just me. Vjmhlds has, in the past, aggressively confronted editors for not following sources, and then he regularly adds unsourced material himself. Most notably, on List of WWE personnel, where there had been frequent prior disputes about who was "really" in WWE and who was in some subsidiary...or what status they were classified in...or something like that (the details escape me). A semi-compromise was struck (one specific website was deemed to be "official" and thus would be the definitive source); not more than a few months later Vjhmlds himself violated his own stance that he'd so emphatically argued for before by adding material that he just "knew" was right but was unsourced. I don't know where this idea comes from that a long term problem should necessarily have lead to an RfCU, as that's a purely voluntary process and not really necessary when a user is violating one of the pillars. And I don't understand Dweller's comment, either--why should Levdr1lostpassword expect disappointment when he's reporting a violation of what is arguably the fundamental underpinning of how Wikipedia works? So, fine, if there isn't the interest here and now, Levdr1lostpassword, next time there's a problem, just tell me directly, and once I'm available, if the evidence is clear, I will start blocks of escalating duration. My apologies for making you go through the hassle here. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Content removal at Raymond Gravel

In the past 2 days, this article has had sourced content removed 6 times by 2 accounts and an IP address (all belonging to the article's subject, I'm guessing). This guy is apparently trying to cover up some unflattering info about him (see [14]), a vandalized version of the page is current, I'm not going to touch it so as to not violate the 3 rv rule. I'll let an admin decide where to take this from here --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:EW is explicit when it says that reversion of vandalism is an exception to its wrath, WP:RFPP is the usual place to request protection of a page, WP:AIV is the best place to report true vandalsim, and WP:DR pretty much explains the way forward with content (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

BF101 sock, once again

We've got a Sockpuppet issue here! Bambifan101 is back, this time under the IP 98.90.56.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), an IP appearing to be from Mobile, Alabama. He has hit two pages, both of which are Disney-related: Oliver & Company and The Sword in the Stone. Isn't it time to enable an edit filter on him or give him a block? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• I believe there was an edit filter (or several) already for them? Perhaps they've figured it out, I don't know. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it was only semi protection, not an edit filter. Can someone please block the IP? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Attacks and threats made by Bearman998

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

---

Bearman998 has been spending most of his time on Wikipedia over the past several months stalking my contributions and trying to remove them, mainly done on the Carl Lewis, Karo Parisyan, Gegard Mousasi and Juan Manuel Marquez articles. He displays a hostile nature and continues to make threats at every meeting. Bearman998 has made such comments as "Clearly you should know by now", "I believe this is what got you banned previously", "This is a pattern and it looks like you are repeating it despite multiple warnings and bans in the past" and "Based on your past behavior". These show an aggressive and WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality of his, not to mention they show not a single faith in him is good. Bearman998 has claimed I am ignoring the warnings that further BLP violations would result in sanctions, refering to statements made by himself. This shows he believes he has Admin powers and has the right to judge other users and decide what punishments they should be given. Because these actions continue to be repeated, I believe the user should be given a lengthy block from editing Wikipedia and be given an indefinite ban from the previously mentioned articles. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Having looked quickly at the editing histories of those articles, it's difficult to distinguish exactly what behaviour you're complaining of. Could you please provide some diffs? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Gegard Mousasi, Carl Lewis, Karo Parisyan and Juan Manuel Marquez He always edits the articles for the first time shortly after I do, then becomes obbsessed with them. It can't be a coincidence and a sure sign of hostility. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wait a tic, didn't we just discuss this issue at WP:AN? Yes, it seems there is an open thread currently found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Please_remove_my_ban.. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes and no. It was mentioned, but no one is paying attention to the issue, so I'm creating a spearate discussion. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It was addressed on AN...it's simply that the proof is not there to implement anything against Bearman, and it was rightly dropped. Instead, we see further proof of the battlefield mentality - tit-for-tat filings (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Recommend this be closed before the WP:BOOMERANG arrives. Blackmane (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I would agree - from the outside, having never reviewed the incident(s) before just now, it looks like you didn't like the way one discussion was shaping up so you started another one here. And that's generally not how it's done, simply because it gives the appearance of forum shopping. I know that was not your intent, but that's what it can look like. On the merits, I have not yet looked at Bearman998's conduct or yours, but I do note that you have not provided any diffs at all to support your claims. I recommend that you withdraw this complaint, read through WP:BOOMERANG, and consider whether it might be easier just to leave well enough alone. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

TheShadowCrow was placed under ARBAA sanctions in a previous thread, quite recent too, they appealed, I think it's still on WP:AN, it was rejected, and now this. Blackmane (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd go further, it looks to have been soundly rejected at AN. Kindof proves my point, I'd think. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't prove anything. I actually linked the AN discussion, though I wouldn't be suprised if you haven't read it. It would have been off topic to discuss there so I created a seperated discussion. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually, I did read through the AN thread when I checked to see where I had seen your name (and Bearman's) recently. Yay WP:AGF. I see there that you claimed that Bearman spends 80% of his time attacking you, a claim that I find to be both laughable and a borderline personal attack (as was indicated in that thread as well). The diffs you provide above don't show a pattern of behavior or wikistalking - rather, they show that Bearman (correctly, I think) reverted your edits. Your conduct in relation to your appeal has led several editors in the AN thread to question whether you should even be allowed to continue editing wikipedia at all. I'm not going to dig through your edits, as I don't think they are particularly relevant, but one did stand out - this edit, where you command NE Ent to reopen the discussion at AN. It's indicative of your conduct in general - you're adversarial. Several other editors have advised you to drop this issue and walk away, and I did the same above. There was no consensus at AN of any wrongdoing on the part of Bearman998. It might not be unwise for Bearman998 to give you some distance, and for you to do the same - leave each other alone. But I don't see anything in Bearman's conduct to warrant such an interaction ban - rather, I'd just note that there are now lots and lots of editors monitoring your conduct, any one of whom can be expected to revert a bad edit. There is no further need for Bearman to do the heavy lifting, as it were. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You also seem to be wikilawyering at AN, as with this edit where you attempt to remove some of the Opposes from consideration. Statements such as that are not helpful to your cause, and will do nothing to convince editors that your claims have merit. Quite the opposite, usually. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Cblambert

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

---

This user seems to attempt to taunt me on several electrical articles. He makes ad hominem remarks when edits are reverted and editwars continually reverting to his text or his diagrams despite satisfactory diagrams, from others, already in the articles. He will not stop despite talk page discussions, where he ignores lack of consensus. I edited the article Transformer and shortly he returned, after about ten days of no editing, to revert almost every edit injected by myself and other editors involved. When I moved to another article Dot Convention he followed, changed the name of the article, removed much of my work, place diagrams created by himself that conflict with the original diagram done by a senior editor, years ago. In the new article talk page he indicates he doesn't understand the technology, after many reverts of other editors text concerning the same subject matter, in various articles. His latest trick is to move talk page text, where he used insulting ad hominem comments, to the top of the talk page, hide them with closure and collapse edits and then archive them, despite being current topics active in edit.

Called user an "abusive SOB" [[15]]

Assumes bad faith after my opinion given for his request. He has used this technique in other article talk pages by garbling his English and retorting with techo nonsense that isn't related. Sometimes he removes the signature lines from his edits during these retorts. [[16]][[17]]

Makes the ABF more clear [[18]]

Labels my edits as "vandalism", inserting his diagram again without discussion[[19]]after reverted changes[[20]]

Miscellaneous more insults and attacks [[21]]

Attempts to hide comments by re-arranging comments to top of talk page and collapsing[[22]]

After my revert and warning he rearranges and collapses comments again saying "discussion is closed"[[23]]

Now he attempts to archive all discussion on page[24]]

After restoring he archives talk page agin[[25]]

After another restoration he archives the talk page again advising to continue discussion on archive page. I understand archives are not to be touched[[26]]

Another editwar edit archiving despite warning in history summary [[27]]

Frequently uses references to writer's names with links that don't function to support his edits[[28]]

Has injected this nonsense prose one more time, not supported by his supplied references, in two articles despite many editors reverting it and attempting to correct it with reverts and discussions on talk pages (that he attempted to archive). Note: only his major edits after another's editor's edits are shown. Many good faith edits were done by User:Cblambert on this same paragraph. Then apparently he doesn't understand the concept.[[29]][[30]][[31]][[32]][[33]][[34]][[35]] [[36]][[37]]

Now what? I understood that archiving is requested and current discussions newer than a week old should be retained. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: This user seems to attempt to taunt me on several electrical articles.

Cblambert: This is patently not true.Cblambert (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: He makes ad hominem remarks when edits are reverted and editwars continually reverting to his text or his diagrams despite satisfactory diagrams, from others, already in the articles.

Cblambert: This is not true. This is normal dispute.Cblambert (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: He will not stop despite talk page discussions, where he ignores lack of consensus.

cblambert: Accuser does not use 5 pillars approach well. Nobody else has editor this problem.Cblambert (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: I edited the article Transformer and shortly he returned, after about ten days of no editing, to revert almost every edit injected by myself and other editors involved.

cblambert: This copy-editing was done in good faith.Cblambert (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: When I moved to another article Dot Convention he followed, changed the name of the article, removed much of my work, place diagrams created by himself that conflict with the original diagram done by a senior editor, years ago.

cblambert: The diagram is still in dispute.Cblambert (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: In the new article talk page he indicates he doesn't understand the technology, after many reverts of other editors text concerning the same subject matter, in various articles.

cblambert: This is a valid question, which is still being disputed because the diagram is still wrong and dispute in good faith.Cblambert (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: His latest trick is to move talk page text, where he used insulting ad hominem comments, to the top of the talk page, hide them with closure and collapse edits and then archive them, despite being current topics active in edit. His latest trick is to move talk page text, where he used insulting ad hominem comments, to the top of the talk page, hide them with closure and collapse edits and then archive them, despite being current topics active in edit.

cblambert: See Talk section in question, which was closed because of abusive language. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transformer/Archive_8&action=edit&section=1

Re: This user seems to attempt to taunt me on several electrical articles.

Cblambert: This is patently not true.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: He makes ad hominem remarks when edits are reverted and editwars continually reverting to his text or his diagrams despite satisfactory diagrams, from others, already in the articles.

Cblambert: This is not true. This is normal dispute.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: He will not stop despite talk page discussions, where he ignores lack of consensus.

cblambert: Accuser does not use 5 pillars approach well. No other editor has this problem. This was an extensive discussion to build consensus in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transformer/Archive_8#Turn_ratio & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transformer/Archive_8#Improvement_of_explanation_for_the_non-expert. Note in particular in former section(Turn ratio) accuser assertion that ':Ratios are never referred to as "n". This is incorrect mathematically and original research by you and is not welcome in WP article.', which was very well known to be untrue and was indeed in Talk substantiated beyond any doubt whatsoever. Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: I edited the article Transformer and shortly he returned, after about ten days of no editing, to revert almost every edit injected by myself and other editors involved.

cblambert: This copy-editing was done in good faith.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: When I moved to another article Dot Convention he followed, changed the name of the article, removed much of my work, place diagrams created by himself that conflict with the original diagram done by a senior editor, years ago.

cblambert: The diagram is still in dispute. In connection with changed name of the article, accuser complimented me on the change. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polarity_(Mutual_inductance)&action=edit&section=7Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: In the new article talk page he indicates he doesn't understand the technology, after many reverts of other editors text concerning the same subject matter, in various articles.

cblambert: This is a valid question, which is still being disputed because the diagram is still wrong and dispute in good faith.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: His latest trick is to move talk page text, where he used insulting ad hominem comments, to the top of the talk page, hide them with closure and collapse edits and then archive them, despite being current topics active in edit. His latest trick is to move talk page text, where he used insulting ad hominem comments, to the top of the talk page, hide them with closure and collapse edits and then archive them, despite being current topics active in edit.

cblambert: See Talk section in question, which was closed because of abusive language.

Re: Called user an "abusive SOB" [[38]]

cblambert: User in question has been abusive to me and many, many other for years, and was particularly abusive in exchange in question. User in question has not commented about this.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Assumes bad faith after my opinion given for his request.

cblambert: See abusive language in exchange in 'Close gaps to get to 'Equivalent circuit' with Heyland factor?' section above.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Labels my edits as "vandalism", etc.

cblambert: I admit doing this two, exactly same number of times as accuser.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Miscellaneous more insults and attacks

cblambert: No insults made. Never. I have always been respectful to accuser. See abusive language in exchange in 'Close gaps to get to 'Equivalent circuit' with Heyland factor?' section above.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Attempts to hide comments by re-arranging comments to top of talk page and collapsing[[39]]

cblambert: What is he talking about. There is no hiding in Wikipedia. I wanted to make a clear point that this kind self-serving escalation was coming to an end with 'Discussion closed' in collapsible section heading.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: After my revert and warning he rearranges and collapses comments again saying "discussion is closed"

cblambert: Yes. I wanted to make a clear point that this kind self-serving escalation was coming to an end with 'Discussion closed' in collapsible section heading.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Now he attempts to archive all discussion on page

cblambert: The discussion was not health for anybody. Good way to de-escalate. Needed archiving.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: After another restoration he archives the talk page again advising to continue discussion on archive page. I understand archives are not to be touched

cblambert: The discussion was not health for anybody. Good way to de-escalate. Needed archiving. I archived using Wikipedia Help.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Frequently uses references to writer's names with links that don't function to support his edits

cblambert: This is simply untrue. Very seldom does this happen. Have a look.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Has injected this nonsense prose one more time, not supported by his supplied references, in two articles despite many editors reverting it and attempting to correct it with reverts and discussions on talk pages (that he attempted to archive). Note: only his major edits after another's editor's edits are shown. Many good faith edits were done by User:Cblambert on this same paragraph. Then apparently he doesn't understand the concept.

cblambert: Record will show there is no nonsense prose with meticulously supported reference. See for example Variable-frequency drive, Charles Proteus Steinmetz, Electric motor and of course Transformer. 'The apparently he doesn't understand the concept.' is patently false.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Now what? I understood that archiving is requested and current discussions newer than a week old should be retained.

cblambert: Accuser can refer to Archive to continue the discussion.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, you aren't supposed to continue discussions in archives. You're supposed to continue the discussion by either raising the point back on the main talk page or de-archiving the old thread(s) via copy-paste. FallingGravity (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I admidetdly am not an expert on archive. All the sections had in my view been answered or closed. Accuser appeared to be intent on milking the issue indefinitely, which could only be defused in my view by archiving.Cblambert (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Changed attitude by accuser since archiving and ANI Notice posting has been radically improved in terms of consistency with Wikipedia pillars and unusual deference, but the ass-covering is re-double immensely.

I've cleared up the responses here because of the atrocious indenting. Cblambert, learn to indent properly. Your responses are hard enough to make out as it is. Also, you do not need to sign at the end of every response. Just sign at the end. Blackmane (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Further comment: I'd like to see the justification of unilaterally moving 100kb worth of talk page discussion to an archive manually. Also, collapsing article talk page discussion to shut it down is looked upon poorly especially if you and another editor are having a content dispute. I'll leave the other behavourial stuff to the admins to deal with. Blackmane (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've cleared up the responses here because of the atrocious indenting. Cblambert, learn to indent properly.

I don't know what you cleared.

Justification is that Accuser was being abusive. Collapsible discussion what because the discussion had nothing to do with my innocent comment. Read the discussion. You will see.

Archiving was the next step in accuser's abusive escalation. Read the discussion. You will see.

I agree to leave the other behavourial stuff to admins to deal with.

Many thanks.Cblambert (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: General comments to put this ANI Notice in perspective My approach to Wikipedia

-------------------------

When I got into Wikipedia, following retirement a few ago, I decided to concentrate in a few key areas that looked to me to need major clean-up as follows:

• First, of key VFD article along with associated vector control (motor) and Direct torque control articles. Eventually, I play a central role in successfully turning VFD into a GA. The article is now stabilized with very very few editing changes being done for the past several months.
• More recently, of the key Electrical motor article including in terms of associated Electric motor template, AC motor, History of the electric motor, Torque and speed of a DC motor and Circle diagram. Though not in as good a shape as VFD, Electrical motor also seems to have stabilized with very very few editing changes being done for the past few months.
• More recently, of the miscellaneous small electrical articles Thevenin's theorem, Norton's theorem and Charles Proteus Steinmetz, which were and remain very stable in terms of editing changes.
• Sporadically during that period, of the most prestigious Transformer article and associated Dot convention (incidently Accuser was not evolved when I first started dabbling with Dot convention) on which I have devoted an extraordinary amount of effort, without however achieved an equivalent degreee of stability in editing changes. Transformer is still very much a work progress but despite a lot of effort on my part and my other editors, it is unclear if the article will stabilize to the same degree as VFD and Electrical motor articles have. This is especially interesting because, on the one hand, Electrical motor and Transformer articles have a lot in common in terms of basic principles, and, on the other hand, the approaches between the two articles could not more difference. Also, in my view, the quality of the Transformer article is clearly superior than that of the Electric motor article.

Possible explanation for conflict between Accuser and me

--------------------------------------------------------

I surmise that this conflict stems to a great extent due to the different backgrounds. My own engineering and management background is in heavy industry, which has built in me a strong affinity for understand basic principles to underlie these major clean-up article efforts.

I'm not sure but my sense is that Accuser's background is more on the practical side and he recently mentioned his experience is in manucturing and government (measurement).

In any case, whereas I am keenly interested in key Transformer article principles such as magnetism, Accuser appears to have a high affinity for practical, hands-on aspects.

For whatever reason, finding common ground has proven somewhat elusive.Cblambert (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sweet mother of TL;DR, is this for real? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've de-archived talk:transformer and deleted /Archive 8. This was plainly inappropriate talk page ownership, where Cblambert attempted to close ongoing discussion against the will of other participants. As to the substance of the debate, the basic gist is that Cblambert has, over the last several months, significantly reworked transformer to be closer to what would be expected of an academic textbook, and in the process reduced its accessibility by promoting the theory material above the more general contents. All well and good if you're an electrical engineering undergraduate, but that's not the case for the vast majority of potential viewers. Talk page discussion mostly consisted of people talking past each other until Cblambert decided to simply close the whole thing down. This needs more eyes both from subject experts and from editors with a knack for brilliant prose. I don't think there's particular evidence of any vendetta here on Cblambert's behalf, merely a bit of a tendency to substitute repeating himself and carrying on for actually engaging with criticism. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I was edit conflicted with CBlambert's inappropriate removal of Basalisk's comment. In reply to your comment, Cblambert, I fixed the indenting of your initial response which was kept completely in line with the IP user's first posting making it very difficult to read. Indenting is done by adding in a colon, if you're not familiar with it. Blackmane (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• A few points:

1. ANI is not the place to have a content dispute
2. It appears that both parties are trying to improve the project
3. Archives should never be edited: that's even what the writing around them says
4. A participant in a discussion should NEVER archive said discussion in order to stop it from continuing
5. We have WP:DR processes for a reason. This includes WP:RFC's and WP:3O - USE THEM
6. Do not ever WP:OWN an article
7. Remember that WP:CONSENSUS rules

Now, everyone go back to the article talkpage with these basic rules in mind (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re:the basic gist is that Cblambert has, over the last several months, significantly reworked transformer to be closer to what would be expected of an academic textbook

Thank you. It should be very clear excerpt higfhlighted here is plain false. There was a lot of effort but their was no attempt to get closer to to what would be expected of an academic textbook. The emphasis is on truth not academic realism. Just like in variable-frequency drive, one of only three electric engineering WP Good Articles. Again thank you for what must surely be a difficult role WP Administrators have to deal with.Cblambert (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Also. There was no editing on my part of archive, all editing having been done in the active Talk pages. Thank you again.Cblambert (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You've missed the point. It's not tat you edited an archived discussion, but that you inappropriately created an archive of the entire talk page and also inappropriately collapsed a discussion you and another editor were having on the pretext of "abusive comments". Beyond that, it would be wise to follow Bwilkins' advice. Blackmane (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Complainers note: Cblambert also moved the text, in question, with your ad hominem attacks out of order, to the top of the talk page[[40]] combined with the improper "closing", "collapsing" and "archiving" adds up to what appears to be a clear case of an attempt to hide the history of your comments. A simple apology would have sufficed, for me. (say you were drunk. LOL). If you actually see an abusive comment from me, please list it and point it out. As my text explained, you have used this confusion before to avoid consensus collaboration if the content isn't going your way. I still feel your injection of nonsense technical formulae in articles is very negative to WP project. Since you refuse to discuss this without arising distractive issues, we are here. Many attempts from myself, User:Wtshymanski and others have failed. You have done some good work but you display too much article ownership witnessed by your bragging elsewhere about how Transformer is a perfect example and model of a great article. As I understand it, and have seen mentioned to you previously, in reverts of your flooding articles with math formulae, we already have engineering texts for high tech people and this style is not wanted in WP to that level. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Cblambert I would like to point out this article to you Y-Δ transform. Note the comments at the top of the article warning readers this is about complex mathematical stuff? Perhaps there is a place for engineering textbook level edits, like I feel you want to do. I cannot create articles as an IP, but as an anonymous named editor you can, I believe. This way a long involved article like Transformerscould have the simpler prose explanations with a link to the complex math stuff for people that want the nitty-gritty. I attempted to explain this to you on the talk page but you did the same response I complained about here, and went on the defensive with an attack and distraction about something I didn't say. Again you can do some good stuff and you certainly not a lazy editor, like lot of us, but I think it doesn't belong in certain places. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

The Invisible War

There appears to be some disruptive editing on The Invisible War. User:Alicia1811 has been deleting well-sourced information and replacing it with non-sourced information. The user appears to have an agenda of discrediting the film. I have posted a notice on the user's talk page, as well as on Talk:The Invisible War but have heard no reply. I have reverted, but the user reverts back without adding any new discussion to the talk page. Recent Diffs: [41] [42] [43]. This user has been taking similar actions over the past few months, including repeatedly deleting information about the film and posting new information without citations [44], deleting flags [45], and moving the "Criticism" section to the top of the page [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] Peanutbuttertoast (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The user's attempts to delete sourced content with the cop-out edit summary "false information", their inability to understand WP:UNDUE when moving the criticism section, and the fact that they have referred you to the talk page despite the fact they've never once edited the talk page make me think this user is trying to push a PoV on this article. We should enforce WP:BRD and discuss with the user more thoroughly just how they are disrupting Wikipedia while dissuading them from edit warring. – Richard BB 11:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Alicia is definitley pushing a POV as her only edits have been to this article (and one to another article that linked back to this one). She's got the "B" and the "R" down fine in BRD, but really needs to work on the "D" part. If she doesn't learn that part soon, especially after seeing the notification about this discussion on her talk page, then we'll have to look into another resolution. I suggest possibly locking the article next. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Johndheathcote POV pushing, (indirect) personal attack at Ten Lost Tribes

User:Johndheathcote has twice reverted material in the lead of the article in question, the second time leaving an explanation on the article talk page insinuating that I was being manipulative and unethical due to the edits I had made to the article.

After I reverted the removal of material from academic Tudor Parfitt from the lead, he created a criticism section and removed other material as well in a second revert. It not officially an edit war yet, but heading that way. The additional material removed in the second revert provides historical framework. He also edited one sentence I wrote that rendered it into broken, unintelligible English.

This is a subject based upon written religious tradition and is speculated by some historians.

He had initially removed only the Parfitt text and placed it under a criticism section that he’d created under “Other traditions” [55]. The second revert [56] had the edit summary: (Removing text as it is an inappropriate introduction to the article. Please see talk section for my explanation.)

Talk:Ten_Lost_Tribes#Replaced_criticism_on_in_opening_statement_to_separate_deserving_section

Rather than focusing on universally accepted history, the lines in question lead readers to believe that nonexistence of the 12 lost tribes is a mainstream belief, when in actual fact, there is much historical evidence to their dispersion. By putting forth such a perspective in the beginning summary is both manipulative and unethical. At least honor the research and beliefs of millions of historians, scholars and religious believers before introducing criticism.

Aside from misrepresenting the text from Parfitt quoted in the lead, he appeals to scholars and historians that do not exist. His reference to “beliefs” and “religious believers” is probably what is most indicative about the mindset of the editor.

Moreover, he didn’t stop at POV pushing his phantom “universally accepted history”, but accused me (indirectly, as the individual who made the edit that has been the primary target of the reverts) of being “manipulative and unethical”. I consider that to be an ad hominem personal attack made in conjunction with misrepresentation of sources and POV pushing in an attempt to promote “beliefs” that the academic RS he has attempted to remove from the lead situate historically and refute as having any basis in reality.

I’ve spent substantial time in discussions with editors seemingly intent on promoting associated myths and denigrating the corresponding historical scholarship/genetics research on related articles, such as British Israelism, Japanese-Jewish common ancestry theory, Hata clan, etc. Though I don’t have time to further edit those articles at present, I watch and maintain them to some extent, but the personal attack (albeit indirect) in this case has resulted in my pursuing whatever preventative measures are appropriate here, as I don't want to have to spend even more time on this issue later.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm struggling to overcome TLDR, but pulling apart what you wrote, there doesn't seem much call for admin action. I don't think even the most block-happy admin would use the tool for what you admit was at most "indirect" personal attack. This is mostly a content dispute that has become heated. There are lots of ways to address that and threads at ANI are about the least useful. --Dweller (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This filling is not about the content dispute, rather it is about the POV pushing including the misrepresentation of sources, the failure to provide sources, and a moralizing ad hominem personal attack by an experienced editor.

If you and other administrators don't have the time to read the thread, that's a problem that exceeds the scope of this filing. As I said, this is intended as a preventative measure, as I do not intend to waste any more of my time arguing with POV-pushing editors that continually show up on the series of articles related to this topic and attempt to promote a cluster of beliefs they suppose are based on their religion, apparently, which they argue for without presenting RS and try to support with pseudo-historical claims while suppressing the relevant academic sources on the actual history, including studies on genetics.

I do not find anything productive in the accusations of being manipulative and unethical leveled against me by the editor in question; moreover, the editor could be characterized as being delusional on the basis of his edits and explanations (e.g., "universally accepted history"), and that doesn't even address the condescending moralizing nature of the personal attack. If there is manipulation involved, it can be seen in the various fallacious claims in the explanation the editor left on the Talk page, along with the moralizing tone of the personal attack.

This is an attempt at dispute resolution related to conduct, not content. The conduct is, of course, related to the content. I'm not necessarily looking for the user to be blocked, as I don't know whether that would solve the problem, which seems to recur. Both the POV pushing and the personal attack are unacceptable policy violations, so I would expect at least warnings to be issued to the editor, particularly with respect to the POV pushing. Maybe there should be a remedial training course set up that would verify such editors are aware of the fact that they have to support their edits with RS.Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 01:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• It is noteworthy that User:Johndheathcote removed his signature from the Talk page entry [57][58], apparently in an attempt to conceal his identity. For someone that has apparently been on Wikipedia since 2007, such behavior would seem to be beyond bizarre. The content of his Talk page, however, is rather one-dimensional and he has less than 500 edits in approximately 6 years.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Great! Ok, so looks like all I need to do is submit some resources. A question for the admin... any number or specific references required...? I mean the whole article is chock full of resources. We've got primary sources (Bible and other contemporary documents), genetic research and opinions of historians in addition to the personal beliefs of millions of people to back up historical and ciltural evidence of the lost 12 tribes. I'm just not sure where the confusion is about not having resources. My argument was noted on the wikipedia talk page associated with the lost 12 tribes and is as follows: "Controversial quotes and ideas that are not in line with generally agreed history give an inaccurate perspective of such an important topic. Rather than focusing on universally accepted history, the lines in question lead readers to believe that nonexistence of the 12 lost tribes is a mainstream belief, when in actual fact, there is much historical evidence to their dispersion. By putting forth such a perspective in the beginning summary is both manipulative and unethical. At least honor the research and beliefs of millions of historians, scholars and religious believers before introducing criticism. In all articles, criticism belongs as a final and last section rather than part of the introduction. The lines in question are inappropriate further because they quote the belief (not personal experience or first hand testimony) of a single person 2500 years displaced, unrelated to the event… in the opening lines of the article." Special note on, "In all articles, criticism belongs as a final and last section rather than part of the introduction." What do you guys think admin? Or do I need to be addressing this on a separate page. It is of note that in my revision I made no deletion but on replaced them to another section more deserving of the topic. Sorry, I am still a beginner and still learning but I am quite sure I am correct on this issue. 83462 16:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndheathcote (talk • contribs)

Admins, I understand that it must be a mundane task to have to school a non-native speaker of English such as Johndheathcote, who indicates he intends to use the Bible and other primary sources above, but his editing and behavior has become somewhat disruptive, so it is up to you.

Incidentally, related subject matter has been raised in discussions on the Talk page, etc., and in edit summaries such as this pair [59][60], and the article includes a template addressing the problem. Obviously he will not have been the first to try and use the religious texts to represent history. Is trying to plead ignorance of the template, which has been there for more than two years?

He has been on Wikipedia since 2007 and claims he is still a beginner, which I suppose is to be taken as a mea culpa that he is not familiar with WP:5. If that is the case, I suggest that you provide such guidance to prevent further disruptive editing by Johndheathcote.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Kuyi123w

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

---

This editor, registered on Mar 28, but clearly familiar with the inner workings of Wikipedia, was recently blocked [61] for poor editing, and a total failure to communicate. It is readily apparent to me that this pattern has continued after the block elapsed. To give but a few examples, Kuyi123w had copy-pasted the text "n September 2005, Lovebird’s Larry Page and Lucy Southworth take pleasure in a getaway in Hawaii on a non-public jet" into the Lucy Southworth article [62] - not only a copyvio, but obviously inappropriate tabloid language - and note that the bio in question has been recreated by Kuyi123w after a recent AfD decision that it didn't meet notability guidelines - I asked Kuyi123w for an explanation, but needless to say, none has been forthcoming. Or another example, Kuyi123w has taken to adding the place of birth in to the lede of articles - replacing the word 'born' with the placename. Not only does this not comply with the MoS, but it appears that Kuyi123w isn't even aware of what they are doing: in the case of Ralf Fährmann, the text " (born 27 September 1988 in Karl-Marx-Stadt)" was replaced by "(Chemnitz 27 September 1988 in Karl-Marx-Stadt)". [63] (note that Karl-Marx-Stadt redirects to Chemnitz). Much further evidence of Kuyi123w's lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is about can be found at User talk:Kuyi123w, where such delights as a section entitled "Speedy deletion nomination of List of advertising spaces web available" can be found. Without wishing to prejudge the issue, I can't help feeling that what we have here falls firmly within the bounds of WP:COMPETENCE territory, and that blocking the editor sooner rather than later would be in the best interests of everyone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. Although I don't see many attempts to actually talk to the editor, the history is dreadful. The editor's deleted contribution history is miles long. Even some of the pages created that were not deleted were redirected. The only time the editor has ever "talked" is when they contest a speedy deletion ([64]) or when they moved a talk page ([65]), which isn't really talking. User:Jac16888, who blocked the editor, tried to get the user to respond but to no avail ([66]).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I haven't got much experience with this editor but even my limited observations are in line with Andy's. This editor seems to be adding all kinds of junk to the encyclopedia, a real hodgepodge of marginal and sometimes harmful edits (e.g. substituting a generic "school" portal for Michigan at the University of Michigan, here), and despite repeated suggestions, comments and warnings by other editors, fails to give any indication that they perceive any problem at all. They just - keep going, and with determination. And - more than 1400 edits (live and deleted) and just 10 to any Talk page. They seem just as determined not to discuss these issues - JohnInDC (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Further questionable editing: this paragraph [67] is a direct Google Translate version of the source cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I intend to take a look at this later today, but in the absence of any comments against, with no input from the editor, and with a continuing pattern of disruption, I will probably indef the user. Although I know little about the Italian Wikipedia, some of the editor's habits here may be in line with customs there, e.g., portal bars on every page, but I could be wrong as I haven't looked at enough articles at the Italian Wikipedia, just the ones that the editor has essentially transferred here (that appears to be part of their agenda).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with an indef block, Kuyi123w is (intentionally or not) causing a good deal of disruption and either unwilling to listen to, or unable to understand, the numerous attempts made to reach out to them - WP:CIR--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I have indeffed the user. Even since my message from earlier (just above), Kuyi123w has continued the same editing pattern (at quite a clip). The disruption is too extensive. @JohnInDC, if you want to clean up the latest mess the editor left behind (thanks for cleaning up earlier messes), that would be most appreciated (you're not required to, of course).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Page moves

Laranunu (talk · contribs) has been moving several pages of The Bold and the Beautiful characters in a way that does not comply with WP:COMMONNAME. They were warned about this twice (by myself and another user), but continue to do it.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to leave them a final warning. For the record, I'm not sure if this malicious or plain incompetence. Generally speaking, a warning shouldn't be the first message left for a new user. Before I leave Laranunu the warning, I'm going to leave a welcome message with links to the policies we're trying to enforce. AniMate 03:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as per WP:IGNORANCE (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

User: Rajkumaryadav123

Rajkumaryadav123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rajkumaryadav123 has been a Wikipedia editor since October 2012. Since then, he has acquired a ton of speedy deletions on articles he's created ranging from one sentence articles on airports to copyvios. Despite 2 blocks (one this month for sockpuppetry, one last month for disruptive editing) and multiple warnings from editors, he has continued this disruptive streak of editing. It is clear that he is tuning out other editors' warnings and disruptively editing at his own will. In the past hour, he wrote several one sentence articles about airports and non-notable people. Something has to be done to stop this disruption. I propose an indefinite block, or if that is too severe, a 1 month+ block. All the proof you need is on his talkpage. If he is not blocked, it is clear he will continue disruptively editing. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 05:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've indeffed him. Most disruptive editors don't get nearly this much rope before the blockhammer descends, so I don't see this as being a decision that's likely to cause any controversy. I've nothing against any admin unblocking if a decent appeal is posted; no need to consult me first. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

[[WP:I don't like it, but good block]]. From what I can see from the National Informatics Centre and the Indian states' websites, most (and possibly all) of the localities don't actually have airports. I'll see if I can find one to write as a suggestion for him.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Update: I tried to find references for the purportedly existing airport articles that Rajkumaryadav123 had started. No NIC or Karnataka state government website mentions, no ICOA codes for any of them. This seems unrepairable. 100% support indef block.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Edit: "references" - these airports simply do not exist. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:OWN and WP:PA at Japanese military history articles

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

---

Darkness walks (talk · contribs · logs) seems to have serious issues with WP:OWN. I tried to fix the openings of a couple of articles (Tachi). I removed some oddly-formatted references that didn't seem necessary to begin with ("A tachi is a type of Japanese sword."), an out-of-place Commons link, and changed the sentence to the past-tense so as not to imply that samurai still exist.[68] I was soon reverted in a rather abrupt manner.[69] I'm not sure what "referenced text" I removed that was so important, but...

I have asked him to engage me on the talk pages and tell me what his problem with my edits is, but have received no response.[70] Now I am just waiting for him to revert me again at some stage in the future.

I had similar experiences in a couple of other articles.[71][72] I also posted two RMs for poorly-titled articles in this area,[73][74] and was again opposed on both counts.[75][76] I just want to change the spellings of the titles to the standard spellings as per WP:MOSJ and WP:Romanization, but Darkness walks insists that his citing of one or two sources of questionable reliability that misspell the words in the same way Wikipedia articles currently means the articles can't be moved. When the RMs started to turn against him, he started resorting to personal attacks.[77]

He is currently under investigation. Darkness walks is also taking the SPI very personally, despite me and the other accuser reminding him that it is not personal. He has in fact made it personal by attacking me instead of making a rational defence.[78]

I am beginning to get tired of dealing with his personal attacks and his refusal to use talk pages. Can someone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konjakupoet (talk • contribs)

Maybe you should first tell us what ID you previously edited under. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Recently I opposed the deletion of article called Jigai, [79], I also reverted some inappropriate edits on other articles where an editor removed references to "jigai" while the debate on the validity of the article was still taking place here [80] and here [81]. I believe Konjakupoet under another name was very involved in this matter and he now is trying to get some type of revenge by harassing me. He is going about this by editing Japanese articles in a way that will purposely get me to react to his edits and then he claims that his feelings are hurt by my actions. Since Konjakupoet has no history to speak of under his NEW name I am adding a few quotes from him.

(By the way, you can choose to believe that I, like you, am a block-evading sock of an indefinitely blocked user, but that won't matter as long as my edits under this username are constructive. The fact is that another user posted personal information about me against my will, and I was forced to go in for a WP:CLEANSTART. I have actually been editting Japanese history articles since 2005.) Konjakupoet (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC) [82]

For 8 years until February 2013, I edited under a different account. A disruptive user posted my personal information and started harassing me at work. I'm a fluent Japanese-speaker. Until recently I primarily edited on ja.wikipedia (I'm not telling you my username because your constant personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith have made me somewhat distrustful of you). I have also occasionally edited en.wikipedia anonymously.[83]

• Here are are Konjakupoet's contributions [84]. In a short period of time he has merged and and renamed articles with out any discussion, he has deleted text that had valid reverences and has deleted references, he leaves comments and personal attacks that seem the indicate a complete distain for Wikipedia's standard rules of conduct. If any ones editing practices should be discussed it should be User:Konjakupoet.Darkness walks (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No comment on the issues raised here, but for those watching at home I've blocked Darkness walks as a sockpuppet, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Samuraiantiqueworld. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Alan Liefting again; new proposal

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

---

Proposal: Develop and install an edit filter to prevent Alan from violating his restrictions, keep his restrictions in place, and then reduce the block as no longer being preventative.

Reasoning: It doesn't seem likely to me that if Alan is reminded (by the filter) that his actions are forbidden, that he would try to get around them. If he does try to get around that, that would show clearly it's a willfull violation of his restrictions, so the block should be for an even longer period than the nominal one year, although he could still appeal his restrictions when appropriate.

At Wikipedia talk:Edit filter#Enforcing User:Alan Liefting's ban by filter, User:King of Hearts said he would be willing to construct such a filter if there was consensus. I don't know if WP:AN or WP:ANI would be the appropriate forum for dicussion.

The filter implementation and block reduction would (separately) only be by community consensus.

Please, no !votes until there is adequate discussion and the details are worked out. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea in theory but I'm concerned about the precedent it would set. If we make such an exception for Alan what's to stop constant requests from other topic-banned users that we enforce their bans with an edit filter as well? Additionally, my understanding is that the topic ban is on category edits outside of mainspace - is this really something that can be violated inadvertently on a regular basis? Sædon^talk 00:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm unclear on why Alan can't just, you know, go ahead and adhere to his ban. He's been "reminded" many ways, many times. If he needs continual reminders, he could do something like edit his js (css? i don't speak code) to color the background orange on pages covered by the ban, or to display a big "ARE YOU EDITING A CATEGORY?" message above the edit box. Or he could just write himself a note at the top of his talk page, and read it every day. All of those things would indicate that he was at least trying to follow the community's wishes, and none of them would put the undue burden on page processing this proposal would - as I understand it, every edit made to the encyclopedia has to shuttle through the set of all edit filters before being saved, which means to save Alan having to think for two seconds, we'd be burdening literally every other edit made to en.wp. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the important thing to remember here is that Alan isn't a vandal or sock puppet. He irritated a few users with his passionate editing of categories. He is an efficient, skilled editor and is a useful contributor to the project. This filter will not only be to prevent him from editing but to try and negate the perception that he is being harassed by certain admins looking for a reason to block him. So this edit filter IMO serves several purposes while allowing a veteran editor to continue to contribute to the project. We can't ban everyone! We need to also remember that his "violations" were actually improving things and the only reason he is being blocked is because he violated a sanction, not because he is doing any harm. Kumioko (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Your thoughts, while noble, don't actually address the issue of why he can't just follow his topic ban. If he followed it, no admin would be able to sneak up under cover of darkness and harassingly ninja-block him for breaking it, and we wouldn't need to hack together software solutions to prevent him from "irritating" people. I'm just utterly confused about why we're proposing highly-complex software solutions to a problem most easily solved by a) Alan paying attention to what he's doing, or, failing that, b) Alan making the effort to (skillfully!) remind himself what he's doing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't want to digress to far off topic and rehash this again but I look at it like this. We are all volunteers and we edit what interests us and many of us, Alan included have been here for a long time and know a lot. So with that said when we see an edit that needs to be made in an area we are interested in its extremely difficult not to just go ahead and do it. I did some when I locked out my account as an IP and got accused of socking which is why I created an account again. Alan is much the same I think. He seems to be trying to follow his sanction but then sees some edits that need to be done and just does them, thereby getting blocked. As I mentioned before if these edits are not useful then we should immediately revert them. If however they were useful and he was blocked as enforcement of his sanction then the block is punitive and is preventing needed edits from being done. Its obvious to me that Alan isn't a bad guy and wants to help and edit. Its also evident to me at this point he is incapable of preventing himself from doing these edits and CBM is incapable of not blocking him. So really we only have 2 decisions IMO, accept that we will end up blocking a useful contributor who does by far more good than harm indefinitely or we do something like this edit filter to get him contributing again I am powerless to do anything other than speak in his defense. You all are the ones with the power to block him, to unblock him, to create the edit filter or lift the sanction so its really up to you all what to do here. Kumioko (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
        • If somebody does the right thing for the wrong reason, it's still a wrong thing, especially if it happens repeatedly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, every single edit made to the entire English Wikipedia is tested against every single edit filter. Does Alan Liefting's inability to self-police his own edits really justify this overhead? And are we going to create edit filters for every editor who can't abide by community-imposed restrictions?

One of the purposes (whether explicit or implicit) of this type of restriction is to determine whether or not an editor is capable of understanding and assimilating the community's concerns—bluntly, every time someone isn't just blocked outright, the community is giving them a second chance at the end of a length of WP:ROPE. Creating the edit filter says three things:

1. We, as a project, cannot do without this particular editor's contributions.
2. We, as a project, don't believe that this editor can abide by and respect the community's wishes without a hard technical barrier.
3. We, as a project, are willing to devote real, finite technical resources to keeping this editor unblocked.

I'm not persuaded that we want to say all of those things. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose technological solution for sociological issue. Not good. Admins should simply have good judgement, not required to be filter "techies." NE Ent 01:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • [edit conflict with Ten and Ent] Nice idea, but I don't like it for technical reasons; note that I'd strongly support it if it didn't have the technical problems. A single-user filter can occasionally be good, such as the one King of Hearts has created for blocked users to enable them to edit only the pages where their unblock discussions are being held, but he only needs one such filter because it's temporary, and he can modify it each time he applies it to a different user. This kind of filter will need to be created anew for every editor to which we apply it. Filters, by their nature, are run against every edit made by every editor, whether or not logged in. Each one impairs performance by a tiny amount, and if we have single-user filters, either we're going to employ them disproportionately (why should one or a few users have filters for themselves when other people with similar bans have no filters?), or we're going to be using enough that they impair performance by more than a tiny amount. Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Fluffernutter's first post above has it right: if a technical restriction is to applied, it really has to be applied from Alan's user space. It's his own responsibility to adhere to his restriction, not the community's to adapt to whatever behavior led to it. If he desires such assistance, Alan can request one of our JS wizard's help once his block runs its course.  davidiad { t } 02:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - While a good idea, I have to agree in principle with Ent - it doesn't help the user if there's a technological crutch that's the only thing keeping him from violating sanctions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per NE Ent. Also suggest anyone bringing up this general subject again before the end of the month be given 100 lashes with a wet noodle, with a heaping helping of trout on the side. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – Some admins seem to prefer a framework where they can moralise and punish, rather than a boring one where they facilitate content building. Although Alan's restriction was precise, the admin system often advocates blurred restrictions which keep content builders off balance and under the thumb of admins. This inexactitude is then plastered over with a facade of juridicial rigour. We see this operating particularly in the current ArbCom decisions, where the fashion seems to be to apply vague edit restrictions to an editor, and then wait until they make an edit distantly related to the restriction. The editor is then blocked on the grounds that "broadly construed" they violated the restriction. I think this is cruel.

A generic filter which does things like blocking the ability to edit articles belonging to certain categories would address many of these restrictions. All an admin imposing a restriction would have to do is list the restricted categories. The user name of the editor under restriction could then be added to a comma delimited list containing all the editors under filtered restrictions. At the web level, the processor has only to search this list for a match with the current editor's username. It would apply only to registered users, and with modern processors would take a matter of microseconds for all the filtered editors under restriction. The notion that there is any significant processing overhead is garbage. If a match is found, the processor would branch to the list of prohibited categories for that user, and see whether the article belongs to one of them. What could be more simple?

The other approach would be to make available an optional JS app which users under restriction could download and set with their restricted categories. This ugly game of admins lying in ambush, waiting till an editor unwittingly stumbles into a restricted area could then be done away with. But that's not what some admins want, is it?

I don't know why people are "voting". The proposer explicitly said "Please, no !votes until there is adequate discussion and the details are worked out." As for your lashes of noodles and lots of trout, Beyond My Ken, thank you very much, appreciated. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not think such an idea would be well... feasible. And as history shows edit filters are easy to bypass with knowledge of them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Well can you enlarge on that, with specifics? Certainly a user under restriction who went out of his way to bypass or sabotage a filter would be a candidate for heavy sanction. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I rather not as it is not the productive area of discussion. Filters are easily dodged, just like indefinite blocks by a determined person. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean by sock puppetry? Yes, that's a separate area. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting commentary. While NE seems to basically be accurate that would amount to a "technological solution for sociological issue", you point to a related "sociological issue" related to the admin culture here.

There would also seem to be a related issue regarding the burden on administrators, however. If such a technological measure could be implemented to reduce that burden, then admins might have more time to do the boring work of facilitating content creation instead of exercising authority.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• No, just "no". I've seen this user name time and time again on the boards. There's a 3 month block in place, let it run the distance. If Alan "gets it" as far as editing in a collaborative fashion then that's great. If not? Well ... we just have to accept that not everyone is a good fit here. I don't know the details, and I honestly don't care .. but drama for the sake of drama just isn't my style. — Ched :  ?  05:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

So why are you not in favour of filters to reduce drama? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Just IMO .. but I think it is absolute ridiculousness to write individual "filters" and "rules" for one single editor. If you're writing something to keep "I like poop" off the project .. fine. But no .. you don't spend hours finding ways to "fix" how another person edits. A person edits in good ways ... or they don't. Like I said ... just IMO. — Ched :  ?  05:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Well the reality is that some editors are blinkered in some ways, but otherwise are highly intelligent, productive and useful editors. It's just the way their brains work. It's perfectly possible for Wikipedia to use rational ways to work with them, instead of letting lose the current ham fisted approaches based on criminalising them with specious moralities, punishments and pseudo jurisprudence. Moralists on Wikipedia do more damage than legions of vandals. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Concur with NE Ent, Ched and BMK. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - The community, and the WP framework, does not bend around one editor who flouts the restrictions imposed by that community. Every editor who joins WP should understand that the way they do things is not always going to be the way. Failure to adapt your way of doing things is not a failure of the community to accomodate you, but one's failure to adapt to the community's requirements at the time, which may, or may not, change in time such that how you do things may become preferred. Blackmane (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose As explained above, if an editor cannot abide by community consensus they are not a good fit for this project—hiding the problem with a dedicated filter is not a solution. A topic banned editor may be correct (because the community came to the wrong decision), but the topic banned editor must still respect the consensus decision—that's the only way to avoid chaos. Johnuniq (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm currently under a voluntary restriction myself (see my talk page for it, it's posted on top ). Far as I'm concerned it's up to me to not only adhere to it, but not to even look like I'm trying to game it. If I have any question whether an edit of mine would fall under the restrictions I have, I know enough to ask the admin that suggested this restriction to me, if they say don't do that edit, I don't. We don't need rules or filters for one edit, that editor needs to adhere to his restictions on his own we're not therapy , after all .  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment – The main point is that a sensible use of filters would minimize dramah and maximize productivity. The opinions above express interesting views from a sample of editors who follow the dramah boards. They indicate that reducing dramah is not to be encouraged on Wikipedia, and that facilitating ways to maximise productivity from other editors should not be regarded as a function of admins. I suppose that makes sense of a sort. One comment above says Wikipedia should not be therapy. Perhaps (though I'd still ask why not?) But Wikipedia does have the capacity to provide a fertile ground where social and entertainment needs can be met, and the pleasures of moralising, righteousness and punishment can be experienced. I'm not convinced however, that the large majority of productive editors, who are not attracted to these boards and whose opinions consequently go unrecorded, have the same views. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kosh, the point is that if an editor is subject to a community-sanctioned ban in certain areas, the editor should work actively to show they won't abuse the trust of the community again. Instead, this editor has abused the trust of the community time and time and time again. Worse still, this editor doesn't seem to show any kind of contrition. At all. We can use as many editors as possible, but only those who want to act as part of a community, not as unguided missiles. Sadly, this editor falls into the latter category (no pun intended). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Arshad.mohammed18

Arshad.mohammed18 (talk · contribs) has recently started to review AfC submissions again. My attention was drawn to Aandhra Pradesh State Archives and Research Institute which is not only a blatant c&p copyvio, but was also 'reviewed' by the author who created it – not itself a wikicrime, but generally considered poor form and rather pointless. Looking at their other contribs I'm seeing further copyright concerns. Arshad seems to have a propensity to copy and paste text from various locations (including my user page) and my (and others) previous attempts to raise this issue with him seem to have failed to bring about any change. I suspect this more of a WP:COMPETENCE issue than anything genuinely malicious but it does cast into doubt his competence to properly review submissions at AfC, and more broadly speaking edit Wikipedia. I propose one of the following sanctions:

• Option 1: Arshad is topic-banned from working (broadly construed) at Articles for Creation for a period of one year, and agrees to a period of mentoring from an experienced editor (to be appointed here); during which time he will not create new articles until they have been checked by his mentor. His mentor will decide when this period of mentoring is complete.
• Option 2: Arshad is temporarily blocked for uploading copyrighted material, and is topic-banned from working (broadly construed) at Articles for Creation for a period of one year.

Pol430 talk to me 11:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

And he's just re-factored my post [85]... Pol430 talk to me 11:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Unrefactored. Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations are serious. I would prefer this: FurrySings (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Option 3: Arshad is temporarily blocked for uploading copyrighted material, and is indefinitely topic-banned from working (broadly construed) at Articles for Creation.

• I left Arshed a message saying "any more and you'll get a long block, and don't refactor others' comments either". I hope that the admin deleting any future copyvios will go to the user's talk page, notice my message, and act on it. Nyttend (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Problems with deleting redirection and establishing a new redirection to the old page

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

---

hi!

i tried to redirect the article "Elfdalian dialect" back to its original heading "Elfdalian", but the article has disappeared. Is there any way of restoring it?

many thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrøn (talk • contribs) 20:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You edited an existing article to turn it into a redirect (this is known as a cut and paste move), rather than moving using the "move" tab at the top of the page. If this does not work, then you need to follow the WP:RM process. I have restored the article btw. Number 57 20:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User Ljuboni

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

---

Hello,

I am reporting the problematic behavior of User:Ljuboni (WP:TEND, he targets only specific articles - WP:SPA). This user in my opinion is not respecting the NPOV when editing. He is not very active therefore I have avoided bringing this problem up, but he shows some activities again, and whenever he does so, he makes nonconstructive edits.

His favorite articles are:

• Ruđer Bošković, - Beside in starting and participating in several edit wars some of his problematic edits: [86], [87]
• Vlach language (Serbia) - Where he is trying to create a dummy article with problematic POV . The article history shows numerous attempts of this practice [88]. Ex: [89], [90], [91], [92]
• Vlachs of Serbia - Where the main activity is the removal of referenced data and leaving (or inserting) data that suits his editing practice. Ex: [93], [94], [95]. He was also blocked for edit warring and unconstructive edits on Vlach language in Serbia article [96].
• Bay of Kotor - Where he removes other languages and inserts the Serbian only [[97]]

I ask for help with this user since this is a single-purpose account(WP:SPA). Especially with the consult of WP:ARBMAC regarding this kind of problems when editing Balkan related articles of which this user is informed [98]. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note that User:Ljuboni is probably editing with an IP address now [99] to avoid the 3RR (WP:GAME). Adrian (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm archiving this request (see here for rationale); I will contact you and Ljuboni on your talk pages to attempt to reach an acceptable solution. Damage, Inc. 01:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User Iadrian_yu

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

---

Respected administrators,

Concerning the complaints by the User:Iadrian_yu, it is , I am afraid, a typical switch of thesis, so I am reporting the problematic behavior of this user. As Wikipedia, unfortunately, is sometimes the place for confrontation of opinions, political, ideological or otherwise, this is another case of such thinking. As to wheather and to what extent am I active Wikipedia user, the User:Iadrian_yu is not obliged to estimate that and it is of irrelevance.

The main activity of this user concerns the articles about Romanians and Romaninan language, which is not at all unusual, since Romanian is his native language. The main problem represents that he endorses (even some extremist) views of the Romanan nationalists, and that mostly refers to all the articles concerning Vlach population in Serbia and Vlach language, as well as other Vlach (Eastern Romance) people on the Balkans. He is aiming to represent this ethnic group which is autochtonous in Serbia and to whome Serbia is their mother state as Romanians, and Vlach language as Romanian.

That Romanian nationalistic untension exists for a long time. However, I would like to point out, that the User:Iadrian_yu uses quotations which come directly from irrelevant (often pro-Romanian) sources, publications and Roamanian politicl parties, and they do not hold true to the opinion of the official institutions and representatives of the Vlach people in Serbia, and as such are not objective. (WP:TEND, he targets specific articles - WP:SPA)

Not one political party, nor an organization, except the Vlach National Council, which consists from the representatives of different Vlach political parties, which in turn were elected by the Vlach people on elections, does not hold the right to represent the Vlach people interest as a whole.

The thing I would especially like to point out is that the Vlachs are recognized as an ethnic entity in the Republic of Serbia and that they are being represented by the Vlach National Council, as in turn the Romanians is being represented by the Romanian National Council and any other ethnic community in Serbia has its own representatives.

Vlach language, although not yet fully codified (which Romanian nationalists use to force on them a Romanian language standard) is endorsed in Serbia and is used in various radio, television and other media outlets. On the other hand, the Vlach National Council, adopted its own alphabet, which represents the official alphabet:

http://www.nacionalnisavetvlaha.rs/images/vlaskopismo_velika.jpg

In the declaration of the Vlach National Council it is pointed out that their national name is: Vlach/Vlachs, mother tongue: Vlach and it is distinctively stated that no equalization between them and the Romanians, neither between Vlach and Romanian languages. This is an official statement of Radisa Dragojevic, the president of the Vlach National Council, on this issue:

“National Council head: Vlachs are not Romanians”:

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2012&mm=02&dd=28&nav_id=79019

This is a clear response to all those, among them being User:Iadrian_yu who incorrectly represent Vlachs in Serbia as a part of the Romanian people.(WP:TEND) The user User:Iadrian_yu, who personally speaks the Serbian language, knows this very well, but is consciously ignoring it. So, this user in my opinion is not respecting the (WP:NPOV) when editing.

I used the references which were published on the behalf of the Vlach National Council, and which are making the User:Iadrian_yu uncomfortable. Consequently, he does not respect some basic rules of Wikipedia and attack me personally. (WP:NPA) (Etiquette) etc.

My goal on Wikipedia is to maintain relevant sources and my account has no other purpose, although I know that there is a questions around which there are certain tensions. I do not want to look into all the activities of the User:Iadrian_yu on Wikipedia, but please pay attention to all the articles concerning the Vlachs in Serbia, Vlach language and other Eastern Romance peoples, which this user is agressievely representing as Romanians. That is the main problem.

Having said that, I would like to point out, that any sort of forcingly putting forth a Romanian identity on the Vlach Community in Serbia, which is being protected by the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia is illegal. I ask for your help in this issue.

Thank you. Ljuboni (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused by much of what you've said in this (very long) request for assistance. You've not provided any diffs or relevant Wikipedia links to show that what you're saying about Iadrian's behavior is accurate, and to understand your meaning one must be aware of the general situation — you need to add diffs and provide more context so that people unfamiliar with Romano-Magyar issues can understand what's happening. Finally, your last paragraph isn't relevant (if I understand your meaning properly), since we're not required to enforce Serbian law here. If Iadrian is intentionally calling a group of people something that they're not, that's a problem, but simply because intentionally writing inaccuracies is a violation of our hoaxing policy, not because it's illegal. Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ljuboni.

You have not provided any diffs of your accusations. You have also not notified the user of this discussion. Added to this, the fact that Iadrian submitted a section above about you leads me to believe this is a content dispute. I don't see anything here that necessitates posting on this noticeboard. I'm archiving this request; feel free to pursue dispute resolution through the normal channels. You are also welcome to contact me directly on my talk page; I will be leaving a note on your talk page, as well as Iadrian's, just in case. Damage, Inc. 01:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

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

False Policy claims/interpretation

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

---

User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid a long time, multi-year editor of the article PIGS (economics) has come in quickly in the last weeks to turn over a long established and stable article that was the subject of numerous archived talk pages and a large number of editors on a number of wiki boards. His claim is that a wikipedia policy, WP:DYNAMITE, allows him to unilaterally dispose of a stable article that he himself was a party to writing. Nothing in the wiki essay that he claims as his policy basis could be construed as supporting his action. The largest problem with his gaming the system is he now has established a precedence and de-facto disposal of the community's accepted work. No one, especially not an involved editor, should be permitted to game the system and bum-rush a page to overturn longstanding and hard-earned consensus. 12.144.158.19 (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:DYNAMITE isn't policy. It isn't a guideline. It is the opinion of the people who wrote it, nothing more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking into this further, I can't see any evidence that anyone is claiming that WP:DYNAMITE is policy anyway - instead I see a WP:BOLD edit, followed by a discussion in an ongoing RFC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Then is the basis for overturning a stable article formed from a long effort and community consensus without merit?12.144.158.19 (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The argument that "a stable article formed from a long effort and community consensus" cannot be changed -- even radically changed -- is without merit. Consensus can change, and it is fairly common for a stable article to have serious problems. Or for someone to think it has serious problems when it does not. The right thing for you to do is to participate in the RfC that is discussing this, work with the other editors to arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS, and for whichever of you has the consensus against you to accept that fact and to move on. At this time there is nothing here that requires administrator attention, but I would caution you to avoid a WP:EDITWAR. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Dozens of editors spent years writing it - and no one found serious fault with it. The editor in question helped write it and made no attempt to change it in any real way until he popped up and threw it all out. It now has the magical "consensus" to keep the previous community written version out suddenly? The RFC appears over, a week after it started or so - and the elimination of all that the community worked on is gone. There was no effort at all (good faith or otherwise) to identify any issues until he eliminated everything without so much as a tagging of areas he felt needed to be addressed. And now I'm being warned away from an edit war? It's not like I'm going to delete an entire established article.....12.144.158.19 (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Which edits did you make to that article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Mostly polishing, I was actually (years ago) opposed to the recentism of the popular usage during the economic collapse. Now I believe that paragraph on variations (introduced by others) makes a significant contribution to our understanding of the term and its evolution from academia and analysts to the op-ed pages. I did introduce the limitations on usage by Barclay's and the FT. 12.144.158.19 (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The "Dozens of editors spent years writing it - and no one found serious fault with it" argument should be made in the RfC, not at ANI. If your arguments are sound, then the consensus will go your way. ANI deals with user behavior, not with article content disputes. As for "all that the community worked on is gone", no, it is still in the history and can be easily restored if you get consensus to do so. Nothing you have described calls for administrator intervention. --Guy Macon (talk)

So, it's the opinion of the Administrator's that deletion of entire articles is appropriate if one does it quickly and Games the system? There are two editor's who were previously involved in the article who opposed the unjustified and capricious deletion of content. I am surprised to see this lack of concern here, one would think that long standing consensus would have defenders. 12.144.158.19 (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Nothing at all has been deleted. Redirecting a page is not deletion in any way, shape, or form - no content is removed. It is in the history and can be viewed, or restored, by any user. The redirection may or may not have been appropriate, but it is not, repeat, not deletion, and I wish people (including some very experienced Wikipedians who I've seen do so in the past) would stop referring to it as such. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It was not a redirection. (IP: 12.x.x.x ) .208.54.87.233 (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There are 4 major sections, and only 8 sentences - and 33 references in the article. I've restored them in an effort to have any disputes identified, as per policy it does require at the very least someone articulating a content issue of some sort, somewhere in the article.12.144.158.19 (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User talk:Yintan

User talk:Yintan has made unexplained removals of content in the article palingenesis. He claim such edits to be vandalism and disruptive but fails to argue for his point or provide evidence. He further more ignores warnings. 130.238.141.152 (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

And...you notified him of this discussion, right? Never mind, I'll do it. TCN7JM 12:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

130.238.141.152 and 130.243.168.103 (same person?) kept adding the same unrelated photo to the Palingenesis article. User:Faizan Al-Badri and myself removed it, feeling it was completely misplaced (if not plain vandalism). I asked 130.243.168.103 for an explanation, first via the usual template ("If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page") and later direct[100], but never got an answer. Now 130.238.141.152 has taken up the axe, apparently. That's all I have to say, really.  Yintan  12:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes you got an answer, dont lie and I explained very well the inclusion in the edit sumary many times. Maybe Yinta should also use the edit summary to explain his removal of relevant content and, second, read the article before claiming IP edits to be vandalism. You should also always asume good faith, no matter if the edit was done by an IP or a regular user. 130.238.141.152 (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not lying. 130.243.168.103 never answered me. The history of the article and the Talkpage(s) speak for themselves. Also, I did read the article, that's why I thought adding that photo was ridiculous. Now if you don't mind, I'm not going to bicker here. I've made my point and I haven't touched the article since. Like I already told you on my Talkpage a few hours ago: "I still think the photo is completely misplaced but I'm not interested in starting a war about it. I'm sure another editor will remove it again" and I just noticed that has happened indeed. So I'll let others decide what's best.  Yintan  16:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Question: are you Yintan contacting other established users trough IRC or some medium to edit the palingenesis article in order to circumvent the WP:3RR? –130.238.141.152 (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Stop accusing me.  Yintan  17:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• My take: Yinta, as tenuous as the connection of the image to the article is, there is still some sort of connection, so I wouldn't call it vandalism in the Wikipedia sense (and the distinction between vandalism and non-vandalistic disruption does matter, so labeling vandalism correctly is somewhat important). That said, the IP editors are also edit-warring to keep the image in the article (and Yintan to a lesser extent), which is still disruptive: the onus is on the editor who adds the material to gain consensus that it is acceptable to add before re-adding it. I'm going to drop a warning about edit-warring on the IP's talk page; in the meantime, I see that other editors have also reverted the image, and would say that that's a reasonable preliminary consensus that the image should not be added to the article without further discussion. Incidentally, accusations of off-wiki canvassing are totally unnecessary: 130, this extra attention from other editors is simply what happens when you make a post on one of the most heavily-monitored pages on Wikipedia.Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.  Yintan  17:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Writ Keeper. Hope your intervention will bring us to a discussion in the talk page. Second, Yintan, I did never accused you of circumvention the WP:3RR rule, because I assume good faith, and it was therefore I asked you about it. Well, this tread is getting lenghty and needs to be closed. -130.243.168.103 (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You "assume good faith" so you don't notify me of this ANI report you filed, you don't answer my first question on your Talkpage(s), you accuse me of lying, and you ask me if I'm canvassing. Interesting definition of 'good faith', I must say. In any case, I'm finished with this and really don't feel the need to discuss this any further. Cheers,  Yintan  21:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It was not only Yintan that reverted edits, I was also involved and the thing which we reverted was Vandalism apparently. Blaming such editors is not appropriate at all you should mind your language, instead of the discussion at the article's talk why is this matter being discussed here? Faizan -Let's talk! 09:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

People, settle down. There is a discussion on the article's talk page; let's focus on the content and discuss the issues there. Incorrect accusations were made by both sides (vandalism on one and canvassing on the other), so in the principle of letting them who have not sinned cast the first stone, let's just chalk the conduct issues to people getting a little too worked up and move on. I've participated in the talk page discussion since my last post here, so I'm not going to close this discussion myself, but I'd recommend that someone else close this thread as no further action necessary, directing everyone still interested in the issue to the article's talk page and the discussion there. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Strange phenomenon

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

---

− I don't know if this is anything sinister, but someone or ones seem to be creating new accounts, then making a few edits (described as "cleaning up") which do nothing except remove redundant (but harmless) spaces from the wikicode. Possibly they're just having fun, or possibly they're trying to get a number of accounts autoconfirmed for some reason. Or something. I've spotted accounts called Zahara33e, Wellyshore and Hollylilholly doing this. Victor Yus (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Throw in User:Teddywilson33 as well; just pulled the same trick at theatre and painting. It is very suspicious; the number and the common edit summary make this seem to be sockpuppeteering at the least. though for what purpose I don't know. We need to keep an eye on this.oknazevad (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed this too. Here's a list of all I've seen so far:

Teddywilson33 (talk · contribs)

Derek1uk (talk · contribs)

Welisongered (talk · contribs)

Hollylilholly (talk · contribs)

Dominikretro (talk · contribs)

Wellyshore (talk · contribs)

Jimmyjames444 (talk · contribs)

Zahara33e (talk · contribs)

Fred88freddy (talk · contribs)

Shellystander (talk · contribs)

Kerriforwiki (talk · contribs)

Jenfan33 (talk · contribs)

Not quite sure what they're up to, but the autoconfirmed thing would be my best guess. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The point is likely to have autoconfirmed accounts, so that they can be used to create articles, upload files, etc. Possibly part of a paid editing operation. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed the same phenomenon on a number of articles maybe a month ago, and figured that these were just well meaning editors? -Darouet (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The first few I checked were just checkuser blocked, so maybe there is something more going on. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Block when edits become unconstructive.--Launchballer 21:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of that kind of thing. I see it all the time when doing page curation. Minor edits to become autoconfirmed, then BAM a whole article from nothing (or a sandbox). And then if you follow up a couple of weeks/months later, no more edits ever. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Good call. Looks like DQ has now checkuser blocked them all. This is why it is good to bring it to admin attention when there is a clear pattern of unusual edits. Not jump to conclusions, just point it out so a checkuser can determine if it warrants a closer look. Often, it is nothing, other times, it is a nest of sleepers. This time, it was a nest of sleepers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• SPI is here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ExtraBart -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting and thanks for providing the link, would the CU have caught them all or should we check our talk pages for suspicious activity? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that DQ checked for sleepers and caught anyone that used that IP to create accounts, based on how the paperwork was done. I've tagged the socks and closed the case there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It's likely I caught them all that exist now, but I'd watch in case he decides to come back, as a have a few more tricks up my sleeve. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User keeps moving back the page unilaterally after closure of requested move discussion

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

---

The discussion at Template_talk:History_of_the_Turks_pre-14th_century#Requested_move was closed by an uninvolved editor [101] and the page was moved [102]. Yet, User:Qara xan keeps moving the page back unilaterally [103]. I warned him already [104], but he's still doing it [105]. Cavann (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the template back to the title decided on in the RM and move locked it. I will also warn the editor not to make any further edits to the template in this vein. Cheers, Number 57 20:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thx! Cavann (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Indef full page protection due to one editor

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

---

Secular Islam Summit is indefinitely fully protected due to the chronic edit warring of one editor. Unfortunately it is her version which has been protected. Could someone revert to the stable consensus version as it existed prior to the latest round of POV pushing? — kwami (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

See meta:The Wrong Version. The point of page protection is to stop edit warring, so it does not matter which version is currently up. Also, indefinite does not mean infinite — the page will be unprotected as soon as the disputes are resolved. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but it's also common to revert a page to the version before an edit war, especially with repeat offenders. — kwami (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless there is a BLP violation or other serious error, it is not done. Protection should not favor one view over another, even if it's against a repeat offender. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct. That goes doubly when the editor raising the matter of changing the protected revision was plainly knee-deep in the edit war that saw it protected. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I fail to see why it's not it's perfectly acceptable to revert to the consensus version if it can be ascertained. We are here to write articles, and if something prevents the consensus version of an article appearing then that measure is at fault. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It makes sense to me to use the last version that appeared to have consensus, which could be determined by the amount of time it remained un-edited. While there's been a few days here and there since, that would be this version from Sep. 2012, which remained for ~6.5 months. A diff with the current version shows a few minor things, like links and refs, that could be added. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Non sequitur -- one editor cannot edit war by themselves. Reasonable protection, discussion should continue on talk page. NE Ent 09:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? We have one person who reverts three times against multiple people and continues an edit war that previously happened against yet other users. This definitely looks like one person determined to have her way against everyone else. Discussion is the responsibility of the person who seeks to change the established version, not everybody else. Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It always takes two to edit war, and plainly both sides were happy to keep stabbing the undo button until prevented from doing so. It doesn't send out the right message to alter the revision that was protected at the behest of one of the involved parties unless, as KoH suggested earlier, there were egregious problems with the Wrong Version. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It only takes one determined editor to edit war, it's just a matter of how much value people place on the revert. If it was a BLP or vandalism I think your response would not be "It always takes two to edit war". IRWolfie- (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Well, this is the first I've heard of this discussion, but I'm unfortunately not surprised to see that Kwami's making trouble again. Notice how s/he stubbornly refuses to use the talk page while Adjwilley and I are hashing out the right way to include the material (which only a single-use IP has tried to remove entirely)? And how Haddad's comment has been in the article since July 2012 - literally almost a year? "Nonsense" is perhaps the nicest word I have for the claim that its removal is enforcing any sort of consensus, and I'm ashamed on Nyttend's behalf that sysop-only editing is being abused to further a content dispute. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• I was not informed of this thread, but I am the protecting administrator. I've already handed out blocks to Roscelese and kwami over this issue, and I thought protection might be a better approach since other editors are involved and I really want to encourage discussion instead of locking out well-meaning editors. I do not agree with Nyttend's action and I view it as inappropriate, especially considering I already told an editor that the protected version would not be changed. I request that Nyttend's action be reversed. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Upon further reflection, I see the rationale for Nyttend's action. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't look like Nyttend's action is 'involved' so I wouldn't characterize it as admin abuse. And there is nothing wrong with restoring a protected page to a prior stable version which is what I'm assuming Nyttend has done. --regentspark (comment) 20:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Your assumption is incorrect - that's the whole problem. That comment and source have been in the article since last July; it's only in the past two days that a random IP removed them, and that's the so-called "consensus" that Nyttend decided to go with for...let's say for God only knows what reason. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Masem keep violating Manual of Style/Captions

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

---

Theres this discussion on Manual of Style/Captions and how they should be used. In my opinion, there should not be any change to the rules/guidelines and how they are interpreted until theres an agreement in the community to change them. Still this user keeps on reverting my attempts to follow these guidelines. Jørgen88 (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to provide some diffs of problematic behaviour by Masem (and prior attempts to resolve this with the user first) if you want people to investigate this. Fram (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Minor edit warring on a handful of articles on AAA video games regarding an ongoing MoS RFC. The RFC isn't closed and from the perspective of a prospective closer I don't think the settled consensus is anywhere near as solid as Jørgen88 claims it to be; as such, he probably shouldn't be trying to enforce it for the time being. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, for what its worth, I've been interacting with Masem for years on the project, and he's probably been one of the best as far being collaborative, following policy, and discussing things out, so I can't help but think this is a bit premature... (or outright wrong.) Sergecross73 msg me 11:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree - what is so urgent that this needs to be addressed NOW, while the discussion is still ongoing and the RFC still open? Hey guys - how's about you do nothing at all with this particular MoS guideline until the RFC closes? Seems to me that enforcing a guideline that is under active discussion, and doing so under an interpretation of the guideline that has been questioned in that very RFC, seems to be WP:POINTy behavior intended to provoke a reaction. Why bother? If your intent is to convince other editors that your position is the correct one, then wielding it like a blunt object is not going to help - quite the opposite. Please stick to the discussion before stampeding off to enforce the holy dictates of the MoS. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

As has been noted, I started the discussion (I can't remember if I made it an RFC or not) when Jorgen removed long-standing captions out of the blue and noted that he had a previous confrontation with another editor over the idea of "succinct" captions. Over the last 48hr, one of the other supporters of the idea had boldly inserted a section that matched with Jorgen's view, which was removed by a different editor, but he made two caption changes citing this now-absent section. While he's not 3RR within 24hrs, the changes were clearly pointy and I warned him about ANI action should he continue while the RFC was open. I will admit I reverted the changes (though others had done so at the start of the discussion) but only because the captions were status quo and the subject of discussion as to demonstrate what the succinct caption looks like on an active page (the akin to keeping non-free images under FFD until their fate is decided). I strongly stand that the the RFC has no consensus yet either direction, certainly not as strong as Jorgen believes it is for the immediate removals. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

And just to note: Jorgen restored the revision that was made mid-RFC but without consensus (original bold addition on April 12: [106]; removal [107], Jorgen's re-insertion [108], and then made these two re-reverts citing that addition as de facto: [109] [110] just prior to posting the above ANI but after I left him a warning [111] that his changes were out of the RFC process. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I was not aware that these guidelines were new and then removed, I was of the impression that they had always been there as a part of the original article, thats why I inserted them and enforced the guidelines while they were being discussed. As for editing while RFC, I think guidelines should be followed, but if these were added while under discussion, I'll wait before editing again. Jørgen88 (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Wow. I made a comment suggestion for what I saw to be a fair compromise that seems to have been entirely ignored. As I remember it (as I have not been following the discussion), Jørgen88 was trying to strong-arm his ideas and position on to everyone else and seems to think, per my recollection, that images should not have captions at all or at very least be so minimal that they offer no useful description as to what the image is. When I commented, there were only two video games... Yes, it is video game articles that this battle seems to be about. That just seems entirely childish and immature to me. Jørgen88, as I recall (and now knowing and understanding more about what it all means) was being very WP:POINTy and was making disruptive edits to try and push his thoughts on the issue. Anyways, I think I've enough of a reputation here for not entirely agreeing with the consensus on most things, and perhaps that speaks more of the situation that I believe I am more in accordance with consensus on this one. Technical 13 (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• I guess this can be closed unless an admin wants to consider a WP:BOOMERANG? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

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

DBrodbeck implies there is a rule against primary sources in medical articles

It's a long story but some years back I wanted to edit either Autism or Causes of Autism articles to include the theory of maternal antibodies to fetal brain being one of the causes of autism. I was told the citation I used were not allowed in Medicine releated articles. I went and looked at the rules at the link I was given and they did not say primary sources were forbidden, in fact they gave rules under which they were to be used. I went back and tried to point out the edits were allowed as long as the rules for primary sources were not violated. I did this by directly quoting the rules. No one tried to dispute the quoted rules, but after a time the quoted rules were removeed and some editors continued to tell new people wanting to do edits that their edits were forbidden for the same reason, ie, not based on secondary sources.. (review papers in peer reviewed journals, mine and others were based on primary papers in peer reviewed journals) It's important I think to understand that the actual CONTENT of the papers, the theory that maternal antibodies to certain fetal brain proteins are highly associated with autism and are strongly suspected of causing it, does not seem to be at all controversial. I have not seen a single paper anywhere disputing either this theory, (the subject of independent supporting research from Oxford, John's Hopkins, Kennedy Krieger and UC Davis). Now there are many more papers supporting this theory than there were when I first asked it be included, and some are secondary reviews. But DBrodbeck seems to have taken offense at my comments and objects to everything, in my opinion on spurious grounds, and someone erases all discussion, even that which has never been refuted or even disputed, even if it involves new support for the suggested edit. I feel this is not done in good faith and frankly is just a power struggle now, because of anger that I challenged the claims that were being made about the rules forbidding primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.46.174 (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to open an WP:RFC on the article talkpage and make your point - especially as it relates to medical issues. You'll not find the ability to "challenge" any of the policies in this location. (By the way, having studied ASD, the above is highly controvertial, so good luck) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This issue of use of primary sources in medical pages is an ongoing problem. There are a number of editors who feel particularly strongly against their inclusion. This can be seriously problematic with rare diseases where virtually all the literature concerning the topic is primary sources. They rarely merit inclusion in more prestigous review articles: even if included these rarely do more than mention these diseases. For well known sugjects eg lung cancer it is not unreasonable to insist on secordy sources only. For rare diseases this prohibition is unreasonable. Autism is a well studied subject: unfortunately there is not a lot of usable information concerning its cause(s). For this reason there is a lot of rather speculative material in the literature on the subject. In a case like this I would be relucant to include this material in the main article unless these finding were reported by other investigators independently. On the other hand if it were to be included in a seperate linked page with a tile such as "Theories of causation of autism" (or perhaps something more suscinct) its inclusion there might well be reasonable. DrMicro

This particular IP has a long history of disruptive involvement at autism-related articles, please see WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP as well as the histories of the autism and causes of autism articles and their Talk pages. Zad68 17:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I was supposed to be notified about this wasn't I? Anyway, it seems to me that bringing in primary sources without looking at how a review has, umm, reviewed them makes us have to look at something as experts. Now, there seems to be a review out, which I was discussin gat the Causes of autism page with this IP. It does seem to be early days for it though [112]. I think the IP could do without posting copyright violations [113] and the personal attacks (see my talk page history, and the history at [[causes of autism). Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

As the IP mentioned, there are indeed now a few relevant acceptable secondary sources covering this theory, I found 2 review articles from 2012. There is no need to resort to trying to interpret the WP:RULES to use WP:PRIMARY to cover the desired content. Accordingly I have added mention of this theory to the Causes of autism article here. Hopefully that should cover this content issue. Zad68 18:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that mentioning it is fine, as we were coming to that as I noted above. I do wish this IP would learn the most basic rules around here, like signing their posts, for starters. I encourage everyone to, carefully, look at WP:ANI_AUTISM_IPDbrodbeck (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't want more conflict but some things said in response here need to be cleared up. First, as to including this theory in "Causes of Autism" we were not "coming to that as I noted above" as DBrodbeck claims, On the contrary, he was deleting every post I made on the Talk page for that article, even if they included new citations, even after they included new secondary source citations. Without any discussion whatsoever. It was this complete refusal to dialogue which led me to the extreme measure of coming here to complain. As to my not revealing myself, very soon after I discovered the rules on primary sources were being misrepresented, and complained about it, some editors started to discuss how to ban me. Of course I was offended by that. Tell me I am wrong about the rules, tell me there is consensus against the suggested edit, tell em whatever, but if you can't refute that you misrepresented the rules, then apologize, don't try to keep other people from seeing the discussion by banning one side of it. As to copyright violations, I am not sure there are any, I did Cut and Paste part of the web page of INSAR to support the theory, but not I not suree it's copyrighted, and certainly it could be parapharased, so that is being kind of overblown as an issue. Hopefully this is all resolved but I am not sure if DBrodbeck has special revert privileges if he should retain them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.46.174 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the diff I have posted above 'A quote from page 1332 of the article in question "What cannot be demonstrated in the human subjects is whether these antibodies cause autism. To marshal support in favor of this hypothe- sis, it is necessary to move to experimental animal studies". It is early days in this, according to this one review. I would like to see what others think besides our IP. ' As you have been pushing this theory for so long I was waiting for input from others. I then asked some editors who are more experienced than I am in medical articles to take a look [114], [115] [116] and [117]. Please stop misrepresenting what I was doing, learn how to sign your posts (you have been doing this since 2009) and learn how to indent. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

And to close this loop: I happened to have several of those User Talk pages that Dbrodbeck linked to on my Watchlist, so I saw his requests go out. I saw the responses from Colin and Anthonyhcole (two experienced editors I'm familiar with from doing work on articles in WP:MED scope), looked at the referenced articles and agreed the review articles were sufficient for a mention, so the content went in earlier today. I think behavior-wise, Dbrodbeck did everything right here, given the history at the article Talk page and the consensus developed at WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP for how to deal with the disruptive IP.

Regarding the IP, I think it's a case of The Boy Who Cried Wolf mixed in with what has come across as WP:SPAM suggestions ("University of California is involved in a partnership to develop and market the test and refer to the Pediatric Bioscience web page describing the test"). For a very long time - for years, it appears - per Wikipedia standards, there was clear consensus that there was absolutely insufficient sourcing for the kind of content the IP was proposing, and during that time, the IP kept beating on the drum with insufficient sourcing so hard that nobody had the patience to listen any more, to the point that there was consensus to ignore the IP. Sufficient sourcing worth a brief mention was finally published in 2012, and brought to Talk:Causes of autism by the IP mid-February, it got attention about a week ago, experienced WP:MED editors looked at it, and is in the article now. Does the IP really want to investigate editor behavior further here? Zad68 21:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

To answer that last question I don't wish to get into a fight with anyone, I never did. But it would be nice if everyone involved would acknowledge the rules don't forbid primary sources. I think part of the problem was, very frankly, a lot of editors know less than i do about the subject because they did not research it very much. Wikipediar allows anyone to edit, that's part of the ground rules but really, just because it's allowed, doesn't mean it's a great idea. This is anb inmportant point because people seemed to want to reject research they had not heard of just because they had not heard of it, and that could exclude a lot of recent research that basically no one in the field has any doubt is valid, when the purpose of the more restrictive rules on primary sources is not to keep out the msot recent research, just to protect reliability. It's a lot easier to say "No" than to read up on the subject, but I did not ask anyone to become an expert just leave valid edits alone. I don't care about the past, and in fact I left out a lot of cursing on the part of some, I just hope people will be mindful of this in the future. I had not seen you before at all Zad68, not sure why you are taking up the banner on the other side but let's drop it. Except that the edit could be stronger, there is more than just one group looking into this now, as I say it's got a lot of confirmation, (animal testing in multiple studies, which few possible causes have actually I should explain something else. My son is autistic, and some of the researchers into maternal antibodies have told me it's nearly positive it's related to his Mom's antibodies. Generally if no clear genetic cause is found parents are told by pediatricians that no one knows why anyone or nearly anyone, is autistic and that there is not too much risk of a subsequent child being autistic. But in the case of the mothers who have these antibodies, this is not at all true. All my long struggle to get it included in the aritcle is just so the parents with one autistic child can get some warning. I love my son but I don't think i could handle two autistic kids. We got warning that everyone should have I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.223.184 (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

When will you learn to indent your entries and sign them? Anyway, you know, my son has autism as well, and as for my knowledge, I have a PhD in psychology, but, that is neither here nor there. Arguments from authority will get you nowhere here. It is hard for me to acknowledge that I broke some sort of rule when I have followed policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to "spread the word" about something, no matter how important the subject may be. WP:ADVOCACY, WP:RGW. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

To be sure, it's not like the IP hasn't been shown the proper policy pages. The IP has been shown WP:ADVOCACY before, at least as recently as 22 Dec 2012 here. I didn't offhand find a link to WP:RGW but the IP has seen WP:SOAPBOX at least several times, for example 17 Dec 2009, 19 Feb 2010 for a few older examples and plenty of more recent ones. A quick survey of the last few years of Talk:Autism show the most popularly linked-to policy or guideline page is by far WP:MEDRS, over 100 times (can't be 100% sure they were all directed to the same person behind all the IPs due to the dynamic IP hopping and the way Wikipedia Talk pages are threaded, but it's up there). Second place is WP:UNDUE (about 30), third place is WP:RECENTISM (about 15). And this is just at Talk:Autism, I didn't do Talk:Causes of autism. So making sure the IP is aware of the appropriate policy pages isn't the issue. Zad68 02:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

IP, I'm genuinely very sorry your family has been touched by autism. From what I understand it's a very difficult thing to deal with, and I get why you'd want to use Wikipedia to get the word out about something that you feel has helped you. Because you asked: the reason I got involved here is because I feel it will help Wikipedia content development (indirectly) by freeing up the editing time of those who have had to argue with you in defending Autism and related articles from your inappropriate content change suggestions. Those editors would have been working on more productive things. I am not going to link to policy pages because I know you've seen them all before, and it has not changed your editing behavior, so I know it's pointless. All I can point to is the fact that your interpretation of Wikipedia content policy has proven over and over to be out of line with consensus.

An ANI discussion like this one can deal with behavior issues and not content issues. Administrators can block users, protect pages, and delete pages. What administrator action are you asking for? You do not appear to be interested in having a page protected or deleted. Do you want a user blocked, or some other action? If so, what, and for what reason? Please provide diffs and the relevant behavior-related policy or guideline pages to support your argument. Zad68 03:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Everyone sounds conciliatory but they are missing the point. As the title of this section indicates, the rules were being misrepresented. Can I simply ask DBrodbeck, have you stated to some editors that primary sources, that is, peer reviewed papers, are forbidden by Wikipedia rules? Is it now your understanding they are not if used correctly? Will you in the future be careful not to convey the impression primary sources are forbidden, instead stating you PREFER to use only secondary sources? If you can agree to all that this is done as far as I am concerned, but the fact is, I did not do anything forbidden, I complained about misrepresentation of the rules. In fact, the actual value of the content, ie, should the research on maternal antibodies be in the articles, was never really debated, because instead of discussing it, I kept getting "forbidden by Wikipedia rules", when that was not true. I think if edits are not forbidden, and there is an attempt to discuss them in good faith which is not met with good faith, then the editor not acting in good faith should not have special powers. I saw something on DBrodbeck's page indicating he has some kind of special Revert powers. I don't think that is appropriate for him to have if he does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.46.174 (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The content rules are not being misrepresented. Dbrodbeck understands the sourcing rules correctly. Your view of the content rules is not the consensus view, and there will be no further attempt to explain that to you here because you've shown your persistent unwillingness to accept it, so there's no point in trying. Dbrodbeck was not given special revert powers. What happened at WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP was that it was determined that your continued persistent attempts to edit with your erroneous understanding of the content rules had become so disruptive that everyone, including Dbrodbeck, was given permission to revert your edits without discussion. That decision still stands and you are not generating any support here to overturn it. Your bringing this to ANI certainly isn't helping your case. Is there anything else? Zad68 19:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Do the rules say primary sources are not allowed in medical articles? Or do the rules give the conditions under which primary sources can be used? And if the rules DO give conditions under which primary sources can be used, can consensus act to change the rules without some official action? Are these truly difficult questions? Please answer, I truly don't know what you are trying to say when it's so vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.46.174 (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The above poster does have a point. There is an ambiguity in the guidelines for these articles. I suspect this may be deliberate. As I have noted before for a number of rare diseases the majority of the known material is primary sources. Reviews rarely discuss these and if they do do so in a cursory fashion. Textbooks are not much better - and are probably worse. Part of this problem is the issue of space: every page has to be paid for. Rare diseases rarely justify their inclusion on the basis of space. This thankfully is not a problem on WP. On the other hand where there are multiple reviews and other sources of data on a topic these are I would suggest to be preferred. Topics such as lung cancer and myocardial infarct have books devoted to them alone. Autism - the topic that started this thread - is a well reviewed topic and it well covered in many books and articles. For this reason IMHO secondary sources are to be preferred in WP articles concerning this matter. Concerning the causation of autism - there are probably as many theories as there are authors writing about it. In my view a main page devoted to autism would be better if it stuck to secondary sources when discussing theories of causation as this is a huge and controversial topic. If only it were not so. On the other hand if a separate article were to discuss the theories of causation of autism there may be an arguable case for the use of primary material. YMMD. DrMicro (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think DrMicro is probably right, the rules may be deliberately somewhat vauge. Theyallow secondary sources when it's easy to find them, because the topic has many, but still allow primary sources when the secondary sources are not available. But I think, though autism is a very big topic with lots of secondary sources, disallowing all primary sources lets the article lag years behind the most recent research. I may have exaggerated the niche where primary sources are allowed, but inclusion of them in the "Causes of Autism" article where rainfall is mentioned as a possible cause, does not seem out of line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Primary sources need to be avoided at all costs at controversial medical articles such as Autism. MEDRS was designed specifically to avoid the kind of material being promoted here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• IP, I removed the section about rainfall being a possible cause from the article as it was based on a single highly speculative primary source. Let me re-emphasize that content issues will not be resolved at ANI. Zad68 02:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• This is the kind of stuff (WP:IDHT), that we have been dealing with from this IP hopping user for a very long time. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yet again both my intent and what I've previously posted is being misrepresented by Zad and Dbrodbeck. This is very tiresome. Zad first -- please understand, I was not bringing up the rainfall theory to resolve a dispute about content in the "Causes of Autism" article. I was capable of removing it from the article and posting the reason in the Talk section if I had wanted to do that. I do not think it was appropriate to remove it as it was presented as a theory in an article that is mostly about theories. Anyway, you accuse me of trying to bring up content when the heading of this section is that rules are being misrepresented. You've made a definite statement of what you feel the rules are, without addressing that part of the medical rules which gives rules for primary sources. In other words, sidestepped a valid question and accused me of doing something wrong when I did not. I hope you can see this is quite provoking to someone trying to sincerely arrive at some common ground. I only brought up the rainfall theory to point out that DBrodbeck seemed to have it in for me. He removed my posts about maternal antibodies while leaving rainfall and many others, and when asked about that bascially started cursing at me. Dbrodbeck -- you are misrepresenting what's gone on before. Basically, I tired to put maternal antibody theory in the main "Autism" featured article. This edit was rejected. The claim was made it was forbidden, I quoted the medical article rules to show it was not, I argued that waiting for reviews can put you years behind in a field where about 10 papers per day are being published, and so forth. But bottom line was, I had no privileges to edit. I then went to "Causes of Autism" and put in edits and supplied links to both primary AND review papers supporting the maternal antibody theory. At that point, YOU and ONLY YOU, deleted those posts, (including the Talk section where the links were) and refused to discuss the value of them, the value of them vs. the many more speculative theories such as rainfall in that article, and so forth. It was only after this refusal in my view to act in good faith and actually discuss content, and repeated deletions and finally a lot of nasty cursing at me that I came here and complained. I left out the cursing part before, but you can own up to it here or have me go and copy it from the history sections if it's necessary. I truly believe there was a lot of anger over me debating the primary vs. secondary source rules and especially quoting them to prove they were being misrepresneted, and most other editors were OK with me being vanquished from the "Autism" featured article, including the Talk section of it, but DBrodbeck had to push it to the limit. He seems to have a long history of angering people unnecessarily, I am not the first by a very long shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC) I am going to give this up, there is not much more to say and the fight will probably soon become irrelevant. My best understanding is the proteins to which the antibodies react have been identified and there is a paper submitted, and when it's pubished, the ob/gyn and pediatrics world will have the information, which means parents and parents t0 be will be told by their doctors, so having this on Wikipedia will be far less important. But I would ask all to consider the possibility the Autism article actually has suffered by the editors extreme efforts to protect it. For example, it does not, or did not, say unambiguously in plain language that there are many causes for autism. I tried to get that in a couple of years back, when basically all scientists agreed already, and got a bunch of resistance. So, Wikipedia was way out of date because a rather small clique of editors kept it out ot date. I can bring many more examples. Is this a good thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record before this is archived: As was pointed out in the very first response to this IP in this thread, You'll not find the ability to "challenge" any of the policies in this location. Discussion of content rules is a content matter and not a behavior matter, and the autism-related articles' Talk archives are filled with years of failed attempts to explain to this IP the application of Wikipedia's medical sourcing guideline WP:MEDRS, content policies such as WP:UNDUE, and concepts like WP:RECENTISM. I do agree with the IP that if/when reputable review journal articles are published with more definitive information about the theory, we can use those sources to update our articles. Zad68 13:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that this IP has been showing up at the Maryland Wikiproject to complain that we aren't making a big enough deal out of mercury pollution from the paper plant at Luke, Maryland, though he at least hasn't ventured to change the article itself. Mangoe (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"Venturing to change" the Luke Maryland article would be quite justified. Government agencies have identified the Luke paper mill as being one of the two biggest point sources of mercury in the state, and really a large source compared to the worst sources in the US. I put out a link to government documents, again like the maternal antibody issue if you do the research it's not at all controversial. Now I've got someone removing all my edits on the maternal antibodies even though I put out a secondary source, a book by Springlink press, Autism: Current Theories and Evidence, which beginning on page 308 states the theory exactly as I posted it. Reverted by someone user named McSly. No explanation, and as it's a legal edit no reason can be given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC) ZAD -- since the theory is in a book published by a science publishing company, it's endorsed by a secondary source, so you agree with me, that it is worth of discussion, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

IP, I guess it's no surprise that you will not accept the repeated attempts to explain to you that content issues will not be resolved at ANI. You have provided the suggested source at the article Talk page and your comment was left standing. Your best course of action at this point would be simply to let the editors at that article review the change suggestion and leave it at that. It is highly recommended that you do not continue the same exhausting WP:IDHT behavior that you've been exhibiting for the past few years. Consider this an opportunity to show that you are willing to make a change in how you're attempting to work with the Wikipedia community. Zad68 20:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me how, after 3 years, you still have not read those SineBot posts on your numerous talk pages and have not learned how to indent. Anyway, this is not the place for content disputes I don't think. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I am also quite sure that accusing another editor of meat/sock puppetry is a violation of WP:AGF. [118]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It is simply a further example of WP:IDHT behavior we've seen from this IP for years now. Zad68 20:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

DBrodbeck -- please can you stop accusing me of accusing people of this sock puppetry offense? I did ask McSly, (on the Talk section of his page, not this one which I assume is more widely read,) who seems to also live in eastern Canada, be bilingual in French and English, who immediately removes all edits I make on the topic even when supported by secondary souces, just as you do, and whose page you responded to faster than he did, if he was you or if he was in some way affiliated with you. And for that you came up with this "accusing someone of sock puppetry is a serious offense" but actually neither you nor McSly denied it. You could answer right now. "No, it's all just a conincidence. He's not me, I did not suggest he do the same things I had been doing before". I am not accusing you because I simply do not know. I expressed only suspicions I have in my own mind.

You could also answer whether or not a book by a science publishing company is considered a secondary source allowed under the medical article rules. Or about the other two review papers in peer reviewed journals.

Zad -- you could answer the same question. '

Please, just forget all the personal stuff and let's discuss the rules which is why this was brought here in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No, let's not drop it. You accused me, on another user's talk page, of either being that user (that is sock puppeting) or of somehow directing that user to do something (that is meat puppeting.). Your evidence is that we both live in the same part of the second largest country by land mass on this planet. I need not deny anything. If you have any evidence of any wrong doing at all, start an SPI, or present evidence here. You have none. This type of crap has to stop. I have had it up to here with your ridiculous accusations and frankly with your refusal to follow the simplest policies even when they are spelled out to you, literally hundreds of times (as noted above). You can't even sign your damned posts. You have been harping on this for three bloody years now, There is now a sentence on your pet theory in the causes page, which is fine as it is backed by a rather preliminary review. I think we have a rather serious WP:COMPETENCE issue here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Just don't undo legal permitted edits without discussion and consensus and we will get along fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I will leave it up to other editors to look at this rather long thread and determine who is following consensus and policy and who is not. Oh and read the sinebot post on your 30 or so talk pages, it is really easy to sign your posts, really. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point out, unless the trees or snow are editing Wikipedia, the land mass of Canada is not relevant, the population is. The population of Ontario is under 20 million. What is the population of the english speaking world that could be editing English Wikipedia? Leaving out India, the US is 300M, the rest of Canada is 20M. The UK is over 100M. Australia is ???? around 40M I think. So the chance the editor who started removing legal edits without consensus after I called DBrodbeck out on it would just happen to be from the same area is about 20M/400M, or 5%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk • contribs)

Serious claims require serious evidence. Don't make accusations like that again without actually solid evidence. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

IP, if you want to open a sockpuppet investigation, follow the instructions here: WP:SPI#Submitting_an_SPI_case. If you mean to do it, go do it there, and you are advised to stop making any more casual accusations like that at individual users' Talk pages or (especially) here. Regarding "removing legal edits without consensus" I refer observers of this conversation once again to review WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP. Zad68 15:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• What, if any, administrative action would people want to see here? MastCell ^Talk 15:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggested action plan:

• Autism is FA and is indef-semi, that should be left in place.
• Talk:Autism has seen 65 IP edits in the past year, 37 (57%) of those were from this editor. This editor's source and content suggestion are currently standing at that Talk page, so as there's really nothing more related to content that needs to be seen from this editor there, suggest we try 6 weeks semi on it along the lines suggested at WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP, trying to minimize collateral damage. Range block not possible.
• Causes of autism is sub-GA, and content along the lines of what the IP has been suggesting has already been added to the article. Nothing else needs to be done with the content there, I think it should be ok to try 3 months of semi on it.

Further thought - it actually might make sense just to leave this as-is and simply RBI as needed. Zad68 16:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Talk:Causes of autism has seen 49 IP edits in the past year, 40 (82%) of those were from this editor, suggest we try 3 months semi on it, collateral damage less of a problem here.

We should also probably do some duration of semi on User Talk:Dbrodbeck and User Talk:McSly. I guess for any other areas we can just implement the strategy suggested at WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP. I don't think we're in CBAN territory. Zad68 16:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban for IP

Hmmm. I think it's evident from this thread, and previous ones, that this IP editor has been a long-term unconstructive and disruptive presence on the articles and talkpages in question. I'm a little hesitant to semi-protect the article talkpages, as doing so would lock new editors out of discussions on relatively high-profile topics.

I'd suggest that there is ample evidence to justify a topic-ban from autism-related pages for this IP editor. While it is impractical to enforce that topic-ban with blocks, it would be appropriate to treat his edits (to autism-related articles or talkpages) as contributions from a topic-banned user, and thus revert them without discussion. That approach would improve the signal-to-noise ratio on the talkpages without penalizing other new/IP editors. What do people think? MastCell ^Talk 16:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That is de facto the same result as at WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP but made de jure. Has that remedy been effective? I was feeling it wasn't so I suggested another step to get the habit broken. Clearly a weakness in WP's open model is being exploited here. Zad68 17:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think making it de jure might be the way to go, and the three month semi? So both, is that maybe a tad much though? Perhaps if there have been cases such as this in the past, maybe they can show us the way.Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest formalizing the topic-ban as indefinite. Edits or talk-page comments from this editor should be removed on sight. If they are re-added by the editor, then s/he can be blocked by any admin, or the page semi-protected at that point. If this approach doesn't work, let me know or bring it back here and I'll be happy to consider other options. Does that sound good? MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support MastCell's proposal dated 17:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC), a de jure topic-ban allows admins to block and protect on sight, which is a step up from before, but still allows IP edits to Talk pages, a fine next step to try. Zad68 18:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't bother, I give up. I don't think there has been any serious discussion of the rules or whether or not my new sources are secondary or primary. The Autism article is years behind the state of knowledge. The Causes of Autism article likewise but in a way that is worse considering there is much more new info on causes than the condition itself. The suggested edits were valid. The thing with DBrodbeck and sock puppetry or meat puppetry was brought here after I asked McSly if he was affiliated with DBrodbeck. Never any answer. Not then, not now. But for asking, DBrodbeck started this "you are accusing me" thing which was not right, i was just asking and telling why I suspected. My aim here was to help get the word out on medical info that can help people. I guess I bungled that pretty badly. If I'd researched harder instead of arguing about the rules, I might have gotten this in the aritcle without the nerd police force stopping it. I screwed that up. I don't give a damn about you people but I failed other parents like myself who never heard about it and had another autistic child because they did not know about this cause. I feel ashamed of that, not offending you people.

But DBrodbeck, who says he has an autistic kid, wanted to suppress it for no real reason, power, just to say no, who knows really. Decent people want to help other people not suffer the same ways they have suffered. It's in their nature. Brodbeck actually acts in the opposite way. At least if there is a challenged to his authority.

Professor Brodbeck -- what a waste of your time and intellect. Seriously. Whatever went before, if you bothered to actually read about this subject you'd know not just the edits are valid but it's valuable information that can help people a great deal. But you're damned if you are going to give in once your ego was challenged. That's the reality. Go do something worthwhile if you know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban as well as a temporary block for the violation of WP: NPA above. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 23:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks seems like a good rule. I would like to explain myself. I brought NEW SECONDARY SOURCWES to support the edits suggested. They were deleted with no discussion by McSly. It turned out McSLy was from the same part of Canada as Dbrodbeck. So I asked McSly if he was Dbrodbeck or was affiliated with him. This queston was never answered, but DBrodbeck started acccusing me of accusing him of meat puppetry or sock puppetry. He said this was a serious offense. I pointed out I did not accuse him, just ask. But now, accused of having accused him, I pointed out why I was suspicious. Dbrodbeck ridiculed my suspicion with a statement that Canada has a very large land mass. I pointed out if trees and snow are editing Wikipedia then the land mass is relevant, but if instead only people are editors, then eastern Canada is only a small percentage of the English speaking work (Rest of Canada, US, UK, Australie, India, and of course a couple hundred million all over the world.

So, those edits got very rapidly removed. So, it's true I am semi -anonynmous, but if someone accuses you of something you did not do, (the original message was only to McSly on his Talk page but Dbrodbeck responded in less than an hour) it's quite provoking to nto be allowed to defend yourself. And note I said "let's drop it" above but DBrodbeck did not want to. So, that's my defense. To be very clear I still am suspicious but I don't knnow for sure. I don't know why they would start attacking me (claiming it's paranoid to have this suspicion) instead of just denying it.

The real crux of all this is, even though I've come up with 3 secondary sources for the original edit I wanted, Dbrodbeck removes them and wont' discuss why. The old edits were based on primary sources but that is no longer true. So why do they keep gettin remooved? Zad says "no discussion of content" here but they won't discuss it on that page eitehr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Months of problematic IP edits

In February, I was alerted to the presence of 96.231.181.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) after he added Category:Television series with live action and animation to a few articles on my watchlist, presumably just because the TV show itself contained some brief sequences in which there were computer generated effects or short animated clips (example. At that time, I also discovered that he had made the same edits to several dozen other articles (ex 2, ex 3) as well as using Category:Films with live action and animation (ex 4). I asked him not to repeat these edits.

It would seem he did not see my message, as he has gone on yet another spree of such edits (ex 5, ex 6, ex 7, ex 8, ex 9) and I've discovered these edits go as far back to when this IP was first starting to edit (ex 10, ex 11, ex 12).

This IP is clearly only going to continue to disrupt Wikipedia by falsely flooding these categories (as well as Category:Crossover animation in some instances) by adding whatever films or television series include either brief parts in animation or live action (if one is a film with actors or one is a cartoon series that has had brief living persons depicted). Seeeing as I found examples that were still in place since December 2012, I believe we should place some sort of extended block on this IP address (it most definitely appears to have been operated by the same person since that date) to prevent further disruption of the project.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No assistance or ideas?—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user, I think this is problematic here. The IP has apparently violated WP:POINT and I think a block is in order here. Maybe ask one of the administrators to take a look at it? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I posted this here for that sort of resolution.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

"A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law"

We seem to have several contributors who insist that WP:BLPCRIME policy, specifically that "a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law" doesn't apply to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and that we no longer need to refer to him as a 'suspect' or 'accused' - see Talk:Boston Marathon bombings#Confession & Acknowledgement of Brother's Role and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Boston Marathon bombings (again). Can I ask that as a matter of urgency this issue is dealt with, before this gets even messier - it is an issue that IMO could well have legal repercussions, and needs sorting out before it gets out of hand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

"The media reports that he has confessed but he has yet to stand trial." (ref) Will that settle the inclusion?--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

My take on it is that if the sources still call him a suspect, then WP needs to reflect that. Any other way of referring to him would be synthesising the material. Blackmane (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Even if other sources don't call him a suspect, we should not say anything that even implies he is guilty of a crime unless/until he is convicted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is a simple writing competency issue—someone is a "suspect" until they are convicted. WP:BLP is the primary policy, but BLP is not really the core of the issue—it's just a fact that no one is anything other than a "suspect" until a court says otherwise. An encyclopedic article needs to acknowledge standard nomenclature. Johnuniq (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, it is a BLP issue since this doesn't work for people who died before they were brought to court. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold are not "suspected" of having done their crimes, even though they have never been convicted for them (obviously). Fram (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That gets back to the only real question here. Since one brother is dead and the other is not, should the article be calling the dead one a "bomber" and the live one a "suspected bomber"? Rklear (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Calling the dead brother a bomber implies that the living brother is also a bomber, rather than a suspected bomber, since the two of them have been tied together so strongly. Thus we have to treat them both as suspected/alleged bombers, to avoid breaking BLP for the living one. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 13:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It is good to stress the need to be cautious and to bear in mind that persons arrested for allegedly committing a crime have not been adjudicated to have committed the crime. In many instances this means repeated use of words such as "suspect," "allegedly," and the like. The release yesterday of the person previously arrested and arraigned for sending ricin-laced letters to President Obama and others, who it now appears was completely uninvolved in the crime and was framed by an enemy, is a salulatory reminder of the need to be careful and avoid jumping to conclusions, both on-wiki and, for that matter, inside our heads. Mistakes do happen in both low-profile and high-profile criminal cases, and innocent people can be arrested and occasionally even convicted for terrible crimes that they did not commit.

Nonetheless, the matter need not be taken to ridiculous extremes. It is not possible to report the events surrounding the Boston bombing without saying "anything that even implies [that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev] is guilty of a crime." While we certainly need to report that he has only been indicted and has not yet been convicted of anything, under the circumstances I will not lose sleep if our article on him does not reprint the words "innocent until proven guilty" in each and every sentence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not think I am looked at as lax about BLP, but the source stating that Dz admitted or confessed to the acts is certainly usable in Wikipedia. Wikipedia, however, can not state he committed those acts in Wikipedia's voice per BLP. Collect (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that noting the confession makes sense. (Carefully framed as being an initial confession made from a hospital bed during interrogation, etc.) That doesn't conflict with properly noting that he is only accused and is the suspect/alleged perpetrator elsewhere in the article. (It'd be good to get the two issues separated somewhat, since they really do seem to be separate things.) His confession doesn't legally mean anything; but the fact that he initially confessed is encyclopedic, even if it turns out to be a false statement or he manages to be found not guilty. (Edit: to further complicate this, WP:BDP applies to the dead brother...that might preclude the inclusion of the living brother's confession as it implicates the dead brother. That has harmful implications for his wife/child, for example. So maybe we shouldn't include the confession after all, due to that.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 13:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason to exclude the confession if it's widely reported by reliable sources. That's the guideline for all matters, especially BLP issues. For example, even now CNN is still referring to the dead Tamerlin merely as a "suspect".[119] Also, keep in mind that the alleged ricin mailer, now released due to lack of evidence, is a different story. These two guys were named as suspects based on relatively firm evidence, and there is a widely known timeline or continuum leading to the death of one and the arrest of the other. That's not the case with the ricin situation. Meanwhile, the divergent opinions of the suspects' relatives, while only opinions, have been widely reported and could be used here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The idea that we would avoid including any information in these articles that would "implicate the dead brother" in the bombing and related crimes is not reasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Right. That's why we have to use the "hedging" words the media use, like "suspects" and "alleged". The media didn't used to do that in the old days. They would have just said "the bomber" or whatever. Now they hedge, in order to avoid being accused of biasing a potential jury. I'm also seeing a lot of criminal cases where the media will say "the police say..." which is also a good hedge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

So it's okay to say "suspect A stated that dead suspect B, his alleged co-conspirator, is guilty", based on the word of suspect A? How would that be different than, say, "police officer C stated that dead suspect B is guilty"? (The latter of which we surely wouldn't include.) I'm not sure my reasoning is correct, but BDP should probably be minimally considered. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Bunches of (edit conflict)s, but this started in re to Collect 1251

Of course you are correct Collect, in fact, the neutral voice we are charged to uphold is sufficient in itself to explain how we are to write Wikipedia's encyclopedic prose. We can no sooner make statements of accomplishment, or philanthropic character; nor Tsarnaev exoneration, or statements of guilt. It's really the very basics of editing, and; I personally have observed the clue of 90% of the people who have edited or commented on this article; so I know that 90% of the editors involved are proficient; even masters of this basic required skill. The article is not in any danger, and I don't believe there's really been a serious content dispute. Differences have emerged, and been dealt with favorably, in good faith.

I would be remiss to not say that this is a dramatic over-reaction! And only part of that! Because there is also a current thread, on the exact same question, and both were filed by AndyTheGrump. It's truly incredible. The talk page is working fine, and that is where we should be. Perhaps this is a technique to canvass good eyes; Like posting on Jimbo's talk page, which I have done a time or three. And yes, any and all of these additional good eyes are welcome to contribute and watch the article. I'd just rather invite all of you without the extraneous drama.

The irony here is that it was my post on the article's talk page that started this mess. And I know, what I said should never have been taken as some dangerous position that could warrant any kind of notice board activity.

An aside; after stumbled across Paul Kevin Curtis and 2013 ricin letters, I took the bold liberty to demonstrate my position on wp:blp and wp:blpcrime, through editing, and I would hope my position is both clear, and supportable; for it is my understanding of the guidelines and part of my answer to how they apply. I'm sorry for being long winded, and wasting good time here. With that—I'm out of here. My76Strat (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not see it as an overreaction when one contributor, after asserting that An Innocent person would say "I didn't do it!" not "yes I did it and here is why I did it" and calling for us to drop the whole "alleged, suspect" stuff already [120], edits the article to describe the individuals unequivocally as the Boston Marathon bombers [121]. It isn't our job to determine guilt - and there may well be legal repurcussions in doing so. I have no idea why My76Strat is suggesting that it was his comments that brought up the issue. It wasn't. It was Legacypac, who made the edit above, and - Epeefleche, who seemed determined to Wikilawyer around our obligation to refer to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as a 'suspect' or 'accused', on bizzare grounds that seem to have no relation whatsoever with what the sources say about this case, and instead refer to some other entirely hypothetical circumstance, invented solely to confuse the issue. Anyway, I have no intention of participating in this ridiculous attempt to engage in trial by talk-page, and am done editing the Boston bombers article. Others will have to ensure that Wikipedia complies with its own policies, and doesn't determine 'facts' via talk-page debate, as some contributors seem intent on doing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. There is an explanation here of the important distinction between saying: a) one committed an act -- which, such as bombing or killing is not in and of itself a crime (there are myriad defenses to it being a crime), and b) that one is guilty of a crime. Committing such an act is not in and of itself a crime, even if the act is an element of the crime. See Element (criminal law). I may admit I killed someone, for example, but then be found not guilty of the crime -- on the basis of self defense, insanity, duress, or any one of a number of factors.

WP:BLPCRIME refers to and applies to "crimes." Saying a person "accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." We can reflect that they have admitted to committing the act (if we have the correct RS support). But at the same time they are still only accused of the crime and not (until and unless convicted) guilty of it, and our coverage should reflect that as well, where BLPCRIME applies.

Furthermore, on a related but separate note, BLPCRIME itself states in footnote 6: "BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow."--Epeefleche (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with a reasonable amount of "alleged" and "suspect" and "accused" words in the articles where they make sense for the flow - like "the FBI released photos of two suspects" or "The DA filed a complaint that accuses D of xyz crime. However since we have at least two reported confessions/claims of responsibility I believe we can safely stop adding these words into every other sentence and lay off some of the BPL citing. There is a clear hole in the BPL policy as it does not cover confessed perpetrators. Now the policy says nothing - I think it should say something like "a person who has confessed to an act or claimed responsibility for an act is presumed to have committed the act, absent substantial evidence to the contrary." Are the policies editable? Legacypac (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This misses that the actual wording tells us to "give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting...(etc)". It doesn't tell us that we can't. In the hypothetical case of someone who was captured on CCTV committing a crime and then gave a series of interviews explaining why they did it but has yet to come to trial, we ought to be able to give that serious consideration without concluding that we need to remain circumspect.

In the present case, though, it needs to be remembered that the suspect is not yet known to have confessed, it is only reported that he has confessed. Formerip (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If you read the BLPN discussion, Epeefleche is reasoning "saying that he committed a bombing isn't accusing him of a crime because it is possible to commit a bombing and still be legally innocent." You can interpret policy that way if you're being literal, but common sense says that that's not what it means. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Another minor note, I don't think Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a high-profile individual. While just an essay, WP:LOWPROFILE gives us some useful guidelines. Primarily, attention-seeking is the key factor; but from what we know, he did not intend to become known and thus did not personally seek attention, even though he obviously intended for his admitted acts to become known. He has not given any media interviews or similar; I guess you could call a bombing a "promotional activity", but again, he apparently didn't intend to be discovered. So I do not think we can simply ignore BLPCRIME based on him supposedly being a high-profile individual. Epeefleche's view makes perfect sense from a purely theoretical standpoint, but we need to consider what the reader might connect and consider. Very few readers are likely to presume legal innocence when a subject is noted as having confessed to a crime, so I don't think that line of reasoning makes sense here. (Note that I'm not sure at all if we should leave the confession out altogether, since it is encyclopedic, but other policies may require us to do so as noted; but I'm not really convinced it belongs in the lead, specifically.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Follow BLP and call the guy a suspect until he is convicted. The fact that he's confessed, even if true, means nothing beyond the fact that it's a fact that can be mentioned. It does not mean he's guilty in the eyes of the law. It doesn't even mean he's guilty as a matter of fact. False confessions happen all the time, which is why a bare confession is not enough for a conviction in court. BLP policy does not cover people who've confessed but have not been convicted for an excellent reason. They are not known to be guilty. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

However, Tamerlan (being deceased) is almost certainly never going to be convicted of anything related to the bombings. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 04:48, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

I'm just tacking this onto the bottom of this thread, since I haven't thoroughly read through it all, but I've been working a lot on this matter: This is a tricky case as far as suspect-vs.-perpetrator goes, because there are some things that are generally being said without the "allegedly"s – that Dzhokhar was hiding in the boat, for instance. However, there are a lot of things we can easily avoid. For instance, I've changed various instances of the word "suspects" in the bombings article to "bombers" or "perpetrators", since, even though it sounds more diplomatic, saying "the suspects then carjacked a driver" is actually more of a BLP issue than saying "the bombers then carjacked a driver". I've also tried to remove any excessive detail about the perpetrators from the article on the suspects, since it gives a strong implication of guilt to say "Here are two guys who are suspected of a bunch of awful crimes; they have not been convicted. However, here's 5 paragraphs of gory details of all the things that somebody – *wink wink nudge nudge* – did." Echoing Newyorkbrad, I do think it's important to note that BLP isn't a suicide pact, and that it's impossible to give no implication that the Tsarnaevs were the perpetrators... what matters, as always, is simply following the reliable sources and erring on the side of caution and common-sense.

Also, Tamerlan provides an interesting wrinkle in everything, since of course he'll never be brought to trial. I believe for such cases we normally defer to the police's view unless there's reason to doubt it. However, WP:BDP exists for a reason, so as long as Dzhokhar hasn't been convicted of anything I think we should maintain an equally high standard of sourcing for Tamerlan. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 18:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• My personal opinion is that Tamerlan should stay as a "suspect" for sake of simplicity, for now, until the circumstances are clearer. I would not go beyond that. --Marianian^(talk) 07:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

AngieWattsFan; WP:OWN issues, edit warring, and belligerent edit summaries

AngieWattsFan (talk · contribs) has had a reputation of edit warring in the past (earning themselves a ban only three months ago), and it seems they are continuing to do so now. The main culprit article is Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010. Although the first edit war is over (they wanted to add a series of images to the article, even when consensus was overwhelmingly against them. It only ended with a three-day full protection of the article), this editor has continued to be belligerent in other areas. Their edit summaries are rather aggressive, and s/he has often insisted that many editors other than his/herself are unfit to edit the article [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] , thereby breaking WP:OWN.

Now, after I deleted a certain claim on the article, they've re-added it with a source; the problem is that the citation does not support the claim. I have removed it twice, explaining this, but I'm unwilling to get into an edit war and break 3RR about it. Despite talking this through on my talk page with the editor, they continue claim that the source does prove what they're saying, in the process asking why "I'm not at work" [130]. It seems that they are either completely misinterpreting what the source says or hoping to deceive editors so they get their own way. Although I normally try to assume good faith about these things, it's becoming difficult to trust that this editor is not trying to declare ownership of the article or slipping back into an edit-warring state of mind where they are reluctant to discuss things properly. – Richard BB 10:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Note, this AN/I discussion has also had mention on my talk page, where both User:Blackmane and User:AnemoneProjectors have supported me, and I thank them for it. Blackmane has confirmed that the citation in question does not support the claim, while AnemoneProjectors has commented that AngieWattsFan's edit warring on Eastenders articles led to their first block. – Richard BB 11:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Can I support this. I came across AngieWattsFan in EastEnders articles but he has also been abusive towards me and other editors in relation to other articles - Noticeably University Technical Colleges. Bleaney (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand if people would like to have a discussion however, with User:Bleaney, you said something that was not true and needed correcting. My frustration is that you refused to correct and you ignored consensus. On EastEnders articles, I have been previously blocked and I accepted the consensus. As for User:Richard BB, you made an edit to a long-standing piece of the article and you clearly did not read the article otherwise you would have left it alone. You also should have tried to have a discussion on the talkpage, something that I accepted. On top of that, User:Rrius and yourself have been abusive in your correspondence towards me. I would like to question the motives of those who ar ejunping on this particular bandwagon.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Angie, not part of the article supports your claim about Ruth. Just because it had been there for a long time (unsourced, I might add), it doesn't mean that it deserves to stay there. I have challenged its inclusion, and still see no reason to keep it. I have tried discussing this with you; that is why there is a discussion about it on my talk page right now (where you have yet to address the points I have presented). And finally, neither myself nor Rrius have been abusive to you. On the contrary, I think your attitude towards him (and to a lesser extent myself) in the edit summaries prior to the page protection was awfully aggressive. And please do not accuse other editors of "jumping on the bandwagon" just because they disagree with you. — Richard BB 13:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thats not accurate AngieWattsFan, With UTCs we were trying to discuss a rewording of the article, yet you threw accuations of edit warring against me as well as being generally rude about myself and others on other articles. Your default position seems to be accusing people of not knowing as much as as you when they disagree with you, and you just will not stop edit warring. You have even apologised for edit warring, but then effectively say 'But im right anyway'. I dont doubt that you are a good faith editor, its just that become very aggressive when others disagree with you, and seem to operate a 'its my way or the highway' attitude in regards to edit wars. Bleaney (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I'd like to emphasise that I am pointing out that the source that AngieWattsFan (abbreviating to AWF if that's ok) used did not support the claim they were aiming to introduce into the article. The wording in the source does have enough ambiguity that a quick read of it will give the conclusion that AWF came to, but careful reading of it will make it clear that is not the case. I also had a look at the other sources in that same section and their use for the claim being made, that a particular politician was a possible candidate for leadership of the UK Labour party in the 2010 leadership challenge, is very specious and warrants some attention, but that's for the article talk page. As for the "bandwagon", I have no horse in this race. I'm merely an ANI stalker who periodically seeks to provide an outside opinion on things that are raised here (maybe too often). Blackmane (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

AngieWattsFan has now taken up this nasty habit of telling me to take edits to the talk page, despite the fact there is a dicussion on the talk page which they are not contributing to, perhaps a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. — Richard BB 06:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

AngieWattsFan has a habit of turning things against editors who warn him - you say AWF does not own a page, AWF accuse you of ownership. Similar things happened when he was editing EastEnders character articles. Eventually he did accept the consensus, but it was hard work to get there and it involved a lot of edit warring, instead of discussion beforehand. I think AWF should have learnt from that experience, but he didn't appear to have done so. Perhaps a block is necessary? I'd prefer a different, uninvolved admin to consider this though, if that's ok. –anemoneprojectors– 08:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I would support a mid-term block. Despite the fact that AWF is (it appears) attempting to make constructive edits, they consistently fail to work with others, edit war and become abusive towards others. It seems as though all AWF has done is take this disruptive behaviour to another part of Wikipedia after being thwarted in EastEnders articles. Bleaney (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There are some WP:CIR issues along with WP:OWN, WP:EW, and WP:EQ. This sort of behaviour is exactly what s/he was blocked for in the past, but they do not seem to have changed their attitudes. — Richard BB 10:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a brief protection of the page so that things can be properly hashed out on the talk page without the edit warring. I wouldn't oppose a block, but page protection for a bit might do the trick. Blackmane (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

LittleBenW violating his TBAN again...

Nothing to see here, move along - The Bushranger One ping only 03:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I'm pretty sure despite LBW getting off with only two days last time, ArbCom didn't touch his topic ban. So this is a blatant violation. The terms of his ban are that he is not allowed to participate in discussions regarding diacritics, yet here he specifically mentions diacritics under the euphemistic wording "extended-Latin characters". And again attacks, completely out-of-the-blue, the use of diacritics in Vietnam-related articles. I'm going to refrain from pulling an LBW and canvasing by contacting the 20+ people whose !votes were discounted last time, but this is an open-and-shut case: he has already been blocked twice[131] for violating the topic ban, and he has now done so again. The first block was for one day, the second for one week: how long is this one going to be? Konjakupoet (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC) I gave a technical answer to a user's question: why doesn't the drop-down autosuggest display all the article titles that exist. The answer is that probably it's not programmed to display extended Latin characters, and probably Google's autosuggest is the same in his country. LittleBen (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC) I already promised not to canvas, but I think User:In ictu oculi and User:Kauffner can tell the reader a lot more about the Vietnam issues than I can. I forgot that my mentioning that LBW mentioned it might oblige me to explain, but really I am only peripherally aware of In ictu oculi being followed by Kauffner (or, less likely, the other-way-round) and something about a string of RMs about moving between the correct spellings of Vietnamese words and their basic glyphs. Konjakupoet (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Using redirects is proper and done all the time -- I do not see it as being a major issue for you to come here every few days seeking retribution against all the ills an editor has done to you. In short - have a cup of tea, please. Wait at least a week before complaining again about LBW. Collect (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC) LBW, why did you mention Vietnam? You violated you topic ban for the 100+th time, and now are pretending you are not under a topic ban. Again. In fact the issues I brought up before still have not been addressed: a two-week block was called for, but the block was repealed after less than three days. And you have made countless personal attacks against me since being unblocked -- why should I want to let you away with this? (For the record, "out" was Zebedee's word, not mine: he was not entirely wrong. But no one wanted to silence you so you couldn't respond here. How could you think he was trying to silence you when he later voted against you being indefinitely block?) Konjakupoet (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Why do you stalk me and harass me, like you have been doing to so many other users—you even brag that you can easily get other editors blocked at ANI because you are always in the right? You have received four warnings on your talk page from four different editors about insulting edit summaries and about attacking other users in just four days, and yet you are still continuing on your personal vendetta against the whole world.  LittleBen (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Seriously, this again? The embers of the last discussion haven't even gone cold yet and you're throwing airliner fuel on it. Exactly how does your diff indicate a violation of the topic ban? I see nothing in that diff that violates the TBAN. To be honest, I think this is just clutching at any straw to get LBW blocked. Please close this and move on. Blackmane (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC) I'm not seeing it either. The edit had nothing to do with whether and how to use characters with diacritics, either in articles or in titles, and I can certainly see nothing in it that would amount to an "attack" on "the use of diacritics in Vietnam-related articles". Konjakupoet, please give it a rest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC) LBW, I keep trying to caution you to stop harassing me, stop making personal attacks (your dozens of User talk page edits in the few hours following your unblock including numerous examples), and stop violating your TBAN. You have yet to take my advice. You are now calling me a stalker, even though I have never trawled your edit history to find out the name of your employer and contact them, or defended the actions of anyone who did anything similar. Contact the four separate users and ask them to tell me again that my edit summaries have been insulting. I dare you. Konjakupoet (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Deerlover567 has made a substantial and ongoing set of incoherent edits

This thread was originally located on AN; has been moved here for housekeeping reasons. m.o.p 06:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. I have been using the mop sporadically for a while, though I've been quiet. However, about an hour ago, I discovered some really incoherent edits to a page, Freckle Juice. I went into the history, and found that the edits had been made last December (diff), by an editor named Deerlover567 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I found nothing of note had been done since then, reverted the edits, then went to leave a warning on the editor's page. And I found years of complaints of incoherent editing. The complaints were minor, for the most part, and Deerlover567 seems to mostly nibble at the edges - articles unimportant enough that no one notices the edits for months.

I went to look at Deerlover567's contributions, and found...well, a disaster. A massive number of plots that were rewritten, removing information, deleting links, adding extensive amounts of original research and opinion, and often introducing pretty extensive factual issues (I do not believe that the editor is doing that last intentionally - I do believe the editor is rewriting plots from memory and introducing errors because of written language issues).

Sometimes, as in A Charlie Brown Christmas (diff) , the rewrite was caught quickly. In other cases, such as in The Backyardigans (diff), the changes were done months ago and helpful information has been added. There is going to need to be an extensive check of this users entire history; almost all of their edits that are more than a few characters long need to be looked at, and reverted if need be, while checking for valuable info added in the interim.

I am willing to do this very moppy mopping, but I estimate that each page that needs to be edited and corrected is going to take 5-7 minutes to check properly, and the user has done almost 700 edits, most of them of a size indicating they are not minor, since January 2012. I need help in this, there needs to be an admin game plan for tracking which pages have been checked and corrected, and then there is the issue of the editor. I genuinely believe that Deerlover567 is attempting to be a helpful and contributing member of the community, but...there is clearly an issue, and because the editor is certainly interested in wikipedia and attempting to contribute, for years with little interference (even if there should have been), I felt this needed to be treated differently than the usual problem. Comments? --Thespian (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a competence issue (the user may be a younger editor - see here). Looking at the user's history, I cannot find a single instance of them speaking to another editor - they've never posted in the talk, User Talk, or Wikipedia Talk namespaces. This is a bit worrying. It leads me to believe they either aren't seeing those messages on their talk page or are choosing to ignore them. In either case, I'd recommend giving a sterner warning on their talk page letting them know that this is causing issues. If they continue without heeding said warning then I'd say a block is justified. m.o.p 06:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That is possible, but since the user has been editing for 4 years now with little change in quality, I am uncertain of that. I had upped the warning level when I posted, from the earlier things I had seen. But there's also going to be the issue that going and changing 500+ of their edits is a massive undertaking. Normally with this I work on 'you find it, you fix it', but I can't do this...it'll be all I do for half a year. And they'll keep editing. --Thespian (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If they keep editing without reply, we can block them. As for undoing the edits; I could try to help, but I doubt I'd be able to do more than a few dozen. m.o.p 07:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to come up with a way to divide them so that people who can help (hey, it might be good for insomnia) could pitch in. I was thinking of simply starting a list in my sandbox where people could claim a month ("I will work on January 2012") and then mark when they have completed it, so people could do things in small batches and pick the amount they feel they want to take on. I really don't mind spearheading it and working on it, but this could take most of the next 6 months on my own.

As to blocking....if that gets done, I'm unsure it would matter. If this user does not understand the talk board or social media aspects of Wikipedia, I suspect they'll just be confused, then (try to) start a new account because the old one doesn't work anymore.--Thespian (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with m.o.p. The user hasn't edited since April 17. The last two edits were fine. Going backwards from there are incoherent plot changes (sometimes to pre-existing incoherent plots). We should issue a "final" or "only" warning now, but personalized in case they actually choose to respond. The next bad edit after the warning should trigger a block. Not blocking the editor because they may create another account is not the right approach. If the disruption persists, they should be blocked. If they come back, they will simply have to be blocked again for socking. What other choice do we have to prevent the disruption?--Bbb23 (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

99.129.112.89

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

---

Disregard

IP 99.129.112.89 is continually assuming bad faith and accusing me of owning an article because he/she is mad I took down one of his/her edits that violates both Wikipedia is not a newspaper and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #3 over a dispute that started on 2013 Detroit Tigers season but spilled over to my talk page. 07:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC) <---this is not true, this is what the user is actually doing.

Please don't twist this around to be about me. It's about the content, and the fact you did not properly follow the necessary steps to dispute my contribution. You are the one who is accussing me of what you're doing. I didn't accuse you of "owning" an article, I only typed 'you do not own it' (based on this and other edits/reverts you've made as well as comments about it being "dull" and how you almost fell asleep during the game as if that determines if season play information belongs on the article or not). I am not the one who is mad, how can you tell that? It is how you are coming across since I called you out on causing an edit war, reverting constructive info that is on other MLB article, and you being "abusive" in your responses. Thank you for bringing it here, before I could.

FYI: Hello! Any thoughts/help? I'm not trying to "win". I don't care if it's there or not, my problem is how this user went about conducting themself and not properly taking steps to resolve a dispute. I saved him/her from violating a three-rule revert as well. Very frustrating trying to defend myself. Please see: [132][133][134]([135]) 1. It is well written about the season games. 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. 3. It is broad in its coverage. 4. It follows the neutral point of view policy (fair representation without bias). 5. It is stable. Thanks! :) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't violate any rules. You think it's about me and what I think. It isn't; your edits fail two rules of notability and therefore don't belong. End of story. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

My issue isn't so much about the content, and you seeming to want to monopolize the article. If that is the impression I gave you, I apologize. It has just been the experiences I've had in the past. My problem is that you did not follow proper steps and continued to revert what is included on MANY MLB articles already. That must mean they also need to be removed? What ever the case, this is not worth me fighting. You did not get a consensus, you are "nasty" in your responses, and you nearly violated the three-rule revert I prevented you from doing since I'm not trying to get my way. It is simply how you improperly handled the dispute and attacked me (ie. "childish insult"). You are not someone I want to argue with, and I am taking the high road as a classy person and letting you have your way. I know what I know and was merely trying to expand and help with the article via an ESPN source about notable facts regarding players. You in fact did not give good faith or the benefit of the doubt. I compromised and even shortened my contribution. That wasn't good enough for you. If others read the comments on the talk pages, I hope they will see my point. If not, no sweat. You still did not go about this correctly, and that's what my concern is. Rules are in place for reasons, whether my edits belong on the season article or not. Bye! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No you were being nasty. You assumed bad faith multiple times. Sorry if you don't like my attitude but that's not illegal on here. Posting random un-notable crap like "Butler got 3 hits" and "Verlander got a chapped finger" is though. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Attention to others: User keeps blaming me for what he/she is doing. I wasn't the nasty one. The "Tom Cat" user has also changed this topic from my IP address which is not what the issue is about, from the 2013 Detroit Tigers season. He/she is also incorrect in claiming I assumed bad faith. He/she clearly is conducting bad faith though, after the fact. The above "quotes" are not what my contribution were about. In fact, I explained that ESPN covered the injury online and on TV in great detail. I sourced it as I have, and others have, on MLB season articles. I was simply wondering why this person reverted it and didn't discuss why first. He/she also removed our conversations off his/her page and therefore, please see this: [136] In addition, I've contacted three other users who update MLB season articles as I do (without conflict), and got one reply here: User_talk:RedSoxFan274#2013_Detroit_Tigers. Unfortunately, "Tom Cat" has gotten no consensus. Only after I said I'd get assistance, did he/she post here blaming me as a user (via IP address) instead of making this topic about the 2013 Detroit Tigers article. Words this user used were "dull" and "fell asleep during the game". This was supposed to convince me that since he/she didn't like my input or the game, that it wasn't worth putting in an article that is not overloaded with Regular Season statistics already (and an article that should give details about happenings within the season and team). He/she also blamed me of listing items. And of bad faith. This is not based on anything. I have noticed that it seemed to me the person was monopolizing the article, based on past reverts. I was trying to save this person from him/herself before committing a three-revert violation. Lastly, the user's attitude is one thing, but the fact this person used words like "childish" and "English must not be your first language" is belittling, attacking and inappropriate for disputing content. This person is not following proper steps to resolve a disagreement and that is why I'm responding. If my effort was not appreciated, I can live with that (although the person was very negative which sends a bad messages to users wanting to help improve Wikipedia). But it means other MLB articles are wrong too then. IF you read the messages I left on his/her talk page and the 2013 Detroit Tigers Season article, you'll see I was just trying to do this the right way and find out why he/she didn't want it on there. Tom Cat's reasons were personal at first, then he/she made it about Wikipedia rules that are not clear on MLB season articles. At any rate, I appreciate your neutral input in advance... Thank you! :) P.S. I will avoid this user from now on, it is just not worth doing this when I've done nothing wrong. Right/wrong/indifferent. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict... now the user posted "disregard" but if that's the case I am replacing my content, and if he/she removes it again, it will be three reverts. Just wanting that to be clear. I have others I've contacted and I think it's only fair to discuss this until finished. I just didn't want communication with "Tom Cat" anymore, as it's pointless. I am here for the input and help of others to get a consensus. Sincerely, 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The childish bickering aside, TomCat4680 is actually correct in that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of news updates. Unless something significantly notable happened in the game that you added material about then per WP:NOTNEWS it should be removed. Also, the fact that similar stuff is on other articles is not, and will never be, accepted as a reason for material to be included. If other similar material exists in other articles, then steps should be taken to examine their encyclopedic value. To the IP, please do not add your material again as both of you may then be blocked for edit warring. If other opinion is sought, seek dispute resolution, a third opinion or the baseball wikiproject. Blackmane (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as myself, it's not childish bickering, it is a discussion and should be treated as such. I am not concerened if it's included, it's that the person violated policy/rules. But let it slide I guess, that must be why it continues to happen on Wikipedia. The input is notable... Again, its about players being recalled, injuries, player debuts and a record set. It is not wrong to be there. There are many articles giving way too many details about celebrities, movie plots, song details and episodes, more than I gave, and nothing happens. I can tell you have not really gone through the actual contributions I included, or am I wrong? 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Not worth it. I gave another input from a user who does the same thing above already. And Tom Cat is wrong. I also know for a fact that the user is not correct about how they handled a dispute, but who cares. You can close this as I do not care to return about something so petty. I just know to stay away from Tom Cat, since I did everything right and he/she did not. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The rules say if something is un-notable, take it down; consensus isn't needed. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, I refer you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Whether another article has similar sorts of material is not an argument for/against keeping material in an article. Since it's a disagreement between two editors a consensus cannot be formed, hence my referral to the other three parts of wiki for outside opinion. As a matter of fact, I've read through the various diffs and my conclusion was that it didn't merit inclusion, others my opine differently. Ironically, such an accusation is an assumption of bad faith. (As an aside, the celebrity stuff is pretty much rubbish in my opinion and really shouldn't be in an encyclopedia but we are where we are). I re-iterate, this is a content dispute, seek an outside opinion.

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

Article Probation Modification - Men's rights movement

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

---

Greetings ANI - I've been a patrolling admin on this article and unfortunately it is subject to a lot of edit warring. See recent history. I've also several times warned folks not to cross into edit warring for the reverting and blocked others. The article probation log is Talk:Men's_rights_movement/Article_probation. I am requesting a strengthening of the probation to a WP:1RR on the article for six months until Sept 20, 2013.--v/r - TP 16:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I left a notification here since there are no specific users I am talking about.--v/r - TP 16:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean October, don't you?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think this is a good idea, but suggest that IP edits should be excluded, as is the case of the Israel/Palestine and Troubles IRR restrictions[137]. As we know from past experience, external websites are sometimes used to recruit editors to this topic, and I can see a IRR being easily gamed otherwise.--Slp1 (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. 1RR excluding IP edits. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. m.o.p 18:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggested that original probation 18 months ago and frankly I'd support an indefinite 1RR in line with all the other probations listed by Slp1. This is a long running (pre-2007) issue and it hasn't been solved within 6 years. I don't see it going away in 6 months time. That said I support this measure as reasonable. Also could more uninvolved admins give Tom a hand - this is a controversial area its not really fair to leave it up to 1 or 2 uninvolved sysops, more eyes are needed--Cailil ^talk 20:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I am in favor of indefinite semi-protection to keep IPs at bay, and 1RR for registered users for six months and even longer. Binksternet (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Although talking in a responsible, familiar and objective tone, or referring to Admins by their 1st name, it should be pointed out that Cailil and Binkersnet have also been heavily involved in these disputes. I hope this decision is made on the merits of the case at hand, and not other concerns or connections. CSDarrow (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

How does a "decision... made on the merits of the case at hand" differ in any way from what Cailil has suggested, or from what I have suggested? Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record, my first name is not Tom. They've just connected the dots that my name refers to Tom Paris.--v/r - TP 20:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Disagree Several of the commenters above (see the Talk page) have engaged in what can only be described as editing this article from a very strong anti-MRM, feminist perspective. Basically, the article reads as the "MRM from a feminist perspective" -- this has been brought up several times independently by several editors. Not exactly NPOV.

These restrictions will not help -- I fear these editors will just continue to game the system. The problem is that Wikipedia does not have sufficiently effective policies in place to deal with situations such as this. The best that one could wish for is an Administrator to oversee the editing with a sharp eye for accuracy, balance and fairness. Memills (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The article reads like "the MRM from a feminist perspective" because the sources are about the MRM from a feminist perspective. All of the sources are about the MRM from a feminist perspective because that's how the MRM frames itself. Your complaints aren't about Wikipedia; they're about the MRM. The editors above aren't gaming the system...the system just doesn't work the way you wish it did. If you want a Wikipedia article about your movement that isn't written from the perspective of another movement, don't have a movement that exists only as a reaction to another movement. 216.185.13.253 (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Long-standing battleground. I support 1RR for six months, and I feel semiprotection should be instituted as soon as TParis' recent full protection expires (which is tomorrow). Bishonen | talk 14:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC).

• Support indefinite semi-protection and an additional 1RR for six months. I hope that more uninvolved admins can keep an eye on the article. It would help if more admins chimed in to determine if comments like [138] and [139] and persistent WP:OR (one example) violate the article probation. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support, per Binksternet, with indef semi-protection, as this article has suffered from off site campaigns several times now; with Slp1's IP exemption as a second choice. While the original probation was for the main article only, Sonicyouth makes a good point. Should we expand to include the topic on related articles? If we semi the main article, the problems may leak over onto other articles more. And Sonicyouth, your point about needing more admins is also well taken. I apologize that circumstances have not allowed me to be as helpful as I'd like lately. KillerChihuahua 11:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Disagree: I think this page will soon be arriving at a steady state as per WP:FIVE Pillars. There will be a number of well argued cases taken to WP:RSN in the next few days. These will address the core issues of the dispute and bring the bickering to end one way or an another. I hate to see the page cast in stone as is for 6 months; this may be to the liking of some but not to others.

I think it is important to bear in mind that the ultimate purpose of Administrative action is not to stop argument on a talk page, but to foster the production of quality Wikipedia pages. Sometimes we forget that the pages themselves are more important than the trivial dramas of our editing world. CSDarrow (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Per discussion here, I've semi-protected the article for 6 months. If any admin feels strongly that the duration should be longer (or shorter), s/he should feel free to change it; I won't be mad. MastCell ^Talk 21:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Could we get a closure on this?--v/r - TP 12:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Recent personal attacks and incivility

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

---

Rgambord (talk · contribs) has been deleting comments from Talk:Men's rights movement. I and another editor asked him to stop [140][141]. His response was that he deleted my comments because they would have gotten me banned (please see for yourselves if my comment that he deleted would have gotten me banned). He added "Are you dense? (That's a rhetorical question, don't answer it.)" Prior to that he explained on User talk:South19 that he removed his edits because the editor should be shamed of himself and "People like you disgust me" [142].

I am sick and tired of the snide remarks and personal attacks. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sonicyouth is a bit confused here. I removed South19's comment in which he called a man who committed suicide by self-immolation a domestic terrorist, under the provisions of WP:BDP. I did not intentionally remove sonicyouth's comment when merging the three sections, nor did I realise that I had done so until it was brought to my attention. If you review my edit summary, "Merging three identical discussions into one heading; Hopefully I'm not stepping on any toes", clearly it was in good faith. I will strikeout the uncivil portions of my comments. Rgambord (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Due to the rapid commenting, I confused sonicyouth and south19 at times but corrected my comments to address the proper editors. If sonicyouth read it before my correction, that might have contributed to confusion. User_talk:Sonicyouth86#SorryRgambord (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"Dense" and "confused". "People like you disgust me" and "you should be ashamed of yourself". A neat collection of personal attacks. Just for reference: A long-time editor was topic banned for a month because he made a joke about red-linked users [143]. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond to this. I have a constitutionally protected right to voice my opinion that South19 should be ashamed of his comments. He called the man a terrorist. Are you missing that part? The part where he publicly called another human being, a man who committed suicide by dousing himself with gasoline and setting himself on fire as a last resort to being stripped of everything he cared about, a terrorist? I think you must have missed that part. There's no room for good faith assumptions there. That was a vile and reprehensible, but I am the bad guy because I "censored" his divisive soapboxing and voiced a personal issue with his behavior on his talk page. I also posted an apology on your talk page which you quickly deleted. Just go ahead and add me to the ever-growing list of editors leaving this failed experiment because I value my time more than to constantly engage in petty squabbles about things like adding the word perceived into sentences where it is already implied and doesn't really belong, and removing the classification of human rights movement, because golly, men's rights just isn't logically a subset of human rights, didn't you get the memo? Wikipedia is the only place I've been where people could fill books on whether to add or remove a SINGLE WORD in an article.Rgambord (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You have a constitutionally protected right against Government censorship of your opinion. At this time your behavior is disruptive and I am about to topic ban you for a month.--v/r - TP 20:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Apostle12, again, and POVPUSH

I logged in to put a tag on a medical article that was full of primary non-MEDRS sources. I made the mistake of looking at my watchlist.

Mere days after the previous ANI discussion about User:Apostle12's editing behavior, he has inserted contentious material that had been removed from Huey P. Newton into Black Panther Party, though he is clearly aware of the substantial sourcing and credibility issues -- he took part in the discussions that led to their removal.

The edits at issue in Black Panther Party: [144] -- assertions of criminality and a Kate Coleman SFGate piece [145] -- portraying an allegation, never proven and based on hearsay, that appeared in Pearson's book "Shadow of the Panther" as fact

At Huey P. Newton, he took part in extensive discussions about the credibility of Coleman, both in reference to the SFGate piece and to his insertion of what were deemed non-RS allegations of a romantic relationship between Newton and a movie director: [146] [147] [148]

There have been discussions at RSN already about:

the John Frey "admission" (which was re-inserted here)

the Coleman/SFGate source (inserted here)

(in regards to the allegations of a romantic involvement, there was a DRN case as well, in which Coleman's use as a source was also at issue)

Rather than rewrite the claims to better reflect the sourcing issues, as he suggested he would do at one point on Talk:Huey P. Newton, he has simply re-inserted the contentious claims on Black Panther Party. This, especially given the history, seems as clearn an indicator of WP:POVPUSH as I can imagine.

I attempted to initiate enforcement actions through ArbCom. In the course of the previous ANI discussion Apostle12 received a warning, and I thought that this would qualify as being about "race and intelligence, broadly construed." ArbCom did not feel it was actionable.

I have not notified or engaged with Apostle12 other than place an ANI discussion tag on his page because the previous discussions should, quite frankly, have been enough of an indicator that this source was contentious, and that more care should have been taken with its use. We discussed these sources in excruciating detail, for an extended period of time. I am not willing to get more deeply involved in this discussion right now; I have not even reverted the edits in question, and they persist in the Black Panther Party article.

The reason I am unwilling to engage should be apparent from the Talk page discussions I have linked. If not, well, sanction me for not following protocol. I care more, at this point, about raising the issue of this disruptive, tendentious editing than i do about maintaining my own ability to edit.

And I will now be resuming my wikibreak, and if i have reason to make small edits in the future, such as the one I made at Eculizumab, I will not make the mistake again of checking my watchlist. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 05:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't this complaint basically just posted to WP:AE and rejected, and with the same claim at the end that you'd be resuming your wikibreak? No comment on the merits of the case, but at a superficial glance it seems like forum shopping. Sædon^talk 09:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I see the last topic ban proposal Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive792#WP:NOTFORUM_at_White_privilege#Proposed topic-ban wasn't closed. Does someone want to resurrect it? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There wasn't consensus for a topic ban in that discussion, and this forum shopping makes me think this should be closed without any action (and I supported the topic ban). Seriously, you can't leave Wikipedia forever only to come back and keep trying to get the same person banned. Well technically you can, but don't expect to get good results. AniMate 00:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

So perhaps "wikibreak" needs clarification. For me, in this context, its definition has been "an attempt to avoid dealing with things that make me upset by ignoring them and hoping the whole thing Just Goes Away." Yes, I've suggested it would be permanent. I was, still am, pretty much at the end of my rope with this nonsense, so it may happen, might not, but I will absolutely concede that it's not doing anyone any good by me being dramatic about it. I stayed away for two weeks and didnt have to think about any of this crap. It was a nice two weeks, and i hope next time it will be longer.

So, Mea culpa. my apologies.

All the same, I do want to clear some things up.

1. The AE filing was denied not on its merits, but because of scope. Sandstein's comments there clearly indicate that I was simply wrong in my judgement that these edits qualified as being about "race and intelligence, broadly construed." Personally, I think it was a reasonable mistake, but i am obviously self interested. I would like to think that if i saw another editor do the same, I would extend them the courtesy of chalking it up to a simple misunderstanding rather than assume they were forum shopping. Especially given that they put the link right there and werent trying to hide it somehow.
2. in the ANI case, I brought up NOTFORUM, and then from what i could tell a bunch of admins proceeded to make the issue about racism. this was facepalm-worthy. racism is something that people hem and haw about, and what's racist to one person seems totally normal to another person with different experiences. that is precisely why my complaint in the ANI case was about NOTFORUM, and likewise why my case here is about POVPUSH (and RS, and IDHT, and TE.) I mean, of course I thought the comments were incredibly offensive and racist. I mentioned that they were offensive at the time. but my complaint made reference to the policy specifically, and not to the offensive content on display.
3. in the event that you think my behavior was beyond the pale, I am more than happy to stand up and explain myself. but in the meantime, you have someone flaunting policy on contentious topics that is far more of a threat to the Project. Please, if you feel it warranted, open up an ArbCom case on my behavior, afterwards. I will be happy to comply in whatever way i can, in no small measure because at least then someone will be telling me which policies can be safely disregarded and which ones people actually give a shit about enforcing. which brings me to:
4. I don't give a rat's ass whether you ban Apostle12 or not. I supported it in the ANI filing because it seemed like a reasonable way to prevent the sort of behavior that was problematic, because talking it out seemed not to do anything but make matters worse. If i were itching for a topic ban, wouldn't I have asked for that in the RfC/U? Or in the ANI filing? In the RfC/U, we were asking for just the barest hint of respectful editing behavior from Apostle12, and yet somehow the whole thing got filled up with commenters who blew our concerns off, normalizing it as "frustrated" behavior. Even now I don't fucking care whether he has a topic ban or not. I CARE ABOUT THE POOR SOURCING, POVPUSHING, AND ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR HE DISPLAYS. If there's some way to prevent that, I will be happy as a clam, regardless of if the remedy is community ban or saying nice things about his mother (who I'm sure is a very nice person). Given history though, I don't think that scrutiny has to be off of him for very long before he pull some shit like I detailed above. In case it escaped anyone's notice, I extended multiple offers to him to help edit, to come to a consensus, which in practically every case was both fruitless and excruciatingly long. I did not suggest a topic ban in the ANI filing. I was sort of hoping the community would take what it thought was appropriate action, which in this case was doing nothing, at least so far.

So if you need to, ignore my comments about wikibreaks etc. I am trying to avoid additional stress, and this topic (THE POOR SOURCING AND POVPUSH, JUST TO BE CLEAR) is one that has a tendency to make me stressed, (partly because it's just so fucking obvious, like there is no craft or subterfuge or art to it, which i would still be upset about, but at least could give points for style).

So don't expect me to respond to anything in a timely manner for at least the next few months, e.g. respond to questions. I promise I will just leave it at that, and not spew more of this wikibreak drama crap (that i am sorry for, see above).

And in the meantime, how about addressing the substance of the complaint -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 20:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

SW postcode area

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

---

Northstar456 (talk · contribs) is continuing to change SW20 to "Wimbledon" despite sources stating it. Checking his talk page shows that he has previously been warned for it. Please take whatever action is necessary.--Launchballer 14:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. Next time, try to notify them of the discussion, please. m.o.p 22:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Writers categories at CFD - multiple potential violations

Can some non-involved admins keep an eye on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24#Category:American women novelists, plus the CFD pages on subsequent days and the categories involved in the various discussions.

What we have here is:

• Controversy about the existance and/or method of population of Category:American women novelists, with the corresponding effect on the contents of Category:American novelists.
• Media attention and off-Wiki notification of the state of affairs.
• An initial CFD discussion that on my screen is already 36 screens long after just two days.
• Other categories being created and often rapidly nominated for deletion and/or merger. So far I've spotted Category:American male writers, Category:British men novelists & Category:American men novelists.
• Edit warring to add or remove articles from all the categories involved.
• Accusations of bad faith and sock puppetry. There's already been one investigation.

...and adding to the complications are not only the media interest but a lot of confusion about how category hierachies work and are understood to work, plus a number of contributors appear to have been dormant for years.

All this is causing some problems and possible violations. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

ip resuming bad habits

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

---

I first reported this some time ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive720#ip continually adding falsified information. It involves the ip 64.119.212.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and the article James King (Royal Navy officer). A registered user Skellands (talk · contribs) and his sock, this ip, edit warred over the introduction of some falsified material in opposition to the reputable cited sources. The behaviour that time led to an indefinite block on Skellands, and a graduated series of blocks on the ip that eventually reached three months. Now the ip is back, inserting the same erroneous information and topping it off this time with a copyvio of this site (ip's addition here). Even if the site he uses passed WP:RS, it in no way supports the ip's apparent contention about King's birthplace, attested to in the reliable cited sources (more on this on the talkpage here). Perhaps an administrator can take a look. Benea (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

IP doesn't edit much except to vandalize. Blocked for six months. m.o.p 22:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

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

RFC: Canvassing completely out of control

• Talk:K._P._Yohannan#Keeping_the_controversy_Section_in_this_article

Hi. :) I protected this article pending discussion and resolution of a content dispute. The RFC at the talk page has quickly spiraled out of control due to obvious canvassing, probably on both sides. (Far more successfully on one, where over 40 brand new contributors have quickly showed up to oppose inclusion of controversy on this religious figure.) I've already interacted with the article as an admin in protecting, and would really appreciate some more eyes on this. I have to say, I've never seen canvassing this blatant, but maybe that's because I don't hang out at AFDs. :) I have no idea what can or should be done. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that too, but I'm equally at a loss; my only idea was to open an SPI to see if any were socks, rather than canvassed people. Not sure there's much point to that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Writ Keeper, if you don't open an SPI, I will, it'll be interesting to see if they are linked or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Go for it; I don't even want to get into figuring out which is the master for the SPI title. (Maybe User:LoveYourNeighbor1?) As far as the RfC itself goes, it should just be scrapped; it'll be very difficult to tell the canvassed apart from normal editors (indeed, I'm not even sure there are any normal editors that have commented). Speedy close as no consensus due to canvassing issues and start anew, I guess. Maybe start the new one on a semi-protected page, as horrible a hack as that is. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• There's a zillion with red links for their user and user talk pages, and where their lifetime edits consist only of this RFC, so I think it's clear this is more a socking than a canvassing issue. North8000 (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The RFC is about inclusion of a section which is a complete mess. It needs radically rewriting (there are sources on the talk page), and then rebooting the RFC to discuss inclusion of a section that's actually comprehensible. Rd232 ^talk 18:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• SPI filed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aphoristofold. May be the wrong starting username, but that can be sorted during archiving, if necessary. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I just endorsed for a CU, but it is up to the checkuser to determine if a check of the logs is warranted or not. Probably can be handled from there now, since the RFC was shut down. Shutting down an RFC is unusual, but I think Future Perfect made the right call in doing so. Looks like CU/Arb Courcelles is already part way through the list. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like User:DeltaQuad has blocked most of the crowd but it is a messy CU. My advice is to treat any obvious meatpuppet gaming the system like a meatpuppet, applying blocks if needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• @Moonriddengirl. I do hang out at AfD and I've never seen anything remotely close to this mess. I'd advise admins to get the banhammer going, socking to subvert democracy should not be tolerated. It's a ridiculous situation. Carrite (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

User talk:ChakaKong

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

---

ChakaKong made a faulty and erroneous edit in the MGM Music page by reverting a corrected edit which, if you look at the MGM Music history page, was started by User Talk:Superastig. User talk:ChakaKong took great offense in my pointing out his erroneous edit which I called out both on the Talk:MGM Music page and his talk page. I offered to let it slide if he apologized. Not only did he NOT apologize, but he accused me of harrassment and included a disclaimer telling editors NOT to talk about his faulty edits on his talk page. You can also read his comments on my talk page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, first of all, I saw an edit to an unfamiliar article from an anonymous IP which clearly appeared to be an addition of completely unsourced information.[149] So I reverted it as the guidelines dictate. We all know that there was no impropriety in what I did. He can call it a "faulty and erroneous" edit in an attempt to convince someone that there was some kind of bad intent, but it should be clear that there was not. I'm sorry, but I just don't see it the same as editor Steelbeard1 does. He has been proliferating his harassment of me ever since. He has even quite conspicuously stated his intentions commit Wikihounding by watching every edit I make in the future. When I informed him that he was harassing me and and was thus in violations of certain guidelines, he immediately retaliated by opening this incident report. Why does he think he can demand an apology from me over a good faith edit that clearly was an attempt to follow the guidelines as closely as possible? I'm trying very hard to keep my cool but this editor's behaviour is becoming troublesome to me. I asked him to drop it and move on but he obviously refused. By all means, read my comments on his talk page as he requested. ChakaKong^talk 22:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

So to be clear - Steelbeard1 your here because you want an apology? And ChakaKong is unset that your planing to follow his ever edit. Does this sound like something the community needs to get involved in - or is it simply time for all involved to grow up and start acting like adults? What would you like the community to do - force an apology ? and/or to tell editors treats are not welcome?Moxy (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I agree this is not something the community needs to get involved in. I've been encouraging Steelbeard1 to let it go but he just won't. ChakaKong^talk 22:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The edit ChakaKong made created a glaring error in the MGM Music article at [150] and ChakaKong's edit states incorrectly that Warner Music Group owns the rights to the MGM Records soundtracks catalogue. The edit he changed had correctly stated that Turner Entertainment owns the soundtracks as I backed up with this linked citation at [151]. Turner Entertainment is owned by Time Warner which FORMERLY OWNED Warner Music. Warner Music's Rhino Entertainment unit had the license to issue the soundtracks in question. I watch all editors who clearly make false edits. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

So to be clear - your assuming that his ONE edit that he never reverted or disputed was done in bad faith. Secondly your still telling us you plan to follow him all over. You sure its his behavior we should be looking at here?Moxy (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

So you're back from the CBS Records dispute that User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) started. I've been following RAN as well and posted in the discussions regarding RAN's behavior. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I smell an incoming seafood boomerang. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I've trouted RAN regarding his behavior, but that's besides the point. We are talking about calling out faulty edits. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The trout I'm referring to would be aimed in your direction, from what I'm seeing here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

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

List of Full Music episodes, Full Music and talk pages for both

An editor, using various IP addresses and now the user name Hector guardia has been repeatedly creating these articles, under the main titles and on the talk pages repeatedly. (Article is for an unsourced show, supposedly airing in 2027 with an extensive list of Disney Channel "stars"). The editor is currently removing the speedy deletion tags and ignoring talk page requests. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

"Articles" deleted (again), editor blocked indef as this appears to be the only reason they're here. Hoax future Disney articles may indicate socks of KuhnstylePro (talk · contribs)? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That said, Full Music is back. Perhaps some salt? - SummerPhD (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Salt applied. Needs more pepper. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps in 2027. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hijiri88 harassment continues

Flying visit this, as I'm off duty for the weekend; I'd appreciate it if someone could look into it. It's been brought to my attention that an anonymous user, operating dynamic IPs, has been systematically proposing for deletion articles created by User:Hijiri88 (who as you may recall was hounded off Wikipedia through real-life intervention a couple of months ago by User:JoshuSasori). Given that bit of history, this latest slew of nominations strikes me as suspect to say the least. Some examples: [152], [153], [154] (admins only, that one's been deleted), [155] (content blanking). Some of these are justifiable (I'd probably have accepted the CSD tag on Utsunomiya Yoritsuna myself, given what was there), but the pattern is pretty unmistakable. In light of this, I'd like to propose semi-protection of Hijiri88's remaining created articles - I know that pre-emptive protection isn't exactly smiled upon, but to me it seems like the most expedient solution. Any other suggestions gratefully received.

I've notified Hijiri88 by email, I see no need to notify JoshuSasori as they are currently under a fairly hefty site ban, but if someone feels I should have done so, you'll hear no objection if you do it for me. Particularly since I'm not likely to be around again until Monday... Yunshui 雲‍水 18:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'd already defended one of them at an AfD, which was a very frivolous nomination at best - if someone with absolutely no expertise in this area, like me, can find what are foreign language sources on something, and that look useful, it's a very poor nom. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Looking around after seeing this, I came across this edit, which I found rather concerning, as both seems to be related to the Hikiri88 harassment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Hey, let's not be coy here. I closed that AfD speedily. Luke, you're wasting your time even searching for sources: bad-faith nominations like that should be closed immediately, and I urge you to report them here if you find more of them. Yunshui, I'm not against such semi-protection. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • AFD's raised by obvious sock puppets of a banned user should be treated like any other edit by a banned user, liberal doses of WP:RBI Blackmane (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• To be honest, when I spotted the AfD, I wasn't thinking of JoshuSasori, but then I wasn't trying to work out who the IP was. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Mass move of Royal coronations to Coronations

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

---

User Surtsicna (talk · contribs) moved page:

• Royal coronations in Norway to Coronations in Norway (Summary: They are obviously royal.)
• Royal coronations in Poland to Coronations in Poland (Summary: Of course they were royal.)
• Coronation of the Hungarian monarch to Coronations in Hungary (Summary: Queens were also crowned.)
• Coronation of the Russian monarch to Coronations in Russia (Summary: Consorts were also crowned.)

Meanwhile, Royal coronations is a well established encyclopaedic term used throughout Europe including in England. There's nothing obvious about Coronations (as such) being Royal, because they can albo be Imperial, or Papal... etc. Surtsicna has not used any of the usual channels to obtain wp:consensus for the above series of controversial page-moves. See also: coronation sentence examples. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 21:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That is a mass move? This is an incident worth reporting to the noticeboard? Ridiculous. I was bold and moved articles I had worked on with Ecjmartin several years ago. There is nothing incidental about that. Coronations in Poland obviously could not be papal and all were royal. "Royal coronations in Poland" implies that there non-royal ones as well. "Royal coronations" cannot possibly be as "well established" as plain coronations - which is obviously why the article about coronations is titled simply Coronation. Surtsicna (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

However they are controversial moves against WP:CONSENSUS that all articles of this sort on European topics be titled "Royal coronations in Foo". I'd suggest you self-revert, then nominate them for discussion using the Requested Moves process. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There was never any such consensus. Most articles followed the format "Coronation of the Fooan monarch", which was also a bit inaccurate. Thank you for reminding me to note that I did not break any consensus or consistency. This whole thing is obviously absurd. Surtsicna (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bushranger is correct. So, instead of lashing out at both of us, please read what Wikipedia:Consensus policy actually stands for, Surtsicna. And no, you did not "break any consensus", because you never asked for it. Please self-revert and use the Requested Moves process as suggested. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 00:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

"Lashing out at both of us"? Stop slandering and insulting me. I did not have to ask for anyone's permission. Please read what WP:Be bold stands for. I also explained my actions; your explanation here is at best illogical. Surtsicna (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Please also read WP:BRD and WP:RM. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Apparent legal threat on Jeremy Scott

IP-user 75.20.130.79, who has repeatedly removed parts of the article on Jeremy Scott, has now made a legal threat, or at least what I interpret as a legal threat, aimed at anyone who publishes the material the IP-user dislikes. Thomas.W (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Although the threat is not against Wikipedia or another editor, the intent was clear: to chill the conversation, and to prevent editors from re-adding source, negative material. I have blocked for 30 days as it's an IP (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• There was another legal threat, or such, from that IP on the talk page. That article looks like a spam magnet. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you're looking at the same legal threat linked above. Its a pretty quiet article - no edits between Dec 2009 and Apr 2013 (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• No, I wasn't, it was on the talk page. [156] It's not a legal threat per-se, but it is meant to chill. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• The article itself also has lots of edits in that time frame. The talk page doesn't, which is where the legal threat I spotted was, that edit summary was in the main article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Mass rollback needed

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

---

New user Omnipater (talk · contribs) has been extremely busy with the Zodiac signs today, adding what looks like complete nonsense; example here. I rolled those back, but when the contribs came up, I lost heart. "Mass rollback" is just a word to me, I don't know how to do it, and I'm in too much of a hurry to find out right now. Somebody help, please? I've warned them, please block soonest if they continue. Bishonen | talk 09:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC).

Stop vandalizing my edits. They do not contain any nonsense. Everything comes from print books. Omnipater (talk) 10:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to tell you that there are plenty of print books that contain nothing but nonsense. Print is not a magic truth elixir. Bishonen | talk 10:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC). P. S. I'm sorry I forgot to alert you to this ANI discussion on your page; glad you found it anyway. Bishonen | talk 10:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC).

You are talking rubbish. Wikipedia is based on print sources. The versions you have rolled back to are not backed by any sources at all. For example, you have reverted my edit to this version: [157], which states that Jupiter is in Exaltation in Gemini. Can you provide ANY source confirming that particular NONSENSE? Wikipedia's articles on astrology are currently in a horrible state because of people like you. Omnipater (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You would well to stop attacking other users, especially trying to defend your unreliable sources and the fact that many of your edits are unsourced speculation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You are an attacker here. You do not have any sources of your own. You do not want to specify which of my sources are unreliable. (personal attack removed)Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Omnipater (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Omnipater restored the above PA, so given that and the other disruptive editing I have given them a short block. Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Black Kite. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I cleaned as much of this nonsense as I could. More in depth examination may be needed on some other articles and some BLPs this user has edited, by editors more familiar with those topics. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the testiness above - I have had a look at the BLP's (Sorry, not touching the Astrology, thats all quackery and I would be far too tempted to hit delete article) and the edits appear to mostly sourced to primary sources - this isnt in itself bad as the additions are directly related to the BLP's views. 'X thinks Y' followed up with primary source where the subject says 'Y'. Thats something for discussion on the talkpage, not mass-revertable really. I only had a look at a few. There are certainly issues over style, but I wouldnt do a BLP-revert over it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for checking on the BLPs. Aside from the BLPs and the astrology stuff this editor also edit-warred on Picard horn adding his own original research: [158]. Let's hope he doesn't start it up again once he gets unblocked. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Apparent legal threat on Jeremy Scott

IP-user 75.20.130.79, who has repeatedly removed parts of the article on Jeremy Scott, has now made a legal threat, or at least what I interpret as a legal threat, aimed at anyone who publishes the material the IP-user dislikes. Thomas.W (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Although the threat is not against Wikipedia or another editor, the intent was clear: to chill the conversation, and to prevent editors from re-adding source, negative material. I have blocked for 30 days as it's an IP (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• There was another legal threat, or such, from that IP on the talk page. That article looks like a spam magnet. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you're looking at the same legal threat linked above. Its a pretty quiet article - no edits between Dec 2009 and Apr 2013 (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• No, I wasn't, it was on the talk page. [159] It's not a legal threat per-se, but it is meant to chill. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• The article itself also has lots of edits in that time frame. The talk page doesn't, which is where the legal threat I spotted was, that edit summary was in the main article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Mass rollback needed

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

---

New user Omnipater (talk · contribs) has been extremely busy with the Zodiac signs today, adding what looks like complete nonsense; example here. I rolled those back, but when the contribs came up, I lost heart. "Mass rollback" is just a word to me, I don't know how to do it, and I'm in too much of a hurry to find out right now. Somebody help, please? I've warned them, please block soonest if they continue. Bishonen | talk 09:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC).

Stop vandalizing my edits. They do not contain any nonsense. Everything comes from print books. Omnipater (talk) 10:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to tell you that there are plenty of print books that contain nothing but nonsense. Print is not a magic truth elixir. Bishonen | talk 10:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC). P. S. I'm sorry I forgot to alert you to this ANI discussion on your page; glad you found it anyway. Bishonen | talk 10:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC).

You are talking rubbish. Wikipedia is based on print sources. The versions you have rolled back to are not backed by any sources at all. For example, you have reverted my edit to this version: [160], which states that Jupiter is in Exaltation in Gemini. Can you provide ANY source confirming that particular NONSENSE? Wikipedia's articles on astrology are currently in a horrible state because of people like you. Omnipater (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You would well to stop attacking other users, especially trying to defend your unreliable sources and the fact that many of your edits are unsourced speculation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You are an attacker here. You do not have any sources of your own. You do not want to specify which of my sources are unreliable. (personal attack removed)Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Omnipater (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Omnipater restored the above PA, so given that and the other disruptive editing I have given them a short block. Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Black Kite. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I cleaned as much of this nonsense as I could. More in depth examination may be needed on some other articles and some BLPs this user has edited, by editors more familiar with those topics. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the testiness above - I have had a look at the BLP's (Sorry, not touching the Astrology, thats all quackery and I would be far too tempted to hit delete article) and the edits appear to mostly sourced to primary sources - this isnt in itself bad as the additions are directly related to the BLP's views. 'X thinks Y' followed up with primary source where the subject says 'Y'. Thats something for discussion on the talkpage, not mass-revertable really. I only had a look at a few. There are certainly issues over style, but I wouldnt do a BLP-revert over it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for checking on the BLPs. Aside from the BLPs and the astrology stuff this editor also edit-warred on Picard horn adding his own original research: [161]. Let's hope he doesn't start it up again once he gets unblocked. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Trusthim

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

---

Resolved

Trusthim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Trusthim has kept on creating (and re-creating) several inappropriate articles promoting non-notable people (A7, G11). This is a pattern of disruptive editing that I have seen on many occasions before. I left him a warning to stop, and then he blanked all the warnings and speedy deletion notices off his talk page, making it evident that he isn't listening to other users. He also appears to be pushing for a specific cause, a powerful identifier for a single purpose account. Something has to be done to stop him before he can continue more POV-pushing and disruption. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 00:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• That they deleted the warnings we are asked to interpret as "they've read them". Drmies (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• OK, this person was a likely sock (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KANYABIGEGA Silas) and I'll block them as such. Their articles have been deleted. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Maybe some kind soul can add the account to that SPI and ask CU to see if there are any sleepers (seems doubtful to me, but who knows). Drmies (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• That's him alright. I filed the SPI since I appear to be his primary foil. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

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

POV vandal saying "arab people are a bunch of brown terrorists"

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

---

I've already blocked Kiaxary (talk · contribs) once for pov editing (including deleting well-sourced material he doesn't like) and calling an editor an Arab terrorist I specifically warned him about the attack on an editor, and today he is back deleting large chunks of material and leaving an edit summary "arab people are a bunch of brown terrorists". He's edited about 30 times, all but one deleting material. It's my opinion he isn't going to learn to play nicely and at the least needs a further block but I'd like other comments and preferably another Admin to block so it doesn't appear I'm picking on him (and I am involved in editing Medes). Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeffed (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Requested block

Spacejam2 has added the category of Polish Roman Catholics to over 350 articles, all unsourced, many added to BLPs. After repeated messages from various editors, Spacejam does not respond and continues to add the cat. Span (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Right now I've added Polish Roman Catholics with the sourses.--Spacejam2 (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see where he's "continue[d] to add" the category. His last such edit was at 06:47 on 26 April. A block is inappropriate unless the category-adding were to resume. —C.Fred (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

He's added to 12 articles since a third and last warning was given. Span (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Antiochus COI, three times revert

it seems that Antiochus edits only Dokeos related content. especially Antiochus does not like "competing" products mentioned on the Dokeos article, and reverted it three times. i have no idea if Antiochus is the same user than User_talk:Thomas.depraetere, and i cannot judge at the moment if the Dokeos article should be kept in Wikipedia because of lacking notability. but, i find Antiochus edits a little disrupting, especially as there seems to be a COI. what do you suggest in such a case? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps posting at WP:AN3? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Re:Removal of Permissions

Please, could an Administrator remove the "Account Creator" status from my account at once. Circumstances have prevented me from using it the way the permission was intended to be used (in an editathon event), as such I must release the permission as soon as possible. Thank you. Cheers, -T.I.M^(Contact) 19:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure,  Done. Also, could you change your signature talk page link to user your new username? It's a little confusing otherwise. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 8#File:Azkals logo.JPG

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

---

It's time for an uninvolved admin to close this already. There had been 3 IFDs since February (every IFD having been a "keep", and User:Banana Fingers initiating a new discussion after, on average, 4 days after the last discussion was closed. –HTD 19:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Bambifan's back

It looks as if everyone's favorite Disney vandal is finding a way back into the project. We've had to repel two attacks from IP addresses geolocating to Mobile, Alabama and Bellsouth.NET in the past 24 hours, notably at The Rescuers. After getting discovered, Bambifan outed a number of other IPs he's been using based on edits at Gordy and on talk pages for Disney film articles. All evidence has been placed at the latest edition of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101 for your perusal, including diffs where he has outed himself. We need to get indefinite semi-protection or pending changes back on these articles as quickly as possible. It may also be time to submit another abuse notification to BellSouth, as was done when Bambifan was apparently editing out of Atlanta. --McDoobAU93 19:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's time that these articles get semi protected by an administrator. The relevant LTA case is at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bambifan101. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

User Pandabiggs

Because fits nonsenses on Nutri Ventures. Puts channels, which broadcasts fakely. --31.63.26.189 (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Beg pardon? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like another garden-variety TV show hoaxer; on The Flintstones is linking to a userspace article for the never-launched Seth McFarlane venture, for instance (note that I believe TBrandley, who has that article in their userspace, is in no way connected to Pandabiggs at all), and has the usual type of poor language edits, and adding unsourced and unneeded parental guideline ratings to articles. Might be worth a lookover. I really highly doubt Nutri Ventures – The Quest for the 7 Kingdoms, a Portuguese (?!) venture based on Michelle Obama's health initiatives exists in any form, and that Pandabiggs is WP:NOTHERE, and the Dinofroz (TV series) is just beyond terrible (it exists, but the writing is spork-poke worthy). There are plenty of edits that are reversion candidates here. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, 31.63. Nate • (chatter) 20:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid to say that Nutri Ventures - The Quest for the 7 Kingdoms appears to be a real thing... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

And you're right about that (although the title is pardon my neutrality, very stupid). I've redirected some of the worst articles to appropriate targets, and I'll keep my eyes out for more on this. Compared to other kids show vandalizers though this one is low priority and I have to admit I'm loathed to revert because of my lack of experience with Euro-based projects. I am also seeing good faith edits upon closer examination, so I think the only thing needed is guidance and policy-prodding rather than any kind of edit restriction. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

MartinLynnJoe

MartinLynnJoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has constantly been adding XBIZ Award nominations to pornographic actors pages often in cases where they violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:UNDUE. He has been reverted by several users for this practice. A look back at his user contribution reveals that his edits for the past two years all have been related to XBIZ or their awards. I suspect he has a conflict of interest as a single purpose account. Is there a way to do a massive rollback of his recent batch of edits? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Fully agreed. MartinLynnJoe is plain and simple not here to build an encyclopedia. --Cavarrone (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• I would support an indef block per WP:NOTHERE. The contributions history is horrifically WP:SPA and totally promotional. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

  I wouldn't do that because he's been editing since March 2012 and no one has even stopped to tell him there is something wrong with his editing until yesterday. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

  Really? His talk page says otherwise. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

soviet union infobox

The baltic states (which are properly noted as not as not being recognised by the Western world) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Soviet_Union#Acquisition_of_the_Baltic_states (which most users on the talkpage support inclusion in some form) it would be rather odd to not mention them at all since the existed (maybe albeit in a non western recognised way ((except sweden))) so here is the problem: two users keep removing that claming about some fringe source, the baltic states did not reappear from NOTHING so it just fair to include the view several countries recognized such as Sweden, Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain and Russia please help me stop this nonsense there is a editwar ongoing there i was unable to notify the users becuase user:Nug has protected his page and User:Incnis Mrsi well see his warning on his talkpage. Also administrator user:Carlossuarez46 recommended this to be resolved here see his talkpage 95.195.222.86 (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Writers with limited English skills should use short sentences. This is impossible to understand. Looie496 (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Basically the issue is that some editors are removing the three Baltic states from the list of successor states to the USSR in the infobox on the Soviet Union page. There are some long-running POV issues in this sphere, with a few editors who refuse to acknowledge the reality that the Baltic states were part of the USSR (their claim is that because some countries didn't recognise Soviet jurisdiction over them, they weren't part of the USSR). Because no-one has ever put their foot down on this issue, it has festered for several years. Number 57 22:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Just for the record, a similarly numbered IP (95.195.192.64) posted a similar request on my talk page, and I pointed him/her here. I have no opinion on the substance, but I think it's being discussed in the right place now. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

now someone indefinitely protected the page because user:nug requested that and said my edits was vandalism despite user:nug edit warring, this is unfair can someone unprotect the page? 95.195.208.32 (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Make your request at WP:RFUP. If you are told "No" then accept it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella

Page is being blanked and unsourced material is being added by a newly-registered editor. It needs full protection again. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Note WP:RFPP, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, looks like they are the same SPA as User:216.191.220.178, made just enough edits to get autoconfirmed and are continuing a section blanking party. I will leave them a message, if that doesn't work, stronger methods can be used. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It's already protected, Wolfie. RNealK (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The editor in question is already autoconfirmed, he created his account a week after it was protected, so the protection isn't the solution. Since the problem is one editor, protection isn't the solution anyway. First we talk, then we warn, then we mash buttons if all else fails. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It's semi-protected, they were asking for full, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Questionable involvement by DocJames on Fladrif dispute

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

---

User:Jmh649 controversially unblocked a block by another admin User:Ched on User:Fladrif without complying with "Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion.". At the subsequent ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Fladrif_with_their_finger_on_the_trigger on User:Fladrif several editors have commented that User:Jmh649 is not a suitable person to adjudicate in this case because of his past connections with Fladrif, see [162]. Now he has adjudicated on this ANI giving a mere 72 hour ban even though an overwhelming number of editors (about 10) have expressed criticism of Fladrif. He seems blind to the consensus. In my view User:Jmh649 should step away from this dispute. --Penbat (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I glanced at the discussion above. To my observation Ched and DocJames appeared to be collegial and non-adversarial. Unless Ched states that an improper administrative action has occurred it is not up for speculation that it has. I suppose it's entirely possible that emails might have been exchanged. Penbat, what do you base your assertion that there was no "courtesy discussion" between the two? I haven't seen this charge levied by Ched. My76Strat (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I have never spoken with Jmh649 off wiki. At the moment I prefer to review all evidence and consider what my proper responses should be. I am old. I am slow. I am methodical. My apologies if my replies are not timely, but I would rather review things and consider them for a bit before responding in a hasty manner. I am not shirking my responsibilities, but rather attempting to proceed in a thoughtful and considered fashion. — Ched :  ?  21:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Ched, I don't think you have to worry about any untimeliness on your own part. It looks like MyStrat didn't look very far afield, for instance not at your page. You have been clear enough in calling Doc James' admin action improper, and pointing out that he had not attempted any courtesy discussion before (or, as far as I know, after) unblocking: [163], [164], [165], [166]. "I was not even given the common courtesy of a discussion". (And I'm old, too.) Bishonen | talk 21:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC).

Thank you Bishonen, mine was a cursory glance; you can call me Methuselah. I figured either diffs would be posted, or Ched would make a clear statement in due time. You're right though, no worries. My76Strat (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• If admins can't unblock their friends what is adminship good for? 79.119.87.157 (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Getting abuse without having to pay for it. NE Ent 02:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• To those of you who are objecting to Jmh649 (Doc James) having reversed/modified Ched's indef-block of Fladrif: You're presumably aware that I questioned Ched (on his talk page) regarding his reasons for the indef-block, and that I was not satisfied with his answer that he had good reasons for the block but was not prepared to provide said reasons in detail right away. If I had chosen at that point to reverse or reduce Fladrif's block (rather than going to bed as I did), would you be objecting to my having taken action in the way you are objecting to what Doc James did? And given that I had already asked Ched for a justification which he was unwilling to provide, was it really necessary for Doc James to ask the same question before choosing to take action on his own? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Whoa there Rich. How have I been unwilling to answer to any thing? You are WAY out of line here sir. I strongly suggest you back your butt up. If you have a problem with me? ... spill it. I will stand by anything I have said or done. — Ched :  ?  02:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Strawman question, Ched never said he was unwilling to provide an explanation; Richwales had already stated they were going offline and Ched's response -- referencing "talking tomorrow" indicates a willingness for further discussion. 03:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) In our exchange at User talk:Ched#Your indef-block of Fladrif, I asked you to "please post more specific info (including relevant diffs) supporting your decision to block Fladrif". You said you were "willing to provide specific diffs upon request if an arbitration situation comes of this". I replied that I felt an action as drastic as an indef-block required reasonable justification right away; and when you repeated that you were prepared to justify your actions (but still had not provided specifics), I asked you to "please do so — now". By the time I called it quits for the night about an hour later, the discussion at WP:ANI had not yet (IMO) progressed to the point where sufficient specific detail had been presented to back up the case for an indef-block. You (and some others) evidently felt at the time that you had a strong enough case, but I didn't see it that way and remained unsettled over a proposal to effectively site-ban a user (even a very abrasive one) without concrete evidence sufficient to make the case clear to uninvolved editors. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

L (edit conflict)Maybe further discussion wouldn't have been necessary if "lack of satisfactory explanation for block" was also Doc's rationale for an unblock. (A big maybe; he still should have told Ched that he was going to unblock, at the very least.) But it wasn't; he said his rationale for an unblock was that "Ched is involved". That claim, in itself and particularly as a rationale for an unblock, requires its own discussion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

One would expect that an indefinate block of a long time editor should at least contain an explanation of why it occurred with evidence to support it. This block did not and thus I consider it a "clear and obvious mistakes". All I asked for was a community consensus for the ban in question. How hard would this be to obtain? Simply ask for a show of hands at ANI. Was Fradrif's actions so egregious that he did not even deserve this? Has Wikipedia reached a point where an editor with which you disagree can be indefinitely blocked without providing any diffs / evidence and when asked you simply state that you will get to it but are to tired now?

With respect to claims of involvement here is that for Ched and Fradrif [167] and for myself and Fradrif.[168] They come out very similar. We have further involvement here which I consider to be of a significant nature [169]. Anyway I have limited access to Internet right now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Without opining on the merits here, a "clear and obvious mistake" is primarily for accidental actions (wrong person, forged signature, etc) or similar, not for judgement calls or exercising a preferred action by the reverting admin. Reverting an admin's block when their actions were clearly intentional is essentially an admonishment, ie: "you shouldn't have done that". That is not the same as "You probably didn't mean to do that" or "you wouldn't have done that if you had known about $x". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

My mistake then thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm really surprised to see James defending his misrepresentation of Ched's relationship to Fladrif. At first I thought it was an impulsive error that he would quickly correct but now I see that he is committed to what appears to be an intentional falsehood. He cites above a diff to an RfA that Ched co-sponsored and which was voted on by more than 100 people (of which Fladrif was one), as an example of Ched being "involved" with Fladrif. [170] On his user talk page James cites Fladrif and Ched's votes on the Will Beback psuedo RfC as "involvment". [171] Does anyone really think that casting a vote in public forum makes you "involved" with every other person who has cast a vote on that page? Are these valid examples of Fladrif and Ched being "involved"?

James' involvment with Fladrif on the other hand is clear and extensive:

1. Fladrif congratulates James on Admin status [172]
2. Fladirf invites James to join him on a topic area he's working on [173]
3. Doc asks Fladrif for his email [174]
4. James and Fladrif are both named parties in an ArbCom case in which Fladrif received a one year NPA restriction. [175]
5. James and Fladrif supported each other in many talk page threads. Here are a few examples:[176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183][184][185] There are many more but this is just the ones from a single article talk page archive-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, seriously people. Doc was wrong to unilaterally undo the very valid block - especially with discussion already occurring on ANI. Let's not start pulling out the pitchforks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

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

user:Sandstunk

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

---

This SPA is currently running rampant in Moldova-related articles with this in mind. Regardless of WP:DIGWUREN sanctions, this and this alone should be enough for administrative intervention of some sort, but given their stated purpose on their user page, the case is clearly hopeless.

Besides, with a username apparently mocking user:Sandstein and this RfA vote being their 11th edit, it's highly likely that this is just some old-time banned editor having fun. --illythr (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Above text can be consider as an attack. I just want to remove the soviet POV from articles, just read them and you'll notice. My edits were in accordance with CIA factbook. I see no purpose of this attack here. My support for Piotrus is obvious: he fights agains soviet POV (represented here by Mr ILLYTHR). Sandstunk (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• He/she was ndefinitely blocked. Cavarrone (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

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

WikiSkeptic gone wiki-vigilante without a cause harassing editors based on their nationality and also adding original research across multiple articles

Resolved

 – Blocked two weeks by Bwilkins

Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiSkeptic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone wiki-vigilante-without-a-cause, harassing Greek editors by asking them on their talkpage to recuse from editing the article of Turkey, while at the same time he feels free to add any unsourced original research that suits his fancy to multiple articles including Turkey:

• User talk:ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ

==please recuse yourself from the Turkey article== if you are a Greek national, please recuse yourself from the Turkey article. non-greek, non-turk editors should handle the NPOV conflict. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Same message on: user talk Athenean
• Reverting against consensus on Turkey with an attacking edit-summary:

Edit summary: editor Dr.K is a self-described member of WikiProject:Greece and should recuse himself from the Turkey article

• adding unsourced, WP:CRYSTAL, speculative original research in the article of Turkey against multi-editor consensus on the article talk:

With a demographically very young population, barring a full-fledged war Turkey will almost certainly see high economic growth for the near future, a prediction that would be highly subject to chance in the case of fully-developed First World economies.

• Adding unsourced original research on Greek War of Independence
• Adding unsourced original research on Economy of Greece
• Adding unsourced original research on PIGS

From his block log it is apparent that this is not the first time this user has discriminated against other editors. I am asking that the ethnicity-based harassment and wiki-vigilantism-without-a-cause offensive this editor has initiated be stopped permanently so that good-faith and productive editors may edit in peace without fear of unproductive and socially-regressive ethnicity-based discrimination so they can build this encyclopaedia in a spirit of equality with the other editors and not be relegated to second-class editor status by the naive, facile and simplistic narrow-mindedness dictated by bigotry. Same goes for his original research. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Background

From 31 March 2012 the following report was discussed at ANI concerning this user:

• WikiSkeptic's disruption. From that report I quote part of Ryulong's comments at the time:

In the latest edit to his user page, he claims that he has violated the core policy of WP:No original research, and his statement was published in a textbook and then used to cite his own original statement. This damages the very reputation of this project and the summation of human knowledge and this should not be allowed at all to continue.

• The edit Ryulong mentions is this one. Quote in WikiSkeptic's own words:

My Latest Victory 1. I posted some Original Research on WP. (social sciences) 2. An academic textbook copied the entry. 3. Somebody (not me) cited the textbook to justify the entry. 4. Hence, I have forever changed the weight of human knowledge.

and

What I Have Taught Wikipedia

Unbeknowgnst to most modern readers, about 20% of Wikipedia articles constitute 80% of traffic, if not more. Approximately 0.4% of those articles were written by me--- one of the original Wikipedians and writers. Thus, I wrote about 1.7% of all Wikipedia content read today. In other words, I am your god.

I run ARBCOM!!!!! WP is dead... long live the animus

• Also from his block log:
• 12 May 2008 Wafulz blocked WikiSkeptic (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attacks or harassment of other users: Racist comments)
• 31 March 2012 Tristessa de St Ange blocked WikiSkeptic (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Disruptive editing: Project disruption: Repeated incivility/trolling/baiting, abuse of user page, claims of ArbCom influence.) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I second this report, I find this user's conduct odious. Looking over their contribs, I see very few useful edits if any, mostly addition of unsourced nonsense and conflict. Four block after only 800 edits. Suggest blocking indef, this user clearly is not suited to the project. Athenean (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree he should be blocked, though I think we should bear in mind cultural differences when reading some of his comments.Deb (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Deb, I'm not sure what you mean by cultural differences but the idea here is that a. He doesn't understand the concept of original research which he defiantly and proudly pushes through most of his career here and b. He abuses and harasses other editors based on their ethnicity. Both of these points are clear imo. He has also afforded himself the luxury of openly and repeatedly flouting and publicly mocking our no-original research core policy while attacking other editors based on their ethnicity and no other evidence. This is clear hypocrisy and has nothing to do with cultural differences. In fact the open mockery and repeated longterm violations of the NOR policy across multiple articles are grounds alone for an indef block. The hypocritical discrimination is just the icing on the cake. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The subtext is clear: You ethnic editors are an underclass. We anonymous bigots, due to our undisclosed background, are superior to you who were suckers to identify yourselves. You ethnics, cannot therefore touch the articles related to your ethnicity. But we anonymous bigots can edit those articles due to our undisclosed background, and our privilege is such, that we can even destroy them by our openly declared mockery and opposition to the fundamental policy of WP:NOR not to mention WP:NPA. Is this the new environment of editing on this wiki? This doesn't sound like Wikipedia in the least. It sounds more like a madhouse from a particularly twisted episode of the Twilight Zone where the malicious and incompetent have taken over. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No, we've made it clear a long time ago that anyone is free to edit an article involving people of their own ethnicity and not be afraid of accusations of Conflict of Interest. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Of course you can still be guilty of disruptive editing if you refuse to connect with other editors, but that would be the same whether you were born in Greece or Green Bay, Wisconsin. —Soap— 18:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Soap for your advice and well-made points. I fully agree with you on all levels. Disruption is not related to ethnicity, it is a behavioural issue. And as you mentioned, it is independent of origin, be it Greece, or Green Bay, or Wisconsin. :) I couldn't agree more. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Off-topic comment Actually I feel it is perfectly acceptable to be biased against Green Bay(ie. Packers). :-D --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oops. I missed the part that Green Bay is in Wisconsin. I am in no position now to comment on their football team. :) <trying to exit quietly> Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

‎71.191.244.33

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

---

‎71.191.244.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Comes off recent block and continues behavior xhe was blocked for, including restoring info that was removed twice due to BLP concerns. Won't notify as communication has been explicitly rejected. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Lengthy block required. Looks like a static IP to me, and if they're going to keep pushing these edits, they've got no place here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding their incessant removal of shared IP notice, WP:BLANKING was mentioned in a final warning. Serious edit war issues with user, even in the oft chance their edits are "right". Any misstep after this exhaust my WP:AGF.—Bagumba (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Notification was provided by User:Cavarrone.—Bagumba (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

To User:Seb. Incorrect. I restored the Kenny Anderson information to the talk page bc you were all claiming I didnt discuss edits there. I DID but you keep deleting so then noone is able to see that I DID use the talk page. Also stop removing help banner from my page.

To User:Luke. I am not pushing edits. In fact I am waiting before I do many edits.

To User Bagumba: I am allowed to delete. It is no different than TheRedPenOfDoom deleting his talk page.

To UserCavarrone: Thank You for the notice. 71.191.244.33 (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that your comments were removed from the article talk page because some of them violate WP:BLP. (For example, suggesting that Anderson's ex-wife is lying.) You need to be careful about what you say about living people on every page here.

TheRedPenOfDoom does have a talk page: User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom. His user page (User:The RedPenOfDoom) has been deleted, but that doesn't hurt anyone. Zagalejo^^^ 19:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

@71.191.244.33: WP:BLANKING is very clear: "For IP editors, templates in Category:Shared IP header templates and notes left to indicate other users may share the same IP address." On the other hand, TheRedPenOfDoom is not an IP. I granted you a reprieve. Use it wisely.—Bagumba (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

So the BLP vio stays now? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide me a link to the BLP violation? I'll take care of this. Dreadstar ☥ 19:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

already given above, but here again: section "many children..." was removed 3 times per BLP. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a link to the entire history of the talk page, are you talking about this section? Dreadstar ☥ 19:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be in the context of attempting to improve the article based on one's interpretation of identified sources. I think it's fair to stay on a talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Then you need to give vandalism warnings to those who removed it, and we need to talk about Dianna's desysopping. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it vandalism, BLP was the justification, and I respect that. I just tend to be more liberal when it comes to talk pages.—Bagumba (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

then you're in the minority here :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies just as strictly to talk pages as it does to articles. And Dianna has done nothing wrong. Dreadstar ☥ 20:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Removed the BLP violating material and blocked the IP. Dreadstar ☥ 20:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

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

IP hopper possibly a banned user & copyvio clean up needed

An individual on the Verizon Wireless network has been disrupting List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the past two weeks, forcing the article to be semi-protected, and has now gone to WP:DRN in an attempt to "compromise" despite the fact I had informed the individual on one of the IP talk pages that the sources were not reliable and the content could therefore not be verified. A full list of the IPs used by this individual is as follows.

• 174.254.201.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 174.226.130.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 174.236.100.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 174.236.66.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 174.226.66.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 174.255.117.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 174.236.77.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (IP was also involved in the "Tropical cyclone names" dispute)
• 174.226.192.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 174.254.193.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 174.252.16.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

As with my note about the tropical cyclone names dispute above, I am fairly certain that that this individual is either BuickCenturyDriver or Don't Feed the Zords, as similar IP addresses show up in the former's sockpuppet investigation requests and there is definitely some level of crossover between the two.

Something needs to be done to fully enforce the community bans on these individuals.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm finding that this is most definitely the same individual that caused a dispute earlier in the year on the article under the IP 174.252.16.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as seen here and later by a confirmed sockpuppet here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

He has now used 70.39.176.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); I'm suspecting a proxy.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The article has been semiprotected, but I think it would now be best to either delete or revdel everything that came after this revision because it all contains copyvios or reverting someone adding copyvios.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take care of the deletions now. Stand by. Dreadstar ☥ 20:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. And please don't forget to restore the semi-protection (until July) when you restore the article. We don't need this mess all over again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Done, and I extended the semiprotect for six months; let me know if that should be reduced. Dreadstar ☥ 20:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

October works too, thank you (it should have been 3 months instead of 1 week last time anyway).—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Spoof account?

• TrippingHippy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1-day old user account creating related articles Hamish Miller (dowser), Paul A. Broadhurst, and The Sun and the Serpent in praise of Miller and Broadhurst's book. Appears to be some kind of spoof: articles and edit summaries are peppered with joke phrases such as "funky dudes", "super-groovy" and "greedy capitalism", etc. Talk page antics include accusations of religious hatred [186] and WP:ICANTHEARYOU [187]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hey man, I ain't no spoof and don't like being called such. I'm a happy hippy. Now I get where you're coming from dude, perhaps we don't share the same views on stuff, and perhaps you don't like hippies or something, but I can mellow with that and tolerate your views. There's no need to come over all heavy. I haven't "accused" anyone of "religious hatred". Please read again and you'll see that I was just warning against that sort of bogusness. I'm not the one calling names here. Sticks and stones won't break my groovy bones. You don't like my lingo, well, I'll try to cool that in my articles for you if you get off my back a bit and chill with deleting my perfectly well referenced and notable work about a late, close friend of mine. Cool? ۞TrippingHippy۞^talk 14:49, 18:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are serious about wishing to contribute to Wikipedia, I suggest that you drop the fake hippy-speak right now. It achieves precisely nothing beyond making you look like a troll, and we have too many of those as it is. If your late friend deserves mention in Wikipedia, he deserves to be referred to in the appropriate language for a reference work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a place to get your groove on. By editing here, you agree to abide by the community's code of conduct, and part of that is to use proper English grammar in articles. Also, you might want to take a look at WP:COI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This sock puppet is now blocked. Looks like another Paul Bedson sock (one of several created in the last few days). Dougweller (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiSkeptic gone wiki-vigilante without a cause harassing editors based on their nationality and also adding original research across multiple articles

Resolved

 – Blocked two weeks by Bwilkins

Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiSkeptic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone wiki-vigilante-without-a-cause, harassing Greek editors by asking them on their talkpage to recuse from editing the article of Turkey, while at the same time he feels free to add any unsourced original research that suits his fancy to multiple articles including Turkey:

• User talk:ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ

==please recuse yourself from the Turkey article== if you are a Greek national, please recuse yourself from the Turkey article. non-greek, non-turk editors should handle the NPOV conflict. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Same message on: user talk Athenean
• Reverting against consensus on Turkey with an attacking edit-summary:

Edit summary: editor Dr.K is a self-described member of WikiProject:Greece and should recuse himself from the Turkey article

• adding unsourced, WP:CRYSTAL, speculative original research in the article of Turkey against multi-editor consensus on the article talk:

With a demographically very young population, barring a full-fledged war Turkey will almost certainly see high economic growth for the near future, a prediction that would be highly subject to chance in the case of fully-developed First World economies.

• Adding unsourced original research on Greek War of Independence
• Adding unsourced original research on Economy of Greece
• Adding unsourced original research on PIGS

From his block log it is apparent that this is not the first time this user has discriminated against other editors. I am asking that the ethnicity-based harassment and wiki-vigilantism-without-a-cause offensive this editor has initiated be stopped permanently so that good-faith and productive editors may edit in peace without fear of unproductive and socially-regressive ethnicity-based discrimination so they can build this encyclopaedia in a spirit of equality with the other editors and not be relegated to second-class editor status by the naive, facile and simplistic narrow-mindedness dictated by bigotry. Same goes for his original research. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Background

From 31 March 2012 the following report was discussed at ANI concerning this user:

• WikiSkeptic's disruption. From that report I quote part of Ryulong's comments at the time:

In the latest edit to his user page, he claims that he has violated the core policy of WP:No original research, and his statement was published in a textbook and then used to cite his own original statement. This damages the very reputation of this project and the summation of human knowledge and this should not be allowed at all to continue.

• The edit Ryulong mentions is this one. Quote in WikiSkeptic's own words:

My Latest Victory 1. I posted some Original Research on WP. (social sciences) 2. An academic textbook copied the entry. 3. Somebody (not me) cited the textbook to justify the entry. 4. Hence, I have forever changed the weight of human knowledge.

and

What I Have Taught Wikipedia

Unbeknowgnst to most modern readers, about 20% of Wikipedia articles constitute 80% of traffic, if not more. Approximately 0.4% of those articles were written by me--- one of the original Wikipedians and writers. Thus, I wrote about 1.7% of all Wikipedia content read today. In other words, I am your god.

I run ARBCOM!!!!! WP is dead... long live the animus

• Also from his block log:
• 12 May 2008 Wafulz blocked WikiSkeptic (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attacks or harassment of other users: Racist comments)
• 31 March 2012 Tristessa de St Ange blocked WikiSkeptic (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Disruptive editing: Project disruption: Repeated incivility/trolling/baiting, abuse of user page, claims of ArbCom influence.) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I second this report, I find this user's conduct odious. Looking over their contribs, I see very few useful edits if any, mostly addition of unsourced nonsense and conflict. Four block after only 800 edits. Suggest blocking indef, this user clearly is not suited to the project. Athenean (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree he should be blocked, though I think we should bear in mind cultural differences when reading some of his comments.Deb (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Deb, I'm not sure what you mean by cultural differences but the idea here is that a. He doesn't understand the concept of original research which he defiantly and proudly pushes through most of his career here and b. He abuses and harasses other editors based on their ethnicity. Both of these points are clear imo. He has also afforded himself the luxury of openly and repeatedly flouting and publicly mocking our no-original research core policy while attacking other editors based on their ethnicity and no other evidence. This is clear hypocrisy and has nothing to do with cultural differences. In fact the open mockery and repeated longterm violations of the NOR policy across multiple articles are grounds alone for an indef block. The hypocritical discrimination is just the icing on the cake. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The subtext is clear: You ethnic editors are an underclass. We anonymous bigots, due to our undisclosed background, are superior to you who were suckers to identify yourselves. You ethnics, cannot therefore touch the articles related to your ethnicity. But we anonymous bigots can edit those articles due to our undisclosed background, and our privilege is such, that we can even destroy them by our openly declared mockery and opposition to the fundamental policy of WP:NOR not to mention WP:NPA. Is this the new environment of editing on this wiki? This doesn't sound like Wikipedia in the least. It sounds more like a madhouse from a particularly twisted episode of the Twilight Zone where the malicious and incompetent have taken over. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No, we've made it clear a long time ago that anyone is free to edit an article involving people of their own ethnicity and not be afraid of accusations of Conflict of Interest. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Of course you can still be guilty of disruptive editing if you refuse to connect with other editors, but that would be the same whether you were born in Greece or Green Bay, Wisconsin. —Soap— 18:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Soap for your advice and well-made points. I fully agree with you on all levels. Disruption is not related to ethnicity, it is a behavioural issue. And as you mentioned, it is independent of origin, be it Greece, or Green Bay, or Wisconsin. :) I couldn't agree more. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Off-topic comment Actually I feel it is perfectly acceptable to be biased against Green Bay(ie. Packers). :-D --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oops. I missed the part that Green Bay is in Wisconsin. I am in no position now to comment on their football team. :) <trying to exit quietly> Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

‎71.191.244.33

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

---

‎71.191.244.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Comes off recent block and continues behavior xhe was blocked for, including restoring info that was removed twice due to BLP concerns. Won't notify as communication has been explicitly rejected. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Lengthy block required. Looks like a static IP to me, and if they're going to keep pushing these edits, they've got no place here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding their incessant removal of shared IP notice, WP:BLANKING was mentioned in a final warning. Serious edit war issues with user, even in the oft chance their edits are "right". Any misstep after this exhaust my WP:AGF.—Bagumba (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Notification was provided by User:Cavarrone.—Bagumba (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

To User:Seb. Incorrect. I restored the Kenny Anderson information to the talk page bc you were all claiming I didnt discuss edits there. I DID but you keep deleting so then noone is able to see that I DID use the talk page. Also stop removing help banner from my page.

To User:Luke. I am not pushing edits. In fact I am waiting before I do many edits.

To User Bagumba: I am allowed to delete. It is no different than TheRedPenOfDoom deleting his talk page.

To UserCavarrone: Thank You for the notice. 71.191.244.33 (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that your comments were removed from the article talk page because some of them violate WP:BLP. (For example, suggesting that Anderson's ex-wife is lying.) You need to be careful about what you say about living people on every page here.

TheRedPenOfDoom does have a talk page: User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom. His user page (User:The RedPenOfDoom) has been deleted, but that doesn't hurt anyone. Zagalejo^^^ 19:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

@71.191.244.33: WP:BLANKING is very clear: "For IP editors, templates in Category:Shared IP header templates and notes left to indicate other users may share the same IP address." On the other hand, TheRedPenOfDoom is not an IP. I granted you a reprieve. Use it wisely.—Bagumba (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

So the BLP vio stays now? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide me a link to the BLP violation? I'll take care of this. Dreadstar ☥ 19:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

already given above, but here again: section "many children..." was removed 3 times per BLP. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a link to the entire history of the talk page, are you talking about this section? Dreadstar ☥ 19:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be in the context of attempting to improve the article based on one's interpretation of identified sources. I think it's fair to stay on a talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Then you need to give vandalism warnings to those who removed it, and we need to talk about Dianna's desysopping. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it vandalism, BLP was the justification, and I respect that. I just tend to be more liberal when it comes to talk pages.—Bagumba (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

then you're in the minority here :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies just as strictly to talk pages as it does to articles. And Dianna has done nothing wrong. Dreadstar ☥ 20:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Removed the BLP violating material and blocked the IP. Dreadstar ☥ 20:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

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

IP hopper possibly a banned user & copyvio clean up needed

An individual on the Verizon Wireless network has been disrupting List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the past two weeks, forcing the article to be semi-protected, and has now gone to WP:DRN in an attempt to "compromise" despite the fact I had informed the individual on one of the IP talk pages that the sources were not reliable and the content could therefore not be verified. A full list of the IPs used by this individual is as follows.

• 174.254.201.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 174.226.130.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 174.236.100.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 174.236.66.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 174.226.66.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 174.255.117.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 174.236.77.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (IP was also involved in the "Tropical cyclone names" dispute)
• 174.226.192.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 174.254.193.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 174.252.16.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

As with my note about the tropical cyclone names dispute above, I am fairly certain that that this individual is either BuickCenturyDriver or Don't Feed the Zords, as similar IP addresses show up in the former's sockpuppet investigation requests and there is definitely some level of crossover between the two.

Something needs to be done to fully enforce the community bans on these individuals.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm finding that this is most definitely the same individual that caused a dispute earlier in the year on the article under the IP 174.252.16.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as seen here and later by a confirmed sockpuppet here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

He has now used 70.39.176.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); I'm suspecting a proxy.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The article has been semiprotected, but I think it would now be best to either delete or revdel everything that came after this revision because it all contains copyvios or reverting someone adding copyvios.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take care of the deletions now. Stand by. Dreadstar ☥ 20:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. And please don't forget to restore the semi-protection (until July) when you restore the article. We don't need this mess all over again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Done, and I extended the semiprotect for six months; let me know if that should be reduced. Dreadstar ☥ 20:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

October works too, thank you (it should have been 3 months instead of 1 week last time anyway).—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Echigo mole again

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

---

• Silicate minerals (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole#28 April 2013

Because of two edits which reproduce Echigo sighanature trolling advice, "You're not going to win this one", Silicate minerals is a sock of Echigo per  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Apart from trolling on this page and at user talk:Memills (the signature posting[188]), they have made and are continuing to make disruptive edits to wikipedia. Please could somebody block Silicate minerals indefinitely? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Raskolnikoff13 at Günther Reindorff

A relatively new user Raskolnikoff13 decided that Wikipedia is battleground, and started to edit-war [189], [190], [191]. Note POV statements in the edit summaries. I would have no difficulties going for WP:DRN, but the user seems to not be looking for a compromise solution, despite being warned first in the edit summaries, then more strongly at the talk page of the article [192] and at their own talk page [193]. The user edited after these warnings were issued. I am not willing to revert the article every time just to draw their attention, and they do not seem to react on anything else and have only two edits outside of this article and its talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I have removed a piece of Soviet propaganda. Günther Reindorff was not a Soviet nor Russian, although Estonia was occupied by Soviet Union during the last decades of his life. I have done nothing to apologize and to "warn" me. --Raskolnikoff13 (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a great illustration of my point, that the user basically demonstrates battleground behavior and lack of understanding what neutrality means.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/82.122.74.60

Just for your attention.Tagremover (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

 User blocked for spam. Others are on the revert trail. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Before ANI

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

---

Is it worthy of Admin notice if an editor attempts to demote a User's reputation during discussions (without really caring what the discussion is and not even adding any input).Lucia Black (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please always provide links to the diff in question (example) for discussion here. To answer your question, grossly insulting, defamatory, or threatening language may merit immediate action such as reporting here and/or WP:REVDEL. See WP:Talk pages and WP:CIVIL. Off-topic comments which only attack can be summarily deleted, and the author warned on their Talk page with one of the standard templates (such as those provided by Twinkle). In mild cases, several warnings may need to be given before it's appropriate to bring here. Calm discussion can, if you're lucky, defuse an abusive situation. --Lexein (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Why provide links if I won't know the outcome? This editor had several issues in the past not relating to this particular case. Niemti recently did atttempt to give bad rep Here's one example: [194] and again Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Opening comments by Niemti.Lucia Black (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on what I've read, the nudge to the other editor you linked was somewhat impolite, but not abusive, nor creating of a hostile environment, so IMHO no, not requiring adminstrative action. Yes, that editor should not make comments about you: article discussions should not be about editors, they should be about content. On the other hand, I've seen no evidence of you de-escalating or thanking other editors for contributing. Wikipedia really isn't the place for strong opinions. Please read WP:TIGERS. It also isn't the place for radical merges done without extensive discussion and definitive consensus. I hope you're beginning to see that. You seem litigious: you've sought administrative action twice, and were summarily denied. These are, in my opinion, very strong clues that you're taking the wrong tack with other editors. I encourage further discussion and calm reflection with other editors at the WP:TEAHOUSE - they're awesome, and probably use gentler language than I do. --Lexein (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That's the issue with ANI, admins have this unwritten rule that allows bad behaviour to occur just because the admin believes s/he was asking for it. Or WP:BOOMERANG where one hurts his/her cause by falling down to the, but honestly we're all human and the worst part there's no medium between severe actions and smaller actions that tick other editors off that will affect in the long run. This can affect good editors (especially the ones who don't trust Wikipedia's resolution system). You can't possibly expect a cool headed editor to stay cool aftr constant interuption by those passionate strong opinioned ones.

Niemti was not part of the discussion, was not posting anything at all about the topic, and also has had issues in the past that also had attempts of a block.

So does it even matter if I never thanked anyone for their contributions (during that discussion, because I have thanked editors before. Quite recently). What makes you think I never tried to de-escalate the situation? I'm not stupid and I can tell when editors attempt to "game the discussion" and a specific editor has derailed the conversation so many times. One tends to lose it. But that's not even important. Niemti really didn't care about the topic. All the editor wanted to do was to tell other editors to ignore me. And this is coming from the editor who has had several issues in the past. And I mention this because you seem to keep tabs on failed ANI.

And I HATE how admins take this as a content issue rather than behaviour issue.Lucia Black (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The opposite, in which admins take the power unto themselves to determine what's right, is a tenfold worse than the system we have now. Admins are not leaders. We are not in charge. We push buttons when asked to in discussions or when previous discussions have determined the conditions to push them without further discussion. If you're looking for "someone in charge" to "right great wrongs", you are better off holding an WP:RFC. We don't run the place, you do.--v/r - TP 13:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Not related to this specific discussion or necessarily to anyone who has commented or is otherwise tied to this specific discussion, but that's funny. --Onorem♠Dil 13:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"What? Of course I was "a part of discussion" (it's especially ridiculous because it's so easy to check), and which is why they asked me to comment. And which is why commented. Knowing from my prior experience, LB is practically impossible to be convinced by anyone (not even by me) about anything (even very trivial matters, with people commenting on how she's "melodramatic" about it), or to agree to any compromise, why never presenting any counter-arguments (besides having a strong opinion and then stonewalling). OK, I'm not needed here, right? Cool. --Niemti (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Niemti did nothing wrong here, all he said was that he wasn't really involved or interested in the issue, but that he did know that Lucia had been difficult to work with in the past. Lucia, its your own fault you've grown a reputation for being difficult to work with. (Something I've witnessed first and second hand.) Definitely no action warranted here. I agree with Lexein that Lucia probably needs some reflection - on how she handles herself on Wikipedia, her own understanding of incivility, NPA, and what warrants administrative action or a trip to ANI... Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

@Niemti: Compromise means both sides give up something. When did you ever gave a compromise where you also gave up on something? We had only 1 heated argument. Just 1. And you were outvoted too. But you were as stubborn as I was (and worst). The other editor "gave up" because it didn't matter how much consensus we gained, you would have ignored it. You were "part" of the discussion in the sense that User:ChrisGualtieri wanted another editor to outvote me (and somehow still believing User:Ryulong was on his side aswell). On another note: Providing no counter arguments? Really? Before this gets anymore heated, I will say that's a flat out LIE. I won't expand on that because just explaining it all is irritating and ridiculous.

@Sergecross: Of course he did something wrong. He provided no discussion relating to the topic and just wants to mention how "difficult" I am to others and should "ignore" me. You're bias and you know it. If an editor vandalized my page, would you agree because you believe their telling the truth? You don't really have a say in this. You and me have our own issues, that doesn't mean I have a reputation everywhere else and it shouldn't even have to be that way. Why should disputes among you and a small handful of editors attempt to overshadow my good editing skills and editing choices?

So what if I'm difficult? And I ask that because its like asking a policeman why he constantly being a stickler about the rules. If I recall correctly, being difficult has its merits: Example Tails (character) name. The only time being "difficult" is an issue if the editor constantly loses. But being "difficult" being negative and positive is subjective. Passionate, inexperienced editors may deem you difficult. Does that mean you have a rep of being difficult. I also noticed first-hand editors end up agreeing with me months later and being approved. So I've seen editors neglect and oppose out of spite (as crazy as it may sound but I got the proof).

Being difficult is something all editors have because its totally subjective. Whether you agree and disagree about what that editor is being difficult for is what makes other editors see you in a good or bad way. And in this case, Niemti didn't even put his imput on the topic, he derailed the discussion making it about me and how I should be ignored. You agree, doesn't makee it right.Lucia Black (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

So, with all that finger pointing, I'll take that as you're not interested in taking the advice you've been given about reflection on yourself and interpretation of policy, huh? Best of luck trying to hammer your views on incivility and misconduct at ANI then... Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You're not exactly saying I'm wrong. I asked before reporting if the incident would be worth it. And it was. But then the editor tried to turn it around saying I never thanked an editor for contributin or made no attempt to de-escalate (if Niemti was making a relavant point in the discussion and made several points before then I MIGHT have listened). Also attempted to make this a content issue rather than behavior issue. I never once brought up the discussion of the merger. Hence "Before ANI". Most of these editors don't get banned but just barely. User:ChrisGualtieri for example. In the beginning, ignored consensus and attempted to overhaul an article and didn't and still doesn't follow BRD rules. Once reported here, he is forced to discuss but the moment the discussion closes he reverts back. I gave up, months later, an editor user:Ryulong does a revert on his edits. And now that consensus is stronger, has no choice. Instead though makes him out to be his savior or his trump card despite user:Ryulong not agreeing with a single thing (at first didn't agree with me but that was a misunderstanding). But he goes so far to reward a barnstar.

I know the policy well. But admins here have allowed bad behavior because they don't deem it worthy of their attention or see the other editors falling to their level. Let's just say this is just further proof of corruption in ANI. And I'll be proposing a medium between long term incivility, and minor passive aggresive action that will affect in the long run that will compliment ANI better.Lucia Black (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Judging by how many times you've been told you're wrong about "incivility" both at ANI and my talk page through talk page stalkers, makes me think that no, you don't have a good grasp on that concept. I'm not sure how're you're making things seem so complicated. You asked if Admin attention was warranted. You were told no. The end. No action required, this should be closed and archived. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That attitude of yours is common in wikipedia. You try to over simplify something. Unless you're n admin, I suggest you keep your opinions to yourself. You don't care what the subject is as long as its against me.

I asked if admin attention was warrranted before giving links. He said it was warrantable (made up word) and I provided links. He derailed the discussion to excuse why no admin action was taking place. And you're continuing to make this about the past rather than focusing on the actual situation. So I could careless about your judgement on me, no one here gave a relevant reason why this shouldn't ANI.Lucia Black (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

REQUESTING ADMIN ONLY: I'll say it again, user:Niemti is informing editors that I'm being difficult and should be ignored in public domain. This editor made no attempt to resolve the actual Topic at hand and made it clear he has no interest in it.

I can understand, in the heat of discussing, editors would defame for the sake of the topic (User:Ryulong and User:ChrisGualtieri), I can even understand if this was done at their talkpage. But in this particular situation, User:Niemti was being abusive.Lucia Black (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP Editor at Suburban Express

User:173.197.73.164 has repeatedly removed good-faith, sourced edits from Suburban Express, with the edit summary "undo vandalism": diff 1, diff 2, and diff 3. The IP address appears to remove only material which is unflattering of the company. User:NegatedVoid has argued that this IP address is connected with the company Suburban Express, as the IP address has access to pages on the company's website which appear to be unlinked to the company's main page, and which do not show up on Google searches (i.e. the pages have been created in order to provide a source for Wikipedia). Suburban Express has been very active elsewhere online protecting its image. On Reddit, for example, company representatives have pressured numerous users to delete posts under threat of libel suits. This lends further credence to the suggestion that User:173.197.73.164 is connected with Suburban Express in some way. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I searched ARIN for their IP address, and it appears to trace to an ISP based in Virginia. However, some of the edits that have been made by this IP are obvious advertising, as seen in the diffs above. Paid editing, maybe? --Mathnerd 101 _{(What I have done)} ^{(What have I done?)} 23:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe paid editing, or else editing through a proxy server - I don't really know how such things work. The semi-protection should prevent IPs from deleting material, though. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The ISP is based in Virginia, but it's a nationwide provider. If you click on the user contributions, go down to the IP user info box below their edits, then select "Alternate" for the Geolocate tool, the IP traces to Los Angeles, and the host name shown suggests it's a business account with the ISP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry, hoax articles, intentional insertion of false information

I would be grateful if an administrator would examine the recent edit history of the following two accounts:

• User:Georgehorse12
• User:Timgoodings

Both are newly created accounts. Georgehorse12 inserted references to a non-existent movie in an article about an obscure Slovenian village. Nineteen minutes later Timgoodings created a hoax article about that same non-existent movie ("Final Beginnings"), now speedily deleted as a G3 obvious hoax. Given the apparent coordination between the two newly created accounts, sockpuppetry seems likely. Georgehorse12 continues to insert unsourced and demonstrably false material about living persons and other subjects into articles. Activities appear nefarious and deserving of some admin attention. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba

Moved from WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Could use another pair of eyes on this page. What appears to be a single person (or a single group of people) using multiple (WP:SOCK?) accounts has been re-inserting the same material over and over again on this page for a couple of years now after it got removed following a discussion. The typical pattern is a blanket re-insert, without edits, of exactly the same material that was removed a year ago.

The problematic material is:

• An exhaustive and fairly detailed description of every major mathematical result by Karatsuba, the notability of which is unclear, and which in any case belong on math articles (if they are notable) rather than in a bio article.
• Biographical information without inline citations, and whose notability (e.g. which elementary school he went to) is unclear.
• Exaggerated claims (e.g. that Karatsuba published the first "divide and conquer" algorithm) which are flatly contradicted by numerous high-profile published sources.

Recently (2013), a review article (http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1134%2FS0081543813030012.pdf) was published in a journal from Karatsuba's institution in Russia that contains some very similar material (and is possibly by one of the same persons editing Wikipedia, since one of the accounts in the past claimed to be E. A. Karatsuba). This could be an appropriate source for the biographical material (assuming citations are added), but it doesn't remove the difficulty with the exhaustive list of mathematical results, and brief mentions in a relatively obscure journal don't seem sufficient for claims that contradict numerous high-profile sources. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm tangentally involved in this and have to agree with User:Stevenj, but add that the user is a WP:SPA and that language is almost certainly part of the problem. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Dharmadhyaksha

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

---

This user is taking my article to reassesments without informing me and he didn't even posted on the talk page of the article. This user has two of my GA to GAR. Huma Qureshi and 7 Khoon Maaf. I want to ask administrators that Is this the award for working day and night to develop a stub article to a detailed one. Is this my award? I want to ask the administration that we are here to work but, why some have agenda against others. This user once posted on the talk page of Imran Khan (actor) (a bad styled GA passed, how? And why?) that this article doesn't meets the criteria. He didn't opened a GAr for that article. But, why did he opened gar of these two without informing on talk page. This is because he has a problem with me and not the article. Also, 7 Khoon Maaf was passed by an inexperienced reviewer. I want to ask the administration that Is this my fault that an inexperienced reviewer chose my article to review, Is this my fault that he passed that article without being critical. Is this my fault that he didn't find mistakes. This was the reviewers fault as how he can pass an article which has problems. This was not my problem that he grabbed the article to review. I didn't asked anyone to review my article. But, this user reassed my article without even notifying in articles talk page Why? Please, sort it out.Prashant talk 18:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

An admin I suggest closing this asap, it isn't productive or likely to result in action. It's an issue which needs to be sorted out between the individuals without interference. Dharma's behaviour isn't blockable, it's just done grossly in bad faith which is very disappointing.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

@Dr.Blofeld: Please prove my bad faith. Without that don't make such accusations. By trying to close this case now don't try and run away from the boomarang. You and Pks1142 have talked foul about me on various pages for now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Bad faith? Members of the same wikiproject don't go about trying to delist the articles that others of the same project have worked hard towards promoting. They work together and identify issues and work on them to produce results and improvements.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

DD, you know I respect you as an editor so don't take this the wrong way. But, nominating articles for reassessment a mere few days after they are assessed as GA is unusual. The least you could have done was to have tried to work with the editors first. If you feel they are pushing substandard articles through the GA process, then that too is better addressed directly rather than by pointedly nominating their articles for reassessment. I have to agree with Dr. B that, while there is nothing actionable here, it is rather disappointing. --regentspark (comment) 20:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a strong feeling it was related to this comment Prashant said yesterday about an editor you are on good terms with DD. It seems strange that you would then proceed to delist not one but two Good articles he has recently worked towards as if to say "nor are your articles good enough for GA". ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Looks like Prashant has some assumption of good faith issues of their own to resolve as well. But, since none of this is actionable, I'm going to close this with the suggestion that Prashant and DD work this out between themselves (elsewhere). --regentspark (comment) 21:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

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

@Dr.B: GAR can be opened by any editor, irrespective of what project they work on. And they can very well be opened by editors of same projects as they have experience of other similar articles. I have said before and will repeat it that those GARs have nothing to do with nominators or reviewers but are simply raised for their poor writing. Now poor is an adjective which everyone would perceive differently. You think its GA quality and i don't. Its pure coincident that both articles were nominated by Prashant.
@RP: I could have talked on article's talk page, i could have talked on user's talk page, i could myself start researching and edit the article or i could have raised a GAR. I made my choice. There is no way i would go for 3rd option. I could have gone with first two but at the end of GAR for 7 Khoon Maaf i have clearly stated why a GAR, that too for community reassessment, was raised. I commented on talk page of Imran Khan (actor) when its GA was passed. These two more similar articles passed now. Either its the way GAs are going to be in future maybe because no one noticed them or maybe because that's how its going to be acceptable from now onwards. If its any of these, my alone's opinions don't matter and hence GAR was required. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Range block evasion of 190.111.10.32/27

The range block of 190.111.10.32/27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is under a block for disrupting Wikipedia by linking dates despite repeated warnings not to do so. Now these IPs, once again traced from Guatemala, 190.106.222.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 190.106.222.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 190.106.222.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 190.106.222.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 190.106.222.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 190.106.222.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 190.106.222.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 190.106.222.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are still adding links to album pages. The fact that whoever is behind these IPs is refusing to talk or compromise is extremely frustrating despite repeated blocks and warnings. Erick (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You listed 190.106.222.22 twice. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was rushing when I made this report. Erick (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, whoever this person is obviously doing something to have their IP keep changing. I found two more IPs doing the same thing from the same country: 190.106.222.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 190.106.222.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Erick (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I blocked range 190.106.222.0/27 for 72 hours. --Orlady (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I thank you very much. Erick (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Persistent placing of banners by a suspected sockpuppet

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

---

User:AnnieLess is persisting in placing an "Importance section" banner across the article Metric system in spite of my requesting him/her to engage in a proper dispute resolution process. I have formally warned him/her that persistent placing of unjustified banners, tags etc amounts to vandalism. My requests are here and here. For the record, I believe that User:AnnieLess is a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto. I have filed a WP:SPI request and an awaiting a response from the SPI team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 04:52, 30 April 2013‎ (UTC)

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

Yet Another Slow-Motion Edit War

Yet Another Slow-Motion Edit War, this time at 7400 series:[195][196][197][198][199][200][201][202][203] (No 3RR violation, because the main edit warrior has been blocked before and knows to keep outside of the 24 hour window.)

Please note that this is recurring issue, and that the usual response (temporary page protection) usually stops the problem -- until it happens again on another engineering-related page.

Warnings given:[204][205][206][207]

Further revert after deleting warning:[208][209]

ANI notices:[210][211][212] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I assume that is not specifically addressed at me as I have not edited the article in question since the warning was posted on my talk page. Posting a warning to decist and then raising it as an ANI when an editor has decisted is a bit underhand. 86.147.236.27 (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you are not the problem, yet I am required (see notice at the top of this page) to notify any user who is the subject of a discussion at ANI, even if the only discussion is about them being reverted by a persistent edit warrior. Sorry if it seemed like I was criticizing you; that was not my intent. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Close as impractical for ANI to act on this. Admins would much rather find some trivial, but obviously clear-cut, issue to exercise their superpowers over than they would to try to resolve a complex and long-term issue like Wtshymanski. Remember, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and you'll be banned if you say otherwise. Doing something useful is not a requirement. If there is any solution to be had for this, it would have to come from outside ANI, which is presumably now left as ArbCom. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked Wtshymanski for a week (which is extremely lenient) for continued tendentious editing. This should have been met with escalating blocks a long time ago. Assuming that this doesn't stop the warring, let me know and I'll issue semiprotection per the usual response. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Reporting vandalism on Preposition_and_postposition

Resolved

 – Thank you. Reverted Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not a regular editor/user and do not have the patience to figure out how it works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preposition_and_postposition Just wanted to report that last sentence under 'definitional issues' there is an offensive line stating someone's phone number to call for a bj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.202.75 (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Fladrif with their finger on the trigger

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

---

Someone who knows their history and can remember who's who from a number of feuds needs to have a look at the recent contributions by Fladrif (talk · contribs), who's tagging as db-attack a ton of user pages. I rolled one of them back (I didn't see the attack), but a. I don't have mass rollback enabled and my RSI is playing up and b. this should be handled by someone who knows this stuff better than me. In addition, I have just warned Fladrif on their talk page (no doubt already deleted) for this piece of editing, which someone else might block them for in a heartbeat (I wouldn't object). Drmies (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Fladrif removed numerous of my user pages with out notice. I'd forgotten I had them actually, they were leftovers from an arbitration, and would have appreciated a notice if there was a concern. I don't appreciate another editor without notice removing content from my user page. Such an action runs close to vandalizing a user page.(olive (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC))

Well, I don't know what the deal is, but I think that's the last of the noms dealt with. One way or another, if these pages need deletion, they need discussion, not a speedy deletion tag slapped on them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite frankly I'm amazed that "Fladrif" is even able to edit. His violations of core policy astound me, ... but perhaps my thoughts are singular. — Ched :  ?  05:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Something's not right here... This is quite consternating. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess I might have spoken a little too soon, but Ched has already blocked Fladrif indefinitely for being "unable to work with others." Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Enough is enough .. We should not be accepting this kind of behavior. — Ched :  ?  05:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree, enough is enough. This type of behaviour displayed by Fladrif is a bright line violation of our civility policy (which is one of the five pillars). Well, that's all folks! Now go edit somewhere else. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This page that Fladrif marked for deletion is actually an evidence page in a now-closed ArbCom case and to my understanding is not to be deleted, I blanked it out of courtesy - I believe several of the pages Fladrif marked were also evidence pages in that or other ArbCom cases involving him. The evidence on that page was used to place Fladrif on a civility parole, yet here we are several years later still having to put up with his vicious and hateful comments and actions such as this recent personal attack on an Arbitrator; continuing the same pattern of personal attacks as he has for years - even after his civility parole by ArbCom. An indef block of Fladrif at this point is certainly not surprising; the surprise is that it has taken this long for some action to be taken. Dreadstar ☥ 06:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Fladrif's editing restriction in the TM case was for one year (which ended in June 2011). Even while that restriction was still in effect, the maximum block authorized by ArbCom was for one month. IMO, an indefinite civility block for Fladrif would require a new ArbCom action. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No one is saying that 2010-2011 ArbCom restriction justifies anything right now, I'm providing a little background into elements of this issue. But I do think there's justification for a very long block on Fladrif with just the recent evidence I provided; personal attacks on several editors, disruptive editing, etc; and I'm not quite done yet. Dreadstar ☥ 07:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No, a block for Fladrif would be entirely acceptable as an administrative action; the existence of ArbCom sanctions does not prohibit community-based action. Still, I have no idea why [213] would qualify as a "personal attack" (as Dreadstar cites; I haven't looked into this all that much). The tagging of the pages is one thing, but those really ought to be simply reverted and moved into "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/" space anyway.

Ched, you made this block and I am now asking as a fellow editor and fellow administrator, as well as someone who might have to one day review this block as a member of the Arbitration Commmittee, for you to give a more detailed rationale for his block per Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability. NW (Talk) 07:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

So, NW, "I'm not the least bit surprised that a mere child lacks the judgment and maturity to do this job" isn't a personal attack? Others seemed to think so; stating that the comment by Fladrif was an "utter disgrace" and "venom". Dreadstar ☥ 07:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you're confused because Fladrif initially misplaced his comment, later moving it so that it clearly was responding to the person intended. Dreadstar ☥ 07:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC).

as a ... fellow administrator, ... member of the Arbitration Commmittee, ??? I wasn't aware there are different versions of WP:ADMINACCT based on the identify of the requestor. The policy statement Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. makes no reference to who is making the query. NE Ent 11:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Dreadstar, I did indeed miss that line. I thought the offending sentence was "when the accusation is shown to be utterly specious and untrue, you try to hide behind SilkTork's skirts, and repeat it in a brazen effort to bluff your way through" (which while rude, is directly commenting on actions and not character). The one you bring up is a bit worse, yes.

NE Ent, Ched had said on his talk page: "I will be willing to provide specific diffs upon request if an arbitration situation comes of this. The attacks are many and directed toward multiple editors; and I'm willing to support that if need be." I was trying to remind him that no matter if he did or did not want to explain himself before this reached the ArbCom level (because of some offwiki thing even maybe?), the Arbitration Committee would still need a full explanation even if it couldn't be explained in public. NW (Talk) 21:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• NW ... that's a fair request. I am surprised you need to ask, but I will point you to the relevant threads. I'll get back to this within the next 24 hours. — Ched :  ?  07:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Good block. I was looking into this whole "new religious movements" debacle tonight (Fladrif was disruptive at the WT:BASC discussion) and found that Fladrif appears to have a long history of unprofessionalism. He deletes everything from his talkpage with no archive, so getting a complete picture may be relatively tricky, and though he's been blocked a few times he seems to have mostly evaded blocks. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Fladrif lists over a dozen diffs, some of which are not well-selected (see this diff for a decent example promising a "final warning"). But really, this appears to be a routine thing, continuing without much change or acknowledgment. The other day I tried to engage him on his behavior at my talkpage and he basically refused to discuss it. II | (t - c) 07:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment Strange how Ched who is involved would take it upon himself to block Fladrif. I oppose the indef block and have unblocked the user in question until consensus develops. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• And now we have a clearly involved admin, User:Doc James, blatantly and grossly misusing the tools by unblocking an editor he is clearly and closely involved with over a long period of time, editing many articles together, engaging in many disputes with others alongside each other on a regular basis! This is outright and outrageous admin abuse of the tools by Doc James. Dreadstar ☥ 08:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: On another front, I have been constantly Wikihounded by Fladrif over the last few weeks - so much so that I have felt unable to do any significant editing as anything I did was likely to get jumped on by him. He has subjected me to serious personal abuse and constant uncivil behavior. He even seemed to align himself with the work of a recently banned sockpuppet, the seriously dysfunctional User:Star767 (although I cannot believe that they are in any way related). Much of his activity on my work is centered around abuse and template:bullying. He seems to have a battlefield mentality, bludgeoning away continuously even if there is little or no support from other editors.

I was intrigued by his user talk page arrangements so I have taken the trouble of piecing it all together at User:Penbat/fladrif. Here you will see numerous example of other editors complaining about Fladrif's behaviour over many years. He seems oblivious to his own bad behaviour but keen to find fault with others.--Penbat (talk) 08:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

thank you for that work of diligence. I posted once, and established just now what it referred to:

re: what?

Every editor is a human being,
and we need to consider regularly whether our view/approach to an issue brings out the best of humanity or not. (Geometry guy 28 February 2012)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The "what?" referred to this, added for context, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Now you will probably call me involved, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to add that it is clearly absurd that an editor who often dishes it out and throws stones at other editors makes scrutiny of his own behaviour difficult by continually blanking his talk page - now at User:Penbat/fladrif.--Penbat (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes a mass "db-attack" on loads of user pages by Fladrif only a few hours ago has just been rejected Special:Contributions/Fladrif.--Penbat (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I'd like to see a fuller account of the rationale behind a block. I admit to an ignorance of the backstory, which must be fueling this, but characterizing an arb as a mere child is barely enough to warrant a warning, much less a block. I reviewed a few other links, but haven't found anything recent justifying the wailing and gnashing of teeth.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

There must be well over a hundred examples of Fladrif's uncivil behaviour and personal attacks which I could link to but I will leave that to others for the time being. Loads of complaints/warnings by other editors over the years can be found on Fladrifs talk page reassembled at User:Penbat/fladrif.--Penbat (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes usually the expectation is that a blocking admin will provide the evidence in question. Not just indefinately block a user and state when asked that they will simply provide evidence latter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of expectations: "Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion." So what "good cause" warranted Jmh649 unblocking prior to consensus forming here and without discussing with Ched first? NE Ent 14:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Well believe me, the evidence is all there in spades - must easily be enough to get him "hung, drawn and quartered".--Penbat (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Penbat, you have my deepest sympathies regarding your issue with Fladrif. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, for a period of time i was getting my work ripped into by User:Star767 and fladrif at the same time, total nightmare.--Penbat (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I am uninvolved. I don't know Fladrif. I do know Ched and like him. I also know Drmies who opened this thread and like him. Fladrif's editing history is prolific, so this compilation of recent diffs doesn't go very far back because it's too tiring. Most of the diffs go to Drmies's point about putting {{db-attack}} on a great many pages. As far as I can tell, those tags were then removed by other editors (usually admins - I didn't pay a lot of attention). Some of the other diffs are somewhat controversial as they attack other editors (not necessarily always to the level of personal attacks). For example, they accuse Ched of vandalism. Mostly, the diffs support a crusade against certain editors based on an apparent back history that I know nothing about (as usual). Here they are (I realize that annotating them would have been more helpful, but that would been even more work):

• Diff of User talk:Dreadstar
• Diff of User:Dreadstar/FDIFFS
• Diff of User:Littleolive oil/Evidence SexieSadie
• Diff of User:Littleolive oil/Will Beback
• Diff of User:TimidGuy/rebuttals
• Diff of User:Littleolive oil/Rebuttals
• Diff of User:Littleolive oil/ AE diffs
• Diff of User:TimidGuy/COIN
• Diff of User:TimidGuy/Will
• Diff of User:Dreadstar/Rebuttal post TM
• Diff of User:Dreadstar/here
• Diff of User:Dreadstar/Sock analysis
• Diff of User:Dreadstar/FDIFFS
• Diff of User:Keithbob/SexySadieDiffs
• (Stopped including diffs of db-attack tags – too many of them)
• Diff of User:Dreadstar/FDIFFS
• Diff of User talk:Ched
• Diff of User talk:Ched
• Diff of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
• Diff of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

In my view, the evidence supports a block. Whether it should have been indefinite is a matter of discretion. Ched is one of the more laid-back admins, so the fact that he felt an indefinite block was justified says something. Whether Fladrif should have been unblocked pending this discussion is another matter of discretion. What's clear to me, though, is that Doc James, given his history with the user, should not have been the one to issue the unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Aha so Doc James has a history with this user, may be worth investigating by someone. Here's a start to that investigation: [214] --Penbat (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have taken the liberty of converting these links to diffs using a diff converter script so interested observers can review them using pop-ups. -- Dianna (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Response by Keithbob

Comment: Fladrif has a long history, spanning several years, of battleground editing, bullying and personal attacks. I commend Ched for standing up and taking strong action. I am deeply concerned with involved Admin, Doc James’, reversal of the block in lieu of Doc James' long time association and editing with Fladrif. In my observation, Fladrif is abusive to every editor, Admin or ArbCom member who disagrees with him/her and Fladrif appears incapable of civility in a collaborative environment. Although I could provide more than one hundred diffs of Fladrif's abusive behavior over the past 4 years, I will confine myself to just the 4 months of this current year.

*Here are the behavioral standards Fladriff held other editors to in 2013. Fladrif says:

• • Condescending comments like the above are typical from you, and are personal attacks on other editors beyond the bounds of this project
  • at this point, there should be consequences to continued disruptive editing and personal attacks per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
  • A topic ban will not suffice. An indefinite block, after which, if he deigns to grace us with reasons why his erudition should be shared with we peons, and he might then be allowed to soil his shoes walking among the unwashed heathens of Wikipedia, is the only reasonable solution

*But here is the condescending and offensive way Fladrif treated others in 2013, Fladrif says:

• • Risker and Dreadstar are getting their panties in a twist over their misreading of Doc's statement
  • one helpful comment, that I am quite certain you will ignore, just as you ignore all advice from more experienced editors. It took you 41 revisions, and counting, to write this pathetic, self-serving, nonsensical, delusional polemic? I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You are in complete denial as to your own serious misconduct, and your protests of innocence and provocation are ludicrous. You want to impress people that you've learned your lesson? Shut up about it and do positive, non-disruptinv work. No wonder you have nearly 50K posts - at the rate you revise your own posts, it's equivalent to 1500 posts by an editor who actually reads what they write before they hit "Save Page". That's nothing to brag about. What an utter waste of bandwidth. With any luck, our paths will never cross again on Wikipedia. Have a nice life, kid
  • Fladrif calls Dreadstar: “Olive's and TimidGuy's most loyal yapping lapdog”
  • AN/I should slap Penbat on the wrist and send him to bed without his supper
  • Fladrif taunts Dreadstar on his talk page: that your July 2010 retirement -not to be confused with your November 2011 retirement or your April 2013 retirement- involved you pitching a hissy-fit over WBB not immediately deleting an evidence page after an ArbCom was completed, your maintaining multiple attack pages against other editors on your personal hit list is more than a little hypocritical

• Giving abuse to Arbitration Committee members in April 2013:
  • Fladrif says to AGK: I'm not the least bit surprised that a mere child lacks the judgment and maturity to do this job. You leveled a specious charge (doubly specious, because (i) there is absolutely no reason why an editor could or should not communicate with other editors off Wiki and (ii) the fact is that, although there would be nothing wrong with it whatsoever, there was no off-wiki coordination of this appeal) without any basis other than your suspicions. When the accusation is shown to be utterly specious and untrue, you try to hide behind SilkTork's skirts, and repeat it in a brazen effort to bluff your way through. Implicitly, you accuse WBB and unnamed editors of lying about this to the Community. If you are "aware" of off-wiki coordination, when the editors you imply are involved in that coordination have stated there is none, I suggest you owe it to the Community to either post your proof and be prepared to defend it. Otherwise retract your statement and issue an apology as the last thing you do before resigning ArbCom, surrendering all your tools, and permanently retiring as an editor.
  • Fladrif says to Roger Davies: @Roger Davies: The sense of lèse-majesté emanating from some of the members who imagine themselves to have been forced to descend from the throne and peer out over the battlements at the howling mob at the outer gate to discern where the noise is coming from is disturbing. Who do you think you are?
  • Fladrif says to AGK: @AGK. What you claim to be your core concern is inconceivably misconceived and wrong-headed.
  • Fladrif says to Silk Tork: SilkTork, I wish you'd warned us so we could have put on our hip waders before reading that. Really? Asking ArbCom to reconsider and for other editors to support reconsideration is, in and of itself, battleground behavior. What kind of Catch-22 nonsense is this?..... If this is an example of ArbCom's thinking in this process, it's no wonder you wanted it kept secret, because this level of dissembling and sophistry couldn't survive the light of day. I'm looking so forward to the rationale offered by the other ArbCom members, should they dare to post anything so absurd.

*Battleground editing

• • 2013 I've hand enough of Welner and his employees and flack weasels who insist on rewriting this article as a hagiography. I've taken a meat-axe to the self-published and self-serving piles of BS, and cut this down to what a normal Wikipedia article on a self-promoting hired gun witness would look like.
  • 2012 at ANI [215]

*Warnings and feedback given to Fladrif just in 2013:

• • Why did you delete my question? I am not looking to cause trouble or start an argument. I was simply making a request. Couldn't you have at least shown me enough respect to reply?
  • He may have his shortcomings, but that sort of condescending commentary isn't helping anyone. Please refrain from that sort of advice, if you're going to lace it with that sort of negativity, the meaning is lost, and everyone's time is wasted.
  • It is also unhelpful that you immediately delete any comments on your talk page which makes scrutiny of your past activities less obvious and makes it more difficult to conduct a current discussion about your activities. That can be seen as obstructive.
  • If I see ANY more posts like this then I will block you without another warning, and without a moment's hesitation.…. If I see ANY more posts like this then I will block you without another warning, and without a moment's hesitation.
  • I came here to protest against its nastiness. I suppose you were angry and upset, but still. Anyway, I saw Ched had got here before me, and you had promptly removed his warning. You're formally perfectly entitled to do that, but don't you think it's a little embarrassing, for somebody so strong on openness and transparency, to be so quick to hide criticism of yourself?
  • Dude, please take a break: I don't want to see you get blocked.
  • have reverted your edits to User talk:Dreadstar. Given how you do maintenance to your talk page, I'm sure you don't mind if your comments on others' talk pages are summarily reverted. Also, I couldn't rightly decide between calling it trolling and personal attack, so I'll leave that to you. Do consider this a warning--let's say level-3 NPA.
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the evidence provided above, I am now convinced that Fladrif is becoming disruptive and condescending towards other users (including myself) and I deeply resent Wikipedians being abusive towards others. These comments are, to quote Ched, "beyond the pale". Something needs to be done about this matter. His insults and heckling towards me comes off as an utter disgrace and I think it is a blemish on my excellent contribution record on Wikipedia. Fladrif has already driven off Dreadstar into retirement a few months ago, and I agree with the observations by Bbb23 and Keithbob about his abusive behaviour. Before I go, I would like to make it clear to everyone that I have an extremely low tolerance regarding comments which I find to be harassing, haranguing, accusatory, inflammatory, incivil, heckling, insulting, condescending, disrespectful, abusive, venomous, yelling, annoying, embarassing, temperamental, rude or threatening, or those that are full of vulgarity. All of these can create a power imbalance in communication and are considered detrimental to the discussion. With that said, I think it's time to hold a discussion regarding if the block should be reinstated or file a request for arbitration. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

More recent warnings to Fladrif:

• Gerda Arndt says: Every editor is a human being and we need to consider regularly whether our view/approach to an issue brings out the best of humanity or not.
• Reaper Eternal says: I have reverted your recent mass-tagging of various userspace pages as {tlx|db-attack}, which does not apply to those pages. If you want them deleted, take them to WP:MFD as per WP:POLEMIC or as abandoned drafts of RFCs.
• Ched's block comment: I've thought about this for some time, .... and no. Your editing here is not conducive to a collaborative environment. You have been sanctioned in the past for your approach by the arbitration committee, and you continue to attack editors in an unacceptable manner. No Fladrif, enough is enough. If you want some "unblock me" template, .. ask. But your behavior is far beyond acceptable.
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

One hundred and twenty eight more diffs of Fladrif's abuse of other editors, Admins and ArbCom members

In addition to the 24 diffs I have provided above, here are 128 additional diffs of Fladrif's personal attacks and warnings during the years 2009 thru 2012. Just click here to view them.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Response from Ched

First, my apologies for not being more timely in responding to the requests regarding WP:ADMINACCT. There is a lengthy history here which requires a great deal of reading, and I do stand by my original block as "indef" and not infinite. I am attempting to sort through a great deal of information and communication, and will do my best to respond as quickly as possible to any questions. A great deal of information in regards to my "justification" of my block are provided above in diffs, and I appreciate any patience that the community would be willing to grant me in the coming future. My apologies for not being able to respond to each and every individual comment. — Ched :  ?  19:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Reassembled Fladrif talk page

As Fladrif continually blanks his talk page, to help with proper scrutiny I have completely reassembled all past posts on his talk page at User:Penbat/fladrif.--Penbat (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Response from Jmh649

Yes Fladrif behavior is not appropriate. However neither is handing out an indef ban without providing any justification. I have banned Fladrif for 72 hours based on the evidence provided above. If others wish a permanent ban however IMO this should be supported by community consensus not a single admin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

72 hours is a joke. Around 10 editors have already made seriously critical comments above about Fladrif with possibly more to come - that looks like a consensus to me. Also some editors above commented that because of your past involvement with Fladrif you shouldnt be involved here at all [216]. --Penbat (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to note: There is a difference between "ban" and "block" — Ched :  ?  19:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

In theory, but not really in practice. Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. I'll concede that. — Ched :  ?  20:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Ched has posted twice today at AN/I saying he/she is working on a comprehensive report and several other editors including myself have provided dozens of diffs showing chronic problematic editing. What you should be doing Doc James is undoing your reversal of the indef block by Ched and waiting for the community to complete its evaluation and decide what the period of time should be. Instead you have appointed yourself King Admin and undermined Ched's authority and undermined this community process. You are running interference for a blocked editor with whom you have a long term connection. Just as you have been doing for Will Beback in recent months. This is very troubling. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

General comments from Fiddle Faddle

I may be the exception here. I have had a decent interaction with Fladrif and have participated in useful collaborative work. I met this editor with no preconceived ideas, though was told they were sometimes awkward to work with. I have had to be assertive to ensure collaboration, but am satisfied with conduct and nature of collaboration. I am not saying it was easy to collaborate, but it was also not difficult, though I can see how it could have become so.

The only area that I have found awkward is their perpetual blanking of their talk page, but they have self identified as OCD, though with the words in a different order, and can forgive that awkwardness.

I have seen poor interactions with other editors, but have not experienced that myself. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Ive started a new ANI on DocJames' involvement in this ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Questionable_involvement_by_DocJames_on_Fladrif_dispute--Penbat (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Can't we keep the whole thing together? OK, I'll start: I do find this troubling. Doc James could have come here to make a case, he could have advised Fladrif on how to get back into people's good graces--but this is drastic and obviously can't be reverted lest that admin be accused of wheelwarring. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

the merits of the case

I'm a friend of Doc James. My general style as an admin is that I rarely think it's necessary to block. But looking at the material above, and at Fladrif's block log, I would support indefinite. 72 hour blocks have failed in the past, and though normally blocks should be gradated, this behavior is so pervasive that there's no reason to expect anything other than that it would continue after the block. If I were Doc James I'd say something like "I expected what I did to be approved by the community, but I find I was wrong, and reinstate the original block." I see no real reason for a more general inquiry into his work as an admin. Every active admin makes this sort of mistake once or twice. I know I have. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope every active admin doesn't make the mistake of accusing other admins of being "involved" with no basis in fact.[217][218] Actually a serious accusation. It depresses me to see Doc James take random potshots like that at the conscientious Ched. It worries me more than the block-unblock-reblock cycle here. :-( Compare my unanswered query on Doc James' page.[219] Bishonen | talk 22:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC).

You comment on me not answering your question after a total of 2 hours and 31 minutes? Seriously? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding Fladrif, my impression is that he often has a valid underlying point, but he habitually expresses himself in hyperbolic and confrontational language which obscures whatever point he's trying to make. I've seen a number of people like that in my years on Wikipedia, and they typically end up indef-blocked, for better or worse. While I don't know that I'd have blocked him myself, Ched's block is a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion, and frankly was pretty much an inevitability.

  Regarding James' unblock, I see Ched's perspective. I definitely wouldn't be happy if one of my administrative actions were reversed without discussion. That said, Fladrif is still blocked at the moment, for 72 hours - which should be enough for us to develop a consensus on whether or not he should be indefinitely blocked. The most constructive way forward is probably to have that discussion and implement its outcome (although I recognize that AN/I is not typically about finding the most constructive way forward). MastCell ^Talk 22:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that we should try to find a consensus for how long Fladrif should be blocked. But if we're going to do that in the section just below, it should not say "ban" but "block". I didn't see anyone arguing that Fladrif should be community-banned at this point. In addition, not that I care a whole lot, but these kinds of discussions usually take place at WP:AN, not here. AN also has a longer archiving window. Drmies properly brought it here mostly based on the CSD tags, but it has, uh, evolved since its inception.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Please simply state how long a block (if any) you think Fladrif should have

• Indefinite. His bad behaviour has been going on for years and is obviously deeply rooted. Looks most unlikely he will ever change.--Penbat (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite - It's obviously clear that Fladrif won't change his behavior anyway. Having been involved with the project for 6 years and have contributed extensively to 11 good articles and 10 featured articles, and, as people have been kind enough to acknowledge (see User:Sjones23/Barnstars), have managed to improve Wikipedia, especially with regards to video game, anime and manga articles. As I have stated above, after taking a look at the evidence, I have been fully convinced that Fladrif has been disruptive towards other users and he is unable to cooperate with anyone who disagrees with him. His conduct to say the least is profoundly detrimental to the encyclopedia. Enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Regardless of the header, I think longer statements than a time period should be allowed (!vote, not votes), but I'll try to keep this short. Should this be moved to WP:AN, per Wikipedia:BAN#Decision_to_ban? (Not clear on why that rule exactly exists, but AN is 48 hours to archive versus 24 at ANI.) In any case, indefinite. As I related above, I tried to engage Fladrif in a discussion on his attacks and conversational tone and he was uninterested in my help. He has shown no apparent improvement in behavior in several years. Of course, he can always appeal (Wikipedia:BAN#Appeals_and_discussions) and if he happened to show remorse and promise to really start to change his ways, I might change my mind. It's not clear he has ever apologized in his entire history. II | (t - c) 23:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Your information is imperfect, to wit: policy (WP:CBAN) supports ban discussions on either ANI & ANI; note Wikipedia:BAN#Decision_to_ban includes the phrasing "subpage thereof." The archive time (actually 36 hours here) is for the bot to automatically move quiescent discussions into the archive pages and will not affect active discussions. NE Ent 23:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Indefinite (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• One week --SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite. --4idaho (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'd imagine that I'm expected to comment here. Fladrif's past history weighed heavily in my original block decision. In my opinion nothing has changed in Fladrif's editing style since the arbitration declaration. That is the primary reason I chose the "indef" option in my block. I will always abide by community consensus, but I do believe that "Fladrif" simply is not editing in an acceptable manner. I also think there is a much larger picture here involving manipulation, coercsion, intimidation, and collusion; but that is something for another time and place. In short: I support an indefinite block. — Ched :  ?  01:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite-- And in case the 24 diffs of Fladrif's personal attacks and warnings from 2013 outlined in my thread above are not convincing for some folks.... then please have a look at the 128 additional examples of personal attacks and warnings from the years 2009 through 2012, which can be seen here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite I'm uninvolved as I have no previous interaction with or knowledge of Fladrif. Reading through the diffs, it seems clear that there is a behavioral issue that can not be solved within a predetermined period of time. Indefinite doesn't mean forever, but there is no fixed amount of time that can assure the community that the behavior will not continue after the block expires. Because of his own actions, we are left no choice but to use an indefinite period. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite, per all the reasons outlined above; this has gone on for far too long and shows no signs of abating. Dreadstar ☥ 03:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite. - I never interacted with Fladrif personally, but I watched what they did to others, which made me make my one and only entry on their user page, quoting Geometry guy who said in PumpkinSky's (difficult) return request in February 2012: "Every editor is a human being". Fladrif seemed not to respect that, what can we do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite - I've not come across Fladrif myself, at least, not as far as I can remember: but their block log, and evidence here, suggests they aren't really able to contribute in this sort of environment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• No more than a week, since I don't see Fladrif's attacks as being any worse than, for example, the attacks [220] [221] that got Dreadstar a 1 week block (on 15 November 2011 [222]). Also, it is several years since Fladrif's last block, which was 72 hours [223]. Cardamon (talk) 09:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite but not infinite. Fladrif has continually shown extraordinary resistance to community standards despite numerous warnings. He should be welcomed back when he can demonstrate sustained collaborative editing for at least 6 months. See the section below for a supplementary proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite While Fladrif's last block was years ago, his venomous attacks upon others have continued unabated, to wit: on 13 April 2013, where he calls AGK a "mere child" and calls for him to totally stop editing. I suggest the reason for no recent blocks is that admins don't want to have to put up with his venom. I'm baffled as to why Fladrif feels it acceptable to repeatedly behave in this manner. Fladrif has shown a complete unwillingness edit productively in a collaborative environment. We are here to produce an encyclopedia, not do nothing about those who repeatedly denigrate others year after year. If he can show he can edit productively he can come back but in the meantime the community should not have to put up with his appalling behavior.PumpkinSky talk 11:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite The block should be indefinite. It can be lifted if Fladrif demonstrates that they understand what they did wrong and promise not to do it again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Indef Serious behavioral issues on display here, perhaps the best (worst) example being his attacks on AGK a week or two ago. His conduct makes me skeptical that he's willing to work as part of a community. I'm willing to change my mind, I'd like to see a significant change in attitude first. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• One week and longer periods if they do not change their behavior. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Doc has done the right thing, but I have serious concerns with the allegations that he made about Ched's prior involvement with Fladrif. I will assume good faith and suggest Doc made a mistake, because seen in any other way Doc accusations against an innocent editor and admin would be unconscionable. (olive (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC))

Defining an indefinite ban/block for Fladrif

There is obviously now a consensus above for an indefinite ban/block for Fladrif. I think it is worth thrashing out a clarification here of what that means in practice.--Penbat (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Have indefinitely blocked user in question per forming consensus here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh the deed has now been done. I doubt if there is any more worth saying.--Penbat (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Supplementary proposal: Fladrif may not remove warnings from his talk page

Given all the discussion above about Fladrif's response to warnings, I propose the following indefinite restriction. This will apply regardless of how long he is blocked for:

Fladrif is prohibited from removing or hiding any warning from his talk page within 30 days of it playing placed. Incorrect or tendentious warnings may be removed by an uninvolved administrator at their discretion. He may appeal this restriction after three consecutive months of active editing with no warnings. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Editors are free to remove anything they want on their talk page and this would just encourage questionable warnings by random detractors looking to decorate his page with hate. It doesn't solve anything and would be twisting the knife. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per DB. NE Ent 12:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Assuming Fladrif is allowed to continue editing at all, it is important for the community to have a convenient view of any legitimate concerns, without being forced to go to unusual lengths to reconstruct his talk page. Worries over vandalism of Fladrif's talk page can be dealt with by the proposal to allow removal of inappropriate warnings by uninvolved admins. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see anything that justifies changing the rules for this particular user. There are a lot of users, including difficult ones, who remove warnings from their talk pages. I think it sets a bad precedent for other similar users.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm against micromanagement of talk pages. Different people handle messages in different ways, one size does not fit all. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dennis Brown. It would be a bad precedent. Cavarrone (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Block information and declined unblock requests are already on the 'do not remove' list, and that is sufficient. While it would make it easier to 'check up' by requiring warnings not be removed, it would, in practice, as Dennis points out, absolutely be troll-bait. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Bushranger suggests these already cannot be removed, but that's only for active blocks. I think this will become more of a problem if he is allowed back, but in my research I noticed a significant number of warnings which seemed to sort of die on the vine, no doubt aided by deletion. II | (t - c) 19:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Er, "only for active blocks" was in fact what I meant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dennis Brown's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Am I the only one who is wondering what the word 'playing' is doing in the proposal? Peridon (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

  An obvious typo of "being". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Warnings are for the editor receiving them, and once read they can be removed - I see no reason why Fladrif should be any different. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Biased RfC and improper closure thereof at Ugg boots trademark disputes

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

---

WLRoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been involved in a very partisan, occasionally WP:BATTLE manner in a long-running series of content disputes on this article and the related Ugg boots for years. He started a biased RfC on the Ugg boots trademark disputes article. The explanation of the bias is a bit complicated. Essentially, he constructed the question in a way that would produce the responses he wanted. Thirty days later, he requested closure, waited a week, and then closed it himself. Policy based arguments are being carefully ignored; he's relying on a raw vote.

According to WP:RFC, since it's been contentious, formal closure is "advisable." He has refused mediation twice, and he has indicated that he won't withdraw the question, so formal closure seems to be the only remaining option. And according to WP:RFC, formal closure must be done by an uninvolved editor; there's no way for him to weasel out of it. His attitude has been, "Fine, go ahead and report me to ANI" after a warning.

It should be noted that the editor has a history of ignoring WP policy whenever it suits his agenda. The article about Kerry and Kay Danes was stubbed by Jimbo Wales. The article about the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations was stubbed by other senior administrators. Both times for this editor's comprehensive BLP violations. Although the policies aren't the same for this latest case, they're still policies. I first ran into this editor when I noticed his BLP and other policy violations at the Franklin article, and brought them to admins' attention. He's been following me around ever since, taking the opposite side in content disputes.

Most recently, he's followed me to Tea Party movement and immediately joined the content dispute there, on the other side. He's Australian and has never before demonstrated any interest in articles on American politics. This seems to be a violation of WP:HARASS. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Getting someone here to review the closure looks like a good idea but I'm not sure we shouldn't be looking at your own behaviour at the same time. I followed you to Ugg Boots to see if your fierce advocacy of a Tea Party agenda at Tea Party movement while claiming to be an Obama supporter was just an aberration or a pattern wherever you edited. It turns out that you only seem to be interested in two issues and the behaviour is identical on both. Personal attacks, misinterpretation of BLP policy, canvassing, tendencious editing seem to be the norm. Its a pity you were not active before Arbcom took up the Tea Party issue otherwise you would be conjoined to that case. Now I'm involved on the Tea Party issue so it really needs a neutral and experienced admin to take a look, but I think there is a wider behaviour issue for the community here. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Re the two articles where P&W accuses me of bad behavior. The Danes article: Kerry Danes contacted me and asked if I could make some changes to the article. I made most changes she asked for except for ones involving legal documents in her possession that contradicted some media reports mentioned in the article and I told her I couldn't add it because the documents were not in the public domain, I then asked for help from the foundation response team who told me to post it at the BLP board which I did and she thanked me for what I had done. Editors at the BLP board were divided over the material and Jimbo Wales stubbed the article here. The BLP violations referred to unsourced material that had been in the article for four years, none of which was specifically about the Danes. In regards to the Franklin article, P&W originally edited that article to eliminate any mention that the main accused was very prominent in the Republican Party, not because he noticed BLP problems and that dispute lasted months with P&W the only editor opposing mention. He later introduced a source to support his own edits which several editors, including myself later used to add other material he then objected to. He took the issue to three different boards and after failing to get the author declared an unreliable source did get the author’s publisher declared unreliable at an RfC, which left everything in the article sourced to that author with BLP violations as it was now effectively unsourced. That was when he first argued BLP. An alternate source was disallowed as it was behind a paywall so the article was stubbed.
Since then he has brought up the stubbing as a "evidence" of bad behavior on my part in every single disagreement we have. I can add the diffs when I have a lot more time. He was reported for this by another editor to the Wiki-etiquette board[224] which advised him to stop but he continued and it was brought up at a further two boards yet he still continues to bring it up despite frequent requests not to. He has even gone so far as to recently transclude another editors post that made the same claim from his talk page to the Ugg boot disputes talk page. I'm out of here. Wayne (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Just need a neutral third party to close the Rfc. UGH....or is it UGG? I can't tell anymore.--MONGO 14:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been asked to comment here. The issue seems to be bad blood between Wayne and P&W from prior, completely unrelated, discussions which neither editor can let go of, and which P&W cannot restrain him/herself from constantly bringing up, no matter how inappropriate the situation (just see the initial report here). This has resulted in constant disruption at Ugg boots and related articles (see their related talk pages and marvel at the P&W's constant stream of tendentious editing). While P&W is most at fault here, Wayne isn't exactly helping by allowing himself to be baited by P&W's behaviour. I suggest that both editors should disengage, Wayne by stepping back from the Tea Party article (although P&W's claim that "has never before demonstrated any interest in articles on American politics" is contradicted by P&W him/herself when s/he refers to Wayne's editing about a scandal in Nebraska, which was in America the last time I checked a map) and P&W by practising what s/he preaches: if s/he thinks that Australians should not be working on articles about American political groups, then s/he should refrain from working on articles about Australian footwear. If they can't do this voluntarily, I'd suggest a topic ban on the Tea Party for Wayne, on ugg boots (broadly construed) for P&W, and a mutual interaction ban for both parties (for the sake of clarity, P&W should be restricted from bringing up his/her past disputes with Wayne) so that they can both get back to actually improving articles.

The actual RFC close here appears sound; it would have been better to come from an uninvolved editor, but none seem to have been available (or cared about the subject) but as most support for P&W's preferred option was weak (the one !vote that appeared to give substantial backing to P&W was in fact copied and pasted by P&W from another discussion), if there was any consensus there, it was consensus not to include. Daveosaurus (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Aren't you the complaining editor on all those bogus WP:SPI investigations against me? And the scandal in Nebraska wasn't about politics. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It was not I who started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix and Winslow; in its entire history I only ever made two edits to that page, the first almost six months after it was created; and the half a dozen or so socks blocked as a result indicate that it is not as bogus as you claim. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Daveosaurus. My own involvement is limited to being summoned by rfcbot to comment on the rfc in question, but what Daveosaurus describes is what I saw, as well. I further agree with his suggestions on how to handle the issue. These two editors don't seem capable of working with each other, as they are both highly opinionated and diametrically opposed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

One obvious problem with the proposed solution is that I started editing Ugg boots related articles before Wayne did. He has admitted it, and that he started editing there after his confrontations with me at the Franklin article and WP:RSN. The only thing he's denied is that he knew I was editing Ugg boots, and that he deliberately followed me there. He claims it was a happy coincidence. Real coincidences are very rare. If he did follow me there (and I suggest that he did, and his subsequent behavior suggests that he did), topic banning me on Ugg boots related articles would reward him for Wikistalking. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

WLRoss (Wayne) apparently did edit the Ugg articles after you did and that was after the Franklin article where you first encountered him. On the Franklin article, the end result was it was stubbed out by User:NuclearWarfare in October 2011 [225], but it looks like its been expanded once again with similar sources as last time by other parties......now WLRoss has followed you to Tea Party articles...if this is the case, then thats stalking.--MONGO 03:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If you check the history of Ugg boots you will see that I started editing in October 2010. Phoenix and Winslow edited two days later which would have been the first time that I knew he was also editing the article. Despite both of us editing that article frequently, the first time we actually interacted was on the Talk page in July 2011 when I replied to a post he wrote and there was no acrimony at all. The disputes first started in October 2011 when P&W objected to using the word "generic" in the article. Most editors opposed him so he posted the most insane personal attack against me that I've ever seen[226] in an attempt to discredit everyone who opposed him. That post was the first time either of us said a bad word about the other in that article. I remained completely civil in answering that post and the argument didn't develop until after P&W kept repeated the personal attack. You can check the entire discussion for yourself here. Being on the same article with another editor, treating them civilly for the first 12 months and then only starting to argue after they make unwarranted attacks on you, is that the behavior of a stalker? Wayne (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I just had a look at the editing history of Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. User:Phoenix and Winslow made his first edit to that article in January 2011, over three months after I first edited Ugg boots so I couldn't possibly have followed him from the Franklin article to Ugg boots. In fact, I could accuse him of following me to the Franklin article if I wanted to be petty about it. As for the Tea Party Movement article, I remind editors that the movement is relevant to Australia as it is frequently reported by the media here due to the movement starting up in Australia under the same name two years ago which maintains close links with the U.S. version.[227] Wayne (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's nip this in the bud to save flooding this page in even more text. On Phoenix and Winslow's Talk page he has indicated an intention[228] to claim I'm also stalking him on the Ward Churchill, Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin articles. Firstly, I had been editing the Churchill article for two years before Phoenix and Winslow edited the article for the first time. Regarding the Tarpley and Chaitkin articles, if P&W casts his mind back, he argued in the Franklin article that because the Tarpley and Chaitkin articles both claimed in their leads that they were conspiracy theorists, the Franklin article could say the Franklin accusations were also a conspiracy theory because Tarpley and Chaitkin both supported the accusations. I then went and had a look at both articles...and found that P&W himself had edited both articles hours earlier to include the claim, so I tagged both edits requesting cites. Other editors reverted both of P&W's edits the next day as vandalism. Turned out the claim in both articles had been rejected in recent RfCs at both pages. P&W was in fact altering other articles by adding unsourced information to support his arguments in an unrelated article, which, he did also at the Ugg boots trademark disputes article. I hope this puts the ridiculous stalking claims to bed. Wayne (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The proposed solution is not about "rewarding" anybody, it is about protecting the Wikipedia project from further disruption, such as has already occurred at Ugg boots trademark disputes thereby preventing that article from meeting the Good Article criteria. That you see this as a contest between yourself and Wayne is a large part of the problem here.

As an aside, your time would probably be better spent improving the Tea Party movement article. I have just had a look at it, and as it is I need to scroll down ten screenfuls before I see even a mention of that aspect of the Tea Party that is best known overseas: its racial overtones, as exemplified by the image of a sub-literate racist at an anti-Obama protest holding up an offensive sign. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

We're getting way off topic when we start accusing the Tea Party of racism at WP:ANI. (Your perception may be due to some selective perception by the foreign press, since many of the most beloved Tea Party candidates are black or Latino: Allen West, Ted Cruz, Herman Cain, Mia Love and Marco Rubio.) Wayne's analysis of the editing history at Ugg boots doesn't go back far enough. Here's a good look: [229] Notice that I was editing the article extensively all the way back in Summer 2010. First time as a registered account appears to be July 26, 2010.[230] Wayne edited it for the first time on October 20, 2010.[231] I added a lot of material on October 17 in four consecutive edits shown here:[232] I was active on the article's Talk page, and I had also edited the article on October 20,[233] hours before Wayne's first edit.

However, Wayne's Ugg boots edits on October 20 were the last time he edited the article for several months. He evidently hadn't spoken with me and had effectively abandoned it while I continued working on it. At that point we were just two ships passing in the night. The first time we had any real face-to-face interaction was in January 2011 at the Franklin article. That interaction continued off and on for several months and grew increasingly frequent and acrimonious, as he defended the abundant policy violations in that article, which is what makes his sudden appearance on the Ugg boots Talk page on February 25, 2011[234] and his first edit to the article mainspacein nearly six months on March 2, 2011[235] a bit suspicious. With his appearance at Tea Party movement, it all becomes clear. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I somehow followed you to the Ugg article in February yet worked on it with no interaction with you until after you made the personal attack on me in October, 11 months later and to you that seems suspiciously like stalking and harassment? And you accuse me of pushing conspiracy theories. BTW, October 20 to March 2 is four months not "nearly six months". Wayne (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur that Daveosaurus desire to see one morons opinion about Obama festooned prominently in the Tea Party article would seriously violate weight. Hoever, the issue here is to make sure no one is wikihounding anyone else and see if you all can get along before this goes to arbcom. No one has the time or the desire to read a wall of text.--MONGO 15:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to make this another wall of words

... but as I've said, Wayne's defense is to build wall after wall of words, consisting of brick after brick of distortion and spin-doctoring. I can either let them stand, or laboriously start tearing them down one brick at a time. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply by Wayne(WLRoss)

Battle is a bit of an exaggeration. At the Ugg boots article, User:Phoenix and Winslow has generally found himself a sole voice in promoting Deckers Outdoor Corporation in a long-running series of content disputes. Where he has had support, many of those editors have been either blocked as sockpuppets or named as meatpuppets.[236] For transparency: Phoenix and Winslow has active accounts on the German[237], Spanish[238], Norwegian[239], Polish[240], Romanian[241] and Swedish[242] Wikipedia's. None of these accounts have made any edits outside of their respective Ugg Boot articles and all edits are promotional in favour of Deckers. In the case of the Spanish article, it was created by Phoenix and Winslow and is a good example for comparison to the English.[243]
The article Ugg boots trademark disputes was the result of several RfC’s and related discussions at the Ugg boots page and was intended to cover the genericity dispute so it need only be summarized at Ugg boots. The consensus was to cover only the genericity dispute and exclude all other disputes. As the Ugg boots trademark disputes article was stable for 12 months, I applied for WP:GA status. P&W now argued that (paraphrased) the article leant too heavily towards Australian boot manufacturers and their disputes with Deckers Outdoor Corporation and cast Deckers in a negative light when it should also include trade dress disputes Deckers have been involved in. Specifically counterfeits. I made a considerable number of concessions to P&W’s edit requests, allowing content with limited relevance into the article but stood firm on not allowing counterfeits per the previous RfC's.

• As this issue could not be resolved on 21 March I opened an RfC with the heading; RfC: Should this article include other disputes involving Ugg boots? Below I posted Should this article be expanded to include copyright and trade dress disputes involving Ugg boots? I truly can't see how this is not a neutral question so I leave that to admins.
• Phoenix and Winslow then canvassed a large number of editors to take part in this RFC. In his posts he reframed the RFC as "a question of law" and asked editors Is the counterfeiting of brand name goods a "trademark dispute" when the counterfeiters are taken to court?...vote Support if you believe counterfeiting is a trademark dispute when taken to court, or “Oppose” if you believe the reverse is true.[244] Hardly a neutral question.
• P&W bases his arguments largely on WP:PRECISION. This is the "policy based argument" he is referring to. I replied that he couldn’t cherry-pick which portions of WP:TITLE applied to the article and that the article title is the name commonly used by sources for the genericity dispute and is used correctly per WP:TITLE. The article lead also explains this. This explanation was supported by other editors and was given to P&W maybe five or six times.
• P&W transcluded two favourable comments from his talk page to "Support" votes in the RfC without the editors permission. In one case the editor specifically stated he did not want to vote. These votes were deleted by other editors with one being replaced later when the editor gave P&W permission to include it.
• On 25 March, P&W posted other related articles (UGG Australia and Deckers Outdoor Corporation) have counterfeiting as a SUBSECTION of trademark disputes to support his case.[245] I had a look at both articles and found that P&W had edited both the previous day to make the counterfeiting sections sub-sections.
• On 26 March, P&W posted a new competing RfC under "Politics, Government, and the Law" and worded the question the same as in his canvassing posts.[246]
• On 26 March P&W posted these personal attacks against two editors.[247]
• An editor warned P&W about additional canvassing on 26 March and suggested administrative action be taken.[248]
• P&W did not complain about the wording of the original question until 8 April by which time consensus was clearly against him.[249]

On 18 April I applied for the RfC to be formally closed at WP:AN/RFC, specifically requesting either resolution or abandonment due to it being compromised by the canvassing and improper additional RFC. It was one of only two requests for an article RfC closure on the page for several days and requests posted several days after mine were acted on. I waited one week, there had been no reply at WP:AN/RFC, no additional votes for two weeks and no further comments posted for seven days. I was ok with accepting the 7/3 consensus as only two support votes resulted from the canvassing and P&W still has the option of bringing a new RfC at a later date. P&W remained virtually the only editor still objecting and as this same RFC had previously returned the same result twice before, per WP:RFC I closed it, listed the result and added a comment that if there were any objection to bring it up in discussion. After P&W objected I told him to take it to another board if he thought I had closed the RFC in a manner that was not neutral or did not reflect the consensus. He then warned me that if the RfC was not re-opened he would report me to ANI. I told him that I had already offered him that option if he had a problem with me closing it.
In total the RFC goes on for over 14,000 words so it is a big read. I have no problem with my own behavior being scrutinized and accept I may have been short with P&W at times. As far as I'm aware, I have complied with WP:RFC#Ending RfCs closure requirements. Wayne (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I like both of these folks and was sort of "in the middle" at the article as a GA reviewer who became a bit of a semi-mediator. I think that the dominant force is the people dynamics between these two folks rather than the content dispute itself. My main advice is the do a thorough close on the discussion, and to recommend to them to try to avoid increases in contact (e.g. nobody follow anybody). North8000 (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I am currently tutoring a student for his masters degree and he needs to use my computer atm so I will briefly cover this. Phoenix and Winslow and I have only found ourselves editing the same article three times. I was editing the Franklin article before P&W showed up and six months later it was vice versa on the Ugg boot article which I had no idea he was editing. I ended up at Tea Party page two and half years later as a result of User:North8000 becoming the reviewer of the GA I proposed, seeing an invitation on his Talk Page to comment and I had a look. Contrary to P&W's claim that I’ve taken the opposite side, on the Tea Party article, although he objects to some of what I have said he has supported the compromise edit that I proposed there for the lead. Considering we are talking about three articles over a three year period it is hardly stalking. I have also edited many American and several American political articles in the past. Wayne (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Just being clear, I did NOT mean to imply or even hint that there has been any improper "following", and please accept my apology if I did not make that clear enough. What I was trying to say is just a recommendation of a bit of an effort to minimize interaction in areas where it is not already occurring. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

A substantial part of the problem in dealing with Wayne is that he constantly spin-doctors and distorts everything, using what can best be described as a "wall of words" defense, and unraveling all the distortions is such a monumental task. I have walked away from the Wikipedia project twice because of his behavior. The first time for a month, the second time for about a year. He violates policy whenever it suits him, as the stubbing of the Danes and Franklin articles confirm, and takes Wikilawyering to an entirely new level. For example, as they said at WP:RSN regarding his favorite source on the Franklin article, "Unreliable publisher = unreliable source." I've even posted that quote for him in recent weeks and he still claims that the publisher, but not the source, was found unreliable. As another example, he never had consensus to make Ugg boots trademark disputes limited to the genericity dispute. He had one or two editors supporting the idea, a couple opposed. Several editors who have supported me over the years — MONGO, LuckyLouie, Liangshan Yi, ChristieSwitz88001 and Factchk among others — have never been blocked as socks or found to be meatpuppets. I've been the subject of WP:SPI four different times and walked away clean every time, but he continues to present this innuendo. Some forms of canvassing are acceptable, and the line that must not be crossed is "stacking the deck" — canvassing only the people you know will support you. I have never, ever crossed that line. I could continue, but you get the idea.

• The improper closure of the RfC needs to be addressed. He's using formal closure, he's about as far removed from being an "uninvolved editor" as he could be while still staying on the same planet, and he trampled all over Liangshan Yi in the process. It needs to be closed by an uninvolved editor, preferably an admin, and the closure needs to focus on the policy-related arguments.
• The bias in the original RfC question needs to be addressed. He asked whether copyright and trade dress issues should be included. He already admitted that counterfeiting is a trademark dispute,[250] and the article is about trademark disputes. So continuing to pretend that counterfeiting is a copyright/trade dress matter was dishonest, and designed to get the answers he wanted. This skewed the vote for the first week or so — a critical period.
• And his Wikistalking needs to be addressed. We have spent a substantial amount of time butting heads on four different articles, not three. I've been editing the Tea Party movement article for only about two months, and he shows up. I've been unable to find any evidence that he has ever edited an article about American politics before, but I admit that I've only reviewed the past couple of years of his submissions. He claims he didn't know I was editing Ugg boots, but it's clear that wouldn't have made a difference — he was well aware that I was editing the Tea Party article and showed up, joining the other side in a content dispute immediately. Most of the time I work on only a couple of large articles at a time. Otherwise, it appears that he would have shown up at seven, or eight, or ten of them over the past three years, taking the opposite side on any content dispute in sight, and his Wikistalking would have been obvious long before now. To answer North8000, my decision to start editing the Tea Party article was, in fact, "an effort to minimize interaction in areas where it is not already occurring." I was trying to find an area of WP that interested me, and was not already being WP:OWNed by Wayne. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, by the way: on the Franklin article, the guy that he partnered up with to WP:OWN the article, and preserve all those BLP violations from that unreliable source, was named Apostle12. Scroll up. Much of what's being said about Apostle12 fits Wayne like a glove. They picked up a lot of each other's dubious skill sets when working on that article. Here we are, two years later ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that limiting Ugg boots trademark disputes to just one type of trademark dispute (genericity) is a form of WP:POVFORK. It directs all material that the WP:OWNing editors find inconvenient to a different article — in this case, UGG Australia. I hope that getting some previously uninvolved and experienced eyes on this will produce a result that is positive for Wikipedia. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The RfC closure issue is a complete cluster, but let us not confuse the improper closure with the clear consensus that was formed at the RfC against having illegal counterfeiting be equated with legal disputes about trademarks. Phoenix and Winslow misrepresented WLRoss's position [251] as being in agreement when it is patently clear that WLRoss continues to oppose the inclusion of counterfeiting. This issue is getting very ugly, with Phoenix and Winslow creating the most disruption. I say stick a fork in the RfC and tell Phoenix and Winslow to stop arguing for the inclusion of counterfeiting. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Deleting sourced material the Weight of chains

Article The Weight of Chains is having a problem. Couple (obviously Serbian) users constantly remove sourced section "Criticism"

• Staro Gusle (talk · contribs):[252]
• UrbanVillager (talk · contribs) [253] [254]

and others. Please, action! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.15.156 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 29 April 2013‎

You neglected to disclose your own participation in this matter, and to notify the users concerned as instructed at the top of the page. Not that bringing the matter here was particularly appropriate in the first place, mind you—this is a re-eruption of a garden-variety content dispute which is already being discussed on the article's talk page, and which was previously discussed there and at other venues such as WP:RSN. It seems the only party not actively discussing the matter (but rather choosing to mischaracterize edits as "vandalism") is the roving IP editor. If more attention to this dispute is required, it should be sought at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, not here. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Whilst we're here, though... UrbanVillager's editing pattern is nothing new, but I am concerned that Staro Gusle is a new account which has immediately started editing on controversial topics - even rather obscure articles which just happen to have been battlegrounds involving a handful of long-established editors. For instance, Malagurski films and Ukshin Hoti. This is their third edit. Their editing spree started editing on 27 April. Compare to this edit by Evlekis, who was blocked on 25 April. bobrayner (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

As Psychonaut noted, there has already been a dispute regarding the content in question, and as one of the sides in the dispute, I'd like to repeat that I absolutely support criticism being added to any topic. However, the references that are being used in the new section in question ("Criticism") are not reliable as they consist of Internet blogs and self-published web portals. Desperately adding criticism carried by unreliable sources is worse than not having any criticism until reliable sources are found. Also, thanks to Psychonaut for informing me of this discussion, as the IP never did. --UrbanVillager (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

For other admins who may be unaware, the reference to UrbanVillager's editing pattern above likely means the BM/"Serbian Youth League" stuff: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bormalagurski/Archive. I remain convinced in the accuracy of the large amount of evidence on how this user is involved in long-term abuse of Wikipedia, but I concede that in this latest reincarnation they've mastered their skill of wikilawyering to such an extent that they've rendered our typical methods of curbing such abuse ineffective. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with Joy's stance but that's not a problem we're going to solve here today on an AN/I thread. So; who is Staro Gusle (talk · contribs)? I'm quite busy today so I don't have time to dig through lots different people's edits for comparisons, but it's very difficult to believe this is a new editor. bobrayner (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw the piece was removed many times, the source is unreliable and above that, it is very badly written, wording out of place, just looks very out of place on the article and only seems to be forced in by anonymous editors. Staro Gusle (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The account was created two days after the block/topic ban of Evlekis (talk · contribs) and began edits from the get-go in the same topics with the same views. Look at the Serb/Montenegrin/Yugoslav perpetration of crimes in List of massacres in the Kosovo War [255][256][257] and Ćuška massacre [258][259] and Albanian/Serbian names in Climate of Kosovo [260][261], Đakovica [262][263], and Ferizaj/Uroševac [264][265]. Staro Gusle's IP [266] also stems from the UK like Evlekis. In my opinion this is a clear case of WP:DUCK. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned on talk page, the only problem is "labelling" the sources. Some editors described some sources as "unreliable". The only reason for that is they (e-novine for instance) support left-wing in Serbia, while others like Politika, Večernje novosti are supporters of Serbian right-wing and huge history of war mongering during the period of Break-up of Yugoslavia (which happens to be topic of the movie)

See the section :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_propaganda_in_the_Yugoslav_Wars#Milo.C5.A1evi.C4.87.27s_reign_and_control_of_media_in_Serbia

I love how people present Politika as Milosevic's propaganda newspaper. The newspaper is the oldest daily in the Balkans, founded in 1904, not even Milosevic's parents were born back then, maybe not even his grandparents. And Milosevic was deposed in 2000, died in 2006, while the Politika articles that are cited as sources were all written after 2006. Get over the past, Politika is the oldest and most reliable newspaper in the Balkans. E-novine doesn't even have a print edition, it just re-posts blog posts. As for Joy's comments, I'm sure he or she is convinced that I'm, actually, Boris Malagurski or one of his associates, but this has been disproved in countless Wiki-investigations (and you can start countless more, but I'm sorry, I won't turn into Boris Malagurski, that can happen only in science fiction), and I have never abused Wikipedia - if I didn't respect Wikipedia, I wouldn't be here or I would've been blocked a long time ago (all I've done is tried my best to add sourced information to articles that are of an interest to me), but I'm getting quite sick of these personal attacks (especially taking into consideration that they're being made by an administrator, among others), just because Joy seems to have personal issues with Malagurski and his work. I'll repeat, I have nothing against adding criticism about Malagurski and his films (I agreed wholeheartedly to the addition of criticism to the Malagurski article that had a reliable Croatian source as the reference), but the goal is not to desperately look for criticism in blogs and self-published web portals. Wikipedia doesn't care about personal issues. I'm willing to work with everyone who has the quality of the article and the rules of Wikipedia at heart, regardless of whether they like or dislike Malagurski and his work. I personally like some of his films, but I can be quite critical about them too. I wish there was more criticism about his films in reliable sources, because his films deserve criticism as well, as any piece of work does. I repeat, that does not mean we can create a blog post and use that as criticism, just for the sake of having criticism. Or am I wrong? --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Politika is the oldest and most reliable newspaper in the Balkans.

All I can say on this statement is [267]

We all know when Politika was founded, but we are also very well aware what they became during 1990s. AS well as RTS that apologized for the role from the same infamous period. [268] [269] [270]

User:SAADGT and User:SAADWWE

SAADGT (talk · contribs) and SAADWWE (talk · contribs) appear to both be the same editor who has a history of uploading files with incorrect license information. Both accounts have been blocked in the past (though only the former for copyright abuse), and it seems they're continuing to upload images with misleading copyright notices[271][272] despite many warnings. While I appreciate that it is difficult for new users to grasp why certain images cannot be used, this has been going on for some time with no effort made on behalf of this user to cease. A simple look at this user's Commons accounts [273][274] show that they slowly but continually upload images with incorrect rationale. What should be done about this? — Richard BB 15:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This was about to rightly fall-off as it's obviously the "wrong venue", but as you simply changed the timestamps, I'll remind you that although some duckishness may be obvious, the minute you start asking people to review their edits on other projects it means it's probably time for WP:SPI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"Cease and desist notice on this paragraph"

Per WP:LEGAL, just flagging a vague but possibly seriously-intended legal threat on the Brock Pierce article. The original article creator cut well-sourced details of some arrests and lawsuits last July, saying "The controversy section has been removed as it is slanderous to the person and can prevent him from getting hired. There is no prove.". It crept back and they cut it again last week, upping their game to "Defamation. Cease and desist notice on this paragraph.". --McGeddon (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Orange Mike has indef blocked Consciousbuyer. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That BLP looks too thinly sourced in its allegations of child sex trafficking. Deli nk (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Where no charges were ever pursued at all (as far as I can tell) the "allegations" are too thin to be in a BLP. I also depuffed it a bit - the rest looks like it was written by a PR person. Collect (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Admin impersonation and other mischief

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

---

User:DxRD, a brand new account, says he is an admin; he's also mucking about on other pages, including changing a SPI case to "closed". Currently in action, should be blocked immediately. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by Gogo Dodo. De728631 (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Who is Analog Bars (talk · contribs)? RNealK (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Most likely User:Dy11111 (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dy11111). ChemNerd (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I reverted their removal of the block notice on DxRD. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Apostle12, again, and POVPUSH (RE-SUBMITTED)

Below is the blockquoted text of the previous discussion. I did not feel the discussion it generated was adequate. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 22:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I logged in to put a tag on a medical article that was full of primary non-MEDRS sources. I made the mistake of looking at my watchlist.
Mere days after the previous ANI discussion about User:Apostle12's editing behavior, he has inserted contentious material that had been removed from Huey P. Newton into Black Panther Party, though he is clearly aware of the substantial sourcing and credibility issues -- he took part in the discussions that led to their removal.
The edits at issue in Black Panther Party:
[275] -- assertions of criminality and a Kate Coleman SFGate piece
[276] -- portraying an allegation, never proven and based on hearsay, that appeared in Pearson's book "Shadow of the Panther" as fact
At Huey P. Newton, he took part in extensive discussions about the credibility of Coleman, both in reference to the SFGate piece and to his insertion of what were deemed non-RS allegations of a romantic relationship between Newton and a movie director: [277] [278] [279]
There have been discussions at RSN already about:
the John Frey "admission" (which was re-inserted here)
the Coleman/SFGate source (inserted here)
(in regards to the allegations of a romantic involvement, there was a DRN case as well, in which Coleman's use as a source was also at issue)
Rather than rewrite the claims to better reflect the sourcing issues, as he suggested he would do at one point on Talk:Huey P. Newton, he has simply re-inserted the contentious claims on Black Panther Party. This, especially given the history, seems as clearn an indicator of WP:POVPUSH as I can imagine.
I attempted to initiate enforcement actions through ArbCom. In the course of the previous ANI discussion Apostle12 received a warning, and I thought that this would qualify as being about "race and intelligence, broadly construed." ArbCom did not feel it was actionable.
I have not notified or engaged with Apostle12 other than place an ANI discussion tag on his page because the previous discussions should, quite frankly, have been enough of an indicator that this source was contentious, and that more care should have been taken with its use. We discussed these sources in excruciating detail, for an extended period of time. I am not willing to get more deeply involved in this discussion right now; I have not even reverted the edits in question, and they persist in the Black Panther Party article.
The reason I am unwilling to engage should be apparent from the Talk page discussions I have linked. If not, well, sanction me for not following protocol. I care more, at this point, about raising the issue of this disruptive, tendentious editing than i do about maintaining my own ability to edit.
And I will now be resuming my wikibreak, and if i have reason to make small edits in the future, such as the one I made at Eculizumab, I will not make the mistake again of checking my watchlist. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 05:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't this complaint basically just posted to WP:AE and rejected, and with the same claim at the end that you'd be resuming your wikibreak? No comment on the merits of the case, but at a superficial glance it seems like forum shopping. Sædon^talk 09:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I see the last topic ban proposal Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive792#WP:NOTFORUM_at_White_privilege#Proposed topic-ban wasn't closed. Does someone want to resurrect it? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There wasn't consensus for a topic ban in that discussion, and this forum shopping makes me think this should be closed without any action (and I supported the topic ban). Seriously, you can't leave Wikipedia forever only to come back and keep trying to get the same person banned. Well technically you can, but don't expect to get good results. AniMate 00:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

So perhaps "wikibreak" needs clarification. For me, in this context, its definition has been "an attempt to avoid dealing with things that make me upset by ignoring them and hoping the whole thing Just Goes Away." Yes, I've suggested it would be permanent. I was, still am, pretty much at the end of my rope with this nonsense, so it may happen, might not, but I will absolutely concede that it's not doing anyone any good by me being dramatic about it. I stayed away for two weeks and didnt have to think about any of this crap. It was a nice two weeks, and i hope next time it will be longer.

So, Mea culpa. my apologies.

All the same, I do want to clear some things up.

1. The AE filing was denied not on its merits, but because of scope. Sandstein's comments there clearly indicate that I was simply wrong in my judgement that these edits qualified as being about "race and intelligence, broadly construed." Personally, I think it was a reasonable mistake, but i am obviously self interested. I would like to think that if i saw another editor do the same, I would extend them the courtesy of chalking it up to a simple misunderstanding rather than assume they were forum shopping. Especially given that they put the link right there and werent trying to hide it somehow.
2. in the ANI case, I brought up NOTFORUM, and then from what i could tell a bunch of admins proceeded to make the issue about racism. this was facepalm-worthy. racism is something that people hem and haw about, and what's racist to one person seems totally normal to another person with different experiences. that is precisely why my complaint in the ANI case was about NOTFORUM, and likewise why my case here is about POVPUSH (and RS, and IDHT, and TE.) I mean, of course I thought the comments were incredibly offensive and racist. I mentioned that they were offensive at the time. but my complaint made reference to the policy specifically, and not to the offensive content on display.
3. in the event that you think my behavior was beyond the pale, I am more than happy to stand up and explain myself. but in the meantime, you have someone flaunting policy on contentious topics that is far more of a threat to the Project. Please, if you feel it warranted, open up an ArbCom case on my behavior, afterwards. I will be happy to comply in whatever way i can, in no small measure because at least then someone will be telling me which policies can be safely disregarded and which ones people actually give a shit about enforcing. which brings me to:
4. I don't give a rat's ass whether you ban Apostle12 or not. I supported it in the ANI filing because it seemed like a reasonable way to prevent the sort of behavior that was problematic, because talking it out seemed not to do anything but make matters worse. If i were itching for a topic ban, wouldn't I have asked for that in the RfC/U? Or in the ANI filing? In the RfC/U, we were asking for just the barest hint of respectful editing behavior from Apostle12, and yet somehow the whole thing got filled up with commenters who blew our concerns off, normalizing it as "frustrated" behavior. Even now I don't fucking care whether he has a topic ban or not. I CARE ABOUT THE POOR SOURCING, POVPUSHING, AND ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR HE DISPLAYS. If there's some way to prevent that, I will be happy as a clam, regardless of if the remedy is community ban or saying nice things about his mother (who I'm sure is a very nice person). Given history though, I don't think that scrutiny has to be off of him for very long before he pull some shit like I detailed above. In case it escaped anyone's notice, I extended multiple offers to him to help edit, to come to a consensus, which in practically every case was both fruitless and excruciatingly long. I did not suggest a topic ban in the ANI filing. I was sort of hoping the community would take what it thought was appropriate action, which in this case was doing nothing, at least so far.

So if you need to, ignore my comments about wikibreaks etc. I am trying to avoid additional stress, and this topic (THE POOR SOURCING AND POVPUSH, JUST TO BE CLEAR) is one that has a tendency to make me stressed, (partly because it's just so fucking obvious, like there is no craft or subterfuge or art to it, which i would still be upset about, but at least could give points for style).

So don't expect me to respond to anything in a timely manner for at least the next few months, e.g. respond to questions. I promise I will just leave it at that, and not spew more of this wikibreak drama crap (that i am sorry for, see above).

And in the meantime, how about addressing the substance of the complaint -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 20:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much for an administrator to do here. My advice is to perhaps take this to reliable sources noticeboard, file an request for comment, or simply remove the material. Another piece of advice is to embrace brevity. No one responds well to massive walls of text. Keep you complaint succinct and to the point, because a lot of editors and administrators see how much you've written and move on to the next issue because there is SO much to read through.

Also, even though it may be unpleasant, you have to engage with Apostle12. Following his edits and complaining here without engaging him on article talk isn't going to get the results you seek.

Finally, there are a lot of issues at work here, and there have been issues on multiple articles. I'd say kick this up the dispute resolution chain. You've participated in an WP:RFC/U in regards to this user, so perhaps a request for arbitration is in order. That's the best advice I can give you, because I really don't think you're going to get the result you want at this noticeboard. AniMate 01:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

None of these options are acceptable to me. And you're misconstruing what my aim is. My aim is not to address the content issues directly, but to either:

make the mechanisms work (squeaky wheel, etc), or

demonstrate just how badly they are broken, such as by becoming such a nuisance here that I am sanctioned myself -- I aim to re-submit until either adequate discussion has been had, or I am banned from participation

If you have a mop, and "TLDR" is an acceptable way for you to deal with things, then you are part of the problem. If the mechanisms don't work, then we have a responsibility to figure out and create mechanisms that do.

I am, frankly, eager to get back to contributing to WP, particularly on medical articles. I have voluntarily limited my edits to article space.

And as for engaging Apostle12, he can engage here if he wishes. He is aware of the discussion. I have already wasted far too much time discussing these issues with him. read the discussions i have linked. I am in no hurry to waste more time -- if I edit, or revert, then I will be expected to adhere to WP:BRD, and participate in yet another interminable discussion. and if I don't that may be used as ammunition in future disputes.

Fuck that. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 01:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

UTCL, you are the only one using past editing history as "ammunition." One might even interpret your motive as retaliatory, something I do not wish to join in.

Always open to constructive editing on the various articles that capture our mutual interest: the proposal you submitted for a new lede sentence at "White privilege" is presently being discussed on Talk. Please note that I largely support your proposal, which is among many of your proposals and edits that I have backed. Another editor has commented that your proposal may not be supported by the source you provided; you might want to defend your choice or contribute another.

Regarding the other edits you mention here, I will be happy to discuss those too on their respective Talk pages. The less confrontation, and the more collaborative spirit, the better. Apostle12 (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This complaint is not about White privilege. As above, it is about your edit history and non-RS/POVPUSH at Black Panther Party and the discussion that established these sources and claim as non-RS at Huey P. Newton. The discussion at White privilege is irrelevant.

I will not be editing at any of these pages until some sort of consensus is established here. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 18:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppets at work

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

---

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesca Hogi (3rd nomination)... the previous discussion, together with several other Survivor-related AfDs, was speedy closed a few days ago for sockpuppertry. This new nomination, in addition to be basically an improperly placed merge/redirect discussion, is suffering the same problems including an edit warring about the removal of some SPA tags (eg. [280], [281], [282], [283]). Given that all the valid votes are for a "procedural keep", I'm calling for closing this silly sockfest. --Cavarrone (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• In the meanwhile sockpuppets are keeping on play on the page again and again... could an admin as a minimum protect the AfD page? Thanks. Cavarrone (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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

More sockpuppetry / block evasion

Poopybobfart (talk · contribs) and Honkadoodoo (talk · contribs) are clearly block-evading sockpuppets, probably the same as 123abcwiki (talk · contribs), and I suspect quite a few others, including Bonker123 (talk · contribs) and Vizio123wiki (talk · contribs). They have a characteristic set of editing games, including self-templating themselves, presumably under the impression that this will blow investigating admins' minds. I think this may be a returning long-term vandal. Can some other editors please also take a look at this? -- The Anome (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Update: They seem to be back as Dinkchink (talk · contribs). -- The Anome (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dinkchink. Amalthea 21:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Rmccormcack123 sockpuppet?

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

---

Rmccormcack123 (talk · contribs) has created an article Israeli Empire, reminiscent of similar articles created by a previous sockpuppet whose username escapes me. Does anyone recognize this user as sockpuppet, or am I just paranoid (or all of the above)? - MrX 00:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted it. It's clear trolling on the part of its creator. -- The Anome (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Recreated by same user. WP:SALT? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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

ChrisGualtieri doing the exact same thing as I last reported

A while back I reported ChrisGualtieri resplitting Ghost in the Shell (manga) without consensus. Heated argument caused me to avoid those articles until User:Ryulong boldly remerged Ghost in the Shell (manga) to Ghost in the Shell. After this consensus gained to remerge them. Now ChrisGualtieri decided to put it to DRN. Ryulong attempted to compromise and make list of Ghost in the Shell chapters. Recently though, ChrisGualtieri returns and does the same thing without any resolution from DRN. This editor in the past had barely avoided ANI resolution by deciding to discuss but as he declared no longer wishing to discuss with me at another editors page. It makes things difficult and DRN is still pending.Lucia Black (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Lucia this is the second ANI you've filed today on 'conduct', previously and despite me not even being a part of the conversation you attacked me at ANI with this post. I defame you for the sake of winning an argument? Hardly. At the last ANI you dragged me to you attacked me here and while I did not respond, Bushranger cautioned/warned you about it here. In response to your most recent personal attacks on me and Ryulong, I placed a formal warning which you removed here. And other editors like Lord Sjones23 replaced a note on your talk page about it here. Not to be rude, but WP:SS (WP:DETAIL too), WP:SIZE, WP:UNDUE, WP:SPINOFF are relevant and the argument "Because this page is about the manga now" is a poor one. This purging is distortion to 'original media focus' is highly damaging to Wikipedia. And the 2008 merging of the very important Dragonball Z and Dragonball GT articles resulted in a mere 3 paragraphs tucked into the Dragonball page. Lastly, WP:MOS-AM does not dictate or control how a page must be. And yes, I am seeking to change that. Four days ago I brought the matter up about it at here before the RFC on DBZ was even filed to which you are also upset about. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The more systematic issue here seems to be backlog at WP:DRN -- probably need to recruit more volunteers. NE Ent 02:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Its not a personal attack because I brought it up. And I'm not interested in personal attacks. You've made several personal attacks, far more blatant. You don't know what a personal attack is. And this is still about you disregarding consensus, doesn't matter what points you bring up. You want to discuss it? Fine. But you don't get to push your edits without consensus. You've done this 3 times already.Lucia Black (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Do not forget it was you who originally 'boldly' merged the content in the first place, my opposition hasn't changed since first discovering the merge. This is a content dispute, not a behavior dispute and you cannot cite policy for your arguments, hence every time I improve (and restore) the original page you do this. Per WP:SIZE the content is substantial to warrant its own page, your obliteration and prevention of the franchise page is the only real problem. With over 20 titles, 3 bearing the same name and being sharply different as noted by current WP:MOS-AM principals, your argument of 'redundant fork' was self-realized with your editing. Try making Star Trek about the original series and see how that goes, because that is what you are doing with Ghost in the Shell. Its WP:UNDUE to have a page dedicated to the original material and sum up everything else ever made as three sentence off shoots. ANI really isn't the place for content disputes, but anyone who cares enough, please provide a 3O or take the matter up at the DRN, its been 10 days since I submitted it. And yes as NE Ent noted, it needs more volunteers. Sorry, but I won't be able to reply for several hours to this ANI. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a content dispute where you are in the minority, Chris. Both Lucia Black and myself both feel that there is no need to have multiple pages on this particular subject and it is now you being disruptive (again) against the two people who have for the past month been trying to find a median with you. But you have simply been restoring your preferred content fork under the persistent idea that there needs to be a "franchise page". I attempted to make the other article a list of chapters as we had discussed prior on the talk page, but Chris's edits to the article in the past 24 hours have been to undo any collaborative work we have attempted in the past month and instead restore his preferred edition of the page, including moving it back to the title that he likes better.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Article content is substantial, enough for its own article, was originally pre-dispute at the manga page and I've cited half a dozen policies which suggest the action was appropriate. You revert even the tiniest of change like this which removes the unnecessary vertical bar for the category. 2:1 votes do not equate to consensus, policy-backed arguments do. I would appreciate any other input, 3O and correspondence on this matter because I've wait 10 days for it. The two of you seek to filibuster and hold hostage the page and the topics related pages to your perfect version. Deletion of reliably sourced and valid content is disruptive editing and damages Wikipedia. This content dispute needs outside help; and it hopefully will work with the two proposals for MOS-AM being publicly announced at the pump and the project. And again ANI does not resolve content disputes, which is exactly what this is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You are in the minority of the only three people who care about the page. Try to compromise instead of turning everything back into your preferred state.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Splitting the same argument across several pages

At this very moment, ChrisGualtieri is basically going to whatever talk page he can to try to get his way in whatever argument he is trying to win. There are multiple threads at Talk:Ghost in the Shell, Talk:Dragon Ball, Talk:List of Ghost in the Shell chapters, WT:MOS-AM, and WP:DRN that have all been started by Chris when he is not getting his way in an article. I do not have to have to open three talk pages just to tell him I disagree with his point repeatedly. This cannot be allowed by any Wikipedia policy.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The Dragonball article is about the discussion to re-create articles for Dragonball Z and the unrelated to the manga Dragonball GT anime series. WP:MOS-AM is to formally change the wording of MOS-AM. Over four days ago I posted it to MOS-AM, the wording change to the current issue of wording stems from the DBZ matter. The only mention of Ghost in the Shell matter on that page is that Lucia and you revert any edit I do, regardless of value. Like deleting the censorship matter as noted by the translator of the work itself. I responded you your merge, move and distortion of the manga page (now a list) because the page predates the content dispute. Stop being dramatic and thinking every little thing relates to GITS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You're still arguing similar points across five different pages where you don't have the consensus to do anything.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

They are not related. After seeing DBZ I posted about franchises at MOS-AM, and to my regret mentioning Gundam and GITS as examples. Changes to MOS-AM are to be made at MOS-AM. I was directed to make a case there and did, four days ago. You act as if I am forum shopping, the matters are unrelated and I would like you to stop trying to make them related. I think I've said my peace because if I keep replying to every little post you or Lucia make, ANI will become the new GITS talk page. Keep it there and leave it there, and that means I'll be ignoring your other talk page posts on Talk:List of Ghost in the Shell chapters which you are intent on continuing after making this notice at ANI. For an editor who thinks "Ghost in the Shell is a manga that has only four adaptations all based on the original."[284] and cannot even count the body of works (over 20) there is significant reason to wonder why this content dispute has become so frustrating. Unless there is pressing need for my response from other editors, I will refrain from continuing this at ANI. I do want to continue this content dispute discussion at ANI, its not the proper place for it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's the problem. You have issues with how the process works. You think you're absolute. You are the one who turned this into a content dispute. Your problem is you continue to disregard BRD rule. You don't have consensus for nything and yet you force these.Lucia Black (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Lightspeedx WP:OWN at Erica Andrews

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

---

Summary of notice

Lightspeedx has taken ownership of the Erica Andrews article and has since engaged in an extended edit war with editors who are trying to maintain biography of living persons citation standards. Lightspeedx has engaged in edit wars, battlefield tactics, forum shopping, assumptions of bad faith, and when the other editors attempted to engage them in discussion they refuse to acknowledge the BLP citation standards. They have since tagged three editors for edit Waring (none of them have made more than 2 edits in the last two weeks on that page).

Coffeepusher: Narrative of events (TL:DR explanation with differences)

Howdy! I was brought to the Erica Andrews page from a notice posted by Little green rosetta on the Biographies of living persons noticeboard requesting some editors take a look at the page. Erica Andrews was recently deceased and Little green rosetta stated that "An editor appears to want to make this article a tribute page with puffery and dubious (Read MySpace) sourcing." When I got there I saw that there were entire chunks of information sourced exclusively by myspace and local bar's playbills. I removed some of the worst of it, and was immediately reverted by User:lightspeedx. I came back ten min. later, did a second revert to remove the porely sourced section, and brought my concerns up to the talk page. I was greeted by an accusation on my own talk page that "you have clearly decided to engage in an edit war without civil discussions about sources...I can see on your talk page that you frequently engage in edit wars with people" (I asked them to provide differences or strike the comment, they struck the comment). This was my introduction to the page. Soon Qworty answered Little green rosetta's call to take a look at the page, and preceded to clean up youtube links, peacock terms, lists of minor events, and unsourced additions. This whole time we are trying to engage lightspeedx in discussion about proper citations. Their reaction was WP:IDHT. They have forumshopped to try and get the youtube videoes given official status on both the WT:V#YouTube Videos as a source citation and Wikipedia talk:Videos/Archive 1#YouTube videos as a source citation. When a brand new user came into the discussion with the exact same viewpoint as Lightspeedx, they were informed of the Sock policy by Qworty which prompted an exchange. Both users stopped editing the Andrews article, and they both disappeared for several days. On returning, each of their first edits were to blank the warnings that they were given [285] [286] but there has been no other interactions between the two users.

Lightspeedx has since engaged in an edit war against consensus with myself, LGR, and Qworty over poorly sourced trivia being added to the article. When I tagged them for 3RR (after their third revert today), they proceeded to tag all three of our accounts with the same warning [287], [288], [289], even though none of us had come close to 3RR. They have brought this up at both The dispute resolution noticeboard as well as the Requests for mediation. They are accusing Qworty, LGR, and myself of having collaborated in the past and thus we are not impartial so our agreement about sourcing is void(this is the first article I can remember working on with either of these editors), and Edit warring. Please advise. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

All editors mentioned have received notice Lightspeedx, Little green rosetta, Qworty. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• While Coffeepusher is probably correct, this is a content dispute after all. And Lightspeedx has started a DRN of which both CP and myself have commented on already. I think we should let things play out there first.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  09:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that is sound reasoning, and will wait to see how the DRN plays out. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Themacman4me

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

---

This user constantly blanks his page, which is advice to stop disruptive editing. Please see his contributions. For example, the user abuses the "{{delete}}" template by adding to pages (that don't qualify, take this for example) without a rationale. And he made edits like these. I think it's time to block this user with his talk page access revoked. Also, he abused his own talk page with this edit. Alex2564 (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:BLANKING - removal of messages etc from your own user talk page is generally OK, subject to some exceptions.--ukexpat (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the issue. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: User has been blocked. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Apostle12, again, and POVPUSH (RE-SUBMITTED)

Below is the blockquoted text of the previous discussion. I did not feel the discussion it generated was adequate. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 22:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I logged in to put a tag on a medical article that was full of primary non-MEDRS sources. I made the mistake of looking at my watchlist.
Mere days after the previous ANI discussion about User:Apostle12's editing behavior, he has inserted contentious material that had been removed from Huey P. Newton into Black Panther Party, though he is clearly aware of the substantial sourcing and credibility issues -- he took part in the discussions that led to their removal.
The edits at issue in Black Panther Party:
[290] -- assertions of criminality and a Kate Coleman SFGate piece
[291] -- portraying an allegation, never proven and based on hearsay, that appeared in Pearson's book "Shadow of the Panther" as fact
At Huey P. Newton, he took part in extensive discussions about the credibility of Coleman, both in reference to the SFGate piece and to his insertion of what were deemed non-RS allegations of a romantic relationship between Newton and a movie director: [292] [293] [294]
There have been discussions at RSN already about:
the John Frey "admission" (which was re-inserted here)
the Coleman/SFGate source (inserted here)
(in regards to the allegations of a romantic involvement, there was a DRN case as well, in which Coleman's use as a source was also at issue)
Rather than rewrite the claims to better reflect the sourcing issues, as he suggested he would do at one point on Talk:Huey P. Newton, he has simply re-inserted the contentious claims on Black Panther Party. This, especially given the history, seems as clearn an indicator of WP:POVPUSH as I can imagine.
I attempted to initiate enforcement actions through ArbCom. In the course of the previous ANI discussion Apostle12 received a warning, and I thought that this would qualify as being about "race and intelligence, broadly construed." ArbCom did not feel it was actionable.
I have not notified or engaged with Apostle12 other than place an ANI discussion tag on his page because the previous discussions should, quite frankly, have been enough of an indicator that this source was contentious, and that more care should have been taken with its use. We discussed these sources in excruciating detail, for an extended period of time. I am not willing to get more deeply involved in this discussion right now; I have not even reverted the edits in question, and they persist in the Black Panther Party article.
The reason I am unwilling to engage should be apparent from the Talk page discussions I have linked. If not, well, sanction me for not following protocol. I care more, at this point, about raising the issue of this disruptive, tendentious editing than i do about maintaining my own ability to edit.
And I will now be resuming my wikibreak, and if i have reason to make small edits in the future, such as the one I made at Eculizumab, I will not make the mistake again of checking my watchlist. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 05:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't this complaint basically just posted to WP:AE and rejected, and with the same claim at the end that you'd be resuming your wikibreak? No comment on the merits of the case, but at a superficial glance it seems like forum shopping. Sædon^talk 09:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I see the last topic ban proposal Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive792#WP:NOTFORUM_at_White_privilege#Proposed topic-ban wasn't closed. Does someone want to resurrect it? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There wasn't consensus for a topic ban in that discussion, and this forum shopping makes me think this should be closed without any action (and I supported the topic ban). Seriously, you can't leave Wikipedia forever only to come back and keep trying to get the same person banned. Well technically you can, but don't expect to get good results. AniMate 00:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

So perhaps "wikibreak" needs clarification. For me, in this context, its definition has been "an attempt to avoid dealing with things that make me upset by ignoring them and hoping the whole thing Just Goes Away." Yes, I've suggested it would be permanent. I was, still am, pretty much at the end of my rope with this nonsense, so it may happen, might not, but I will absolutely concede that it's not doing anyone any good by me being dramatic about it. I stayed away for two weeks and didnt have to think about any of this crap. It was a nice two weeks, and i hope next time it will be longer.

So, Mea culpa. my apologies.

All the same, I do want to clear some things up.

1. The AE filing was denied not on its merits, but because of scope. Sandstein's comments there clearly indicate that I was simply wrong in my judgement that these edits qualified as being about "race and intelligence, broadly construed." Personally, I think it was a reasonable mistake, but i am obviously self interested. I would like to think that if i saw another editor do the same, I would extend them the courtesy of chalking it up to a simple misunderstanding rather than assume they were forum shopping. Especially given that they put the link right there and werent trying to hide it somehow.
2. in the ANI case, I brought up NOTFORUM, and then from what i could tell a bunch of admins proceeded to make the issue about racism. this was facepalm-worthy. racism is something that people hem and haw about, and what's racist to one person seems totally normal to another person with different experiences. that is precisely why my complaint in the ANI case was about NOTFORUM, and likewise why my case here is about POVPUSH (and RS, and IDHT, and TE.) I mean, of course I thought the comments were incredibly offensive and racist. I mentioned that they were offensive at the time. but my complaint made reference to the policy specifically, and not to the offensive content on display.
3. in the event that you think my behavior was beyond the pale, I am more than happy to stand up and explain myself. but in the meantime, you have someone flaunting policy on contentious topics that is far more of a threat to the Project. Please, if you feel it warranted, open up an ArbCom case on my behavior, afterwards. I will be happy to comply in whatever way i can, in no small measure because at least then someone will be telling me which policies can be safely disregarded and which ones people actually give a shit about enforcing. which brings me to:
4. I don't give a rat's ass whether you ban Apostle12 or not. I supported it in the ANI filing because it seemed like a reasonable way to prevent the sort of behavior that was problematic, because talking it out seemed not to do anything but make matters worse. If i were itching for a topic ban, wouldn't I have asked for that in the RfC/U? Or in the ANI filing? In the RfC/U, we were asking for just the barest hint of respectful editing behavior from Apostle12, and yet somehow the whole thing got filled up with commenters who blew our concerns off, normalizing it as "frustrated" behavior. Even now I don't fucking care whether he has a topic ban or not. I CARE ABOUT THE POOR SOURCING, POVPUSHING, AND ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR HE DISPLAYS. If there's some way to prevent that, I will be happy as a clam, regardless of if the remedy is community ban or saying nice things about his mother (who I'm sure is a very nice person). Given history though, I don't think that scrutiny has to be off of him for very long before he pull some shit like I detailed above. In case it escaped anyone's notice, I extended multiple offers to him to help edit, to come to a consensus, which in practically every case was both fruitless and excruciatingly long. I did not suggest a topic ban in the ANI filing. I was sort of hoping the community would take what it thought was appropriate action, which in this case was doing nothing, at least so far.

So if you need to, ignore my comments about wikibreaks etc. I am trying to avoid additional stress, and this topic (THE POOR SOURCING AND POVPUSH, JUST TO BE CLEAR) is one that has a tendency to make me stressed, (partly because it's just so fucking obvious, like there is no craft or subterfuge or art to it, which i would still be upset about, but at least could give points for style).

So don't expect me to respond to anything in a timely manner for at least the next few months, e.g. respond to questions. I promise I will just leave it at that, and not spew more of this wikibreak drama crap (that i am sorry for, see above).

And in the meantime, how about addressing the substance of the complaint -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 20:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much for an administrator to do here. My advice is to perhaps take this to reliable sources noticeboard, file an request for comment, or simply remove the material. Another piece of advice is to embrace brevity. No one responds well to massive walls of text. Keep you complaint succinct and to the point, because a lot of editors and administrators see how much you've written and move on to the next issue because there is SO much to read through.

Also, even though it may be unpleasant, you have to engage with Apostle12. Following his edits and complaining here without engaging him on article talk isn't going to get the results you seek.

Finally, there are a lot of issues at work here, and there have been issues on multiple articles. I'd say kick this up the dispute resolution chain. You've participated in an WP:RFC/U in regards to this user, so perhaps a request for arbitration is in order. That's the best advice I can give you, because I really don't think you're going to get the result you want at this noticeboard. AniMate 01:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

None of these options are acceptable to me. And you're misconstruing what my aim is. My aim is not to address the content issues directly, but to either:

make the mechanisms work (squeaky wheel, etc), or

demonstrate just how badly they are broken, such as by becoming such a nuisance here that I am sanctioned myself -- I aim to re-submit until either adequate discussion has been had, or I am banned from participation

If you have a mop, and "TLDR" is an acceptable way for you to deal with things, then you are part of the problem. If the mechanisms don't work, then we have a responsibility to figure out and create mechanisms that do.

I am, frankly, eager to get back to contributing to WP, particularly on medical articles. I have voluntarily limited my edits to article space.

And as for engaging Apostle12, he can engage here if he wishes. He is aware of the discussion. I have already wasted far too much time discussing these issues with him. read the discussions i have linked. I am in no hurry to waste more time -- if I edit, or revert, then I will be expected to adhere to WP:BRD, and participate in yet another interminable discussion. and if I don't that may be used as ammunition in future disputes.

Fuck that. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 01:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

UTCL, you are the only one using past editing history as "ammunition." One might even interpret your motive as retaliatory, something I do not wish to join in.

Always open to constructive editing on the various articles that capture our mutual interest: the proposal you submitted for a new lede sentence at "White privilege" is presently being discussed on Talk. Please note that I largely support your proposal, which is among many of your proposals and edits that I have backed. Another editor has commented that your proposal may not be supported by the source you provided; you might want to defend your choice or contribute another.

Regarding the other edits you mention here, I will be happy to discuss those too on their respective Talk pages. The less confrontation, and the more collaborative spirit, the better. Apostle12 (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This complaint is not about White privilege. As above, it is about your edit history and non-RS/POVPUSH at Black Panther Party and the discussion that established these sources and claim as non-RS at Huey P. Newton. The discussion at White privilege is irrelevant.

I will not be editing at any of these pages until some sort of consensus is established here. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 18:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Max Borin

The user is apparently new and is on a spree of creating dozens ridiculous articles such as Spoofing your technical friend and the dab Washington Museum to "disambiguate" 2 museums that are not popularly called "washington museum". The user has been warned on their talk page about creating frivolous stub articles but has continued on their merry way creating more and more. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I thought I was just helping out. I will try to disambiguate more carefully. Max Borin (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• You have to start by not making up stuff. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

  I have cleaned up several articles that duplicate existing articles as well. I recommend this editor must create all new articles through WP:AFC (and be temporarily sanctioned from creating articles in the main space) until they are more familiar with the many policies and guidelines for new content on Wikipedia. It seems a bit harsh but several people have tried to talk to them with no apparent change in editing pattern. Mkdw^talk 03:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

after making the statement " I thought I was just helping out. I will try to disambiguate more carefully" they went on to create this beaut: San Francisco Museum and several others. Every minute delay will result in additional cleanup. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I have recommended that Max hold off on creating new articles until we can appropriately find a solution that. It is also clear that this editor has a high level of understanding how to use a wiki; redirects, reflists, disambiguation pages, links, bolding titles, and knowing MOS title formats like article name + (topic). Even his first edit is very indicative of an experienced editor. I worry that this editor could be evading a block as this seems strikingly similar to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson days ago. Some very troubling similarities. Mkdw^talk 04:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Restoring until an admin can take a look at the mass series of articles created. Mkdw^talk 23:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The editor has resumed editing, and understandably so since no admin has commented on this yet. Just an FYI. Mkdw^talk 23:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should take it to SPI then. Ansh666 04:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sainath Dukkipati

Wikiassociate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and a small army of IP accounts are currently engaged in a massive and long-running campaign to insert spurious references to a child named Sainath Dukkipati into as many Bollywood articles as possible. Further details are available at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiassociate and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiassociate/Archive. In the meantime, it would be helpful if we could get someone with the requisite knowledge and permissions to investigate and apply the appropriate technical measures for dealing with this disruption (such as an IP range block). Or if there's not much we can do at this point other than blocking the main account, then at least this message will serve to publicize the problem so that others know to revert the false information and report further socks. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeffed, for spamming (as good a reason as any, I'd say). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The range looks pretty wide; a rangeblock covering all but the latest IP might be feasible. I'll ask a CheckUser to investigate later (I'm currently away from home). Alternatively, seeing as the pattern of abuse is quite specific, an edit filter boffin might be able to help. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Good block. Perhaps an edit filter might be a good idea? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I would try one, but I'm kinda crap at 'em, apparently; people keep having to come in and fix them for me. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've placed an anon-only block on 122.169.128.0/19. I'm not very experienced with such things and will ask a CU to check on collateral damage later; if anyone who knows what they're doing better than me sees this and thinks it's ridiculous then feel free to unblock. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

...and I've unblocked again, after consulting a CU. The edit filter option could still be explored. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

...which I've done at Special:AbuseFilter/552. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone might want to consider salting Sainath Dukkipati and deleting and salting Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sainath Dukkipati. putting "Sainath Dukkipati" in the search box finds a lot of examples of this spam. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:LittleBenW edit-warring over diacritics again.

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

---

LittleBenW has been topic-banned from edits related to diacritics (broadly construed) since December.[295] He has since been blocked twice for violating this ban.[296][297] Unfortunately, he appears not to have learned his lesson, he has been reverting my removal from WP:SET of his links that undermine the use of diacritics in the article Lech Wałęsa over the past 24 hours or so.[298][299] In ictu oculi also noted similar TBAN violations not long ago.[300] Cheers. Konjakupoet (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have already explained repeatedly to User:Konjakupoet that this writeup on how to use Google to research names in reliable sources was written in November before my unjust topic ban, which I intend to appeal soon. As I have already explained to User:BDD here, the template {{Google RS}} researches names in reliable sources: <quote>"The sources for the templates are all listed; they are widely considered to be the most trustworthy and politically neutral sources in English on the web, e.g. Encyclopedias like Britannica, magazines like the Economist, newspapers like the New York Times, broadcast sites like the BBC. If you're aware of any better sites then they can easily be added (Google permits 32 max. to be searched simultaneously)".<unquote> I don't believe that recommending that reliable sources be used and cited to justify names is "warring against diacritics". "Reliable sources" is—or surely should be—a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia. Surely there are no reliable English sources that spell Franjo Tuđman the Wikipedia way? Attempting to add the majority English spelling even once in an English Wikipedia article (in the name of NPOV—another of the supposed pillars of Wikipedia) should not be grounds for an indefinite ban—or justify insults and threats from the ultra-nationalists on Wikipedia.
• As mentioned in the third paragraph (* SMcCandlish "submissions") of my submission here, several people protested the lack of due process—the imposing of an indefinite topic ban and the scope of the topic ban were ridiculous: "indefinitely prohibited from ... converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics"—because I think I had only once "added an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics" (in the lede of the Walesa article) and probably never "converted any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page". This indefinite topic ban was based on a single attempt (with no edit warring) to add a single instance of the majority English version of the name Walesa to the Walesa article. User:SMcCandlish got a one month topic ban for the same behavior that he used (trashing a civil discussion, wall-of-text threats and insults) to get me blocked and then topic banned. LittleBen (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you are not encouraging the use of "reliable sources". You are cherry-picking sources that don't use diacritics, and I'm no the only one to notice this odd fact. Also: you have been asked repeatedly to use the "view preview" function rather than tweaking the same post dozens of times. Konjakupoet (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• You have not provided any reliable English sources that are more reliable than Encyclopedias like Britannica, magazines like the Economist, newspapers like the New York Times, broadcast sites like the BBC. And your statement about Britannica is simply wrong, total nonsense. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV and show major alternative viewpoints and major alternative spellings. I am not warring about this; you are warring about this. It is not NPOV to cherry pick only the non-English sources that don't use the English spelling, and refuse to accept or mention even once what all the most reliable English sources say. For Walesa you can even check the Polish government's own web site. LittleBen (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Complete aside, but LBW appears to think that Britannica, the BBC and the New York Times are better sources for, say, Japanese shrines to the god of poetry[301] than specialist books and journal articles written on the subject. Prescribing which sources are "the most trustworthy and neutral" (and, apparently, "reliable"), regardless of subject, via the use of a template is ridiculous and runs contrary to the spirit of WP:RS. Konjakupoet (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? "Warring"? You are the one who reverted me three times (the other one was a short while ago[302]) You are deliberately picking out sources that don't use diacritics. This is a TBAN violation on par with the ones that have already got you blocked twice. Additionally, the specific article seems to be the one you were edit-warring on back in November that won you your TBAN in the first place. Konjakupoet (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

<redacted by neutral observer -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)>

Konjakupoet, if you're going to engage in personal argument, you should not collapse the other guy's arguments just because you feel they're personal (I have reverted your collapse now). If anything needs collapsing, please leave it to a neutral observer to decide. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. Sorry for that. Konjakupoet (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

user:Konjakupoet edited with an account called user:Konjakupoet2 and made 4 edits between 2nd and 9th of April. On the 20th of April user:Konjakupoet made the first edit with user:Konjakupoet. Why did you open this process nearly two weeks after the incident? The edit pattern you have displayed does not seem to me to be that of someone who had not held an account before the 2 April. Are there any other accounts on en.Wikipedia that you have used? -- PBS (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Check my user page. I'm a fluent Japanese-speaker. Until recently I primarily edited on ja.wikipedia (I'm not telling you my username because your constant personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith have made me somewhat distrustful of you). I have also occasionally edited en.wikipedia anonymously. And I've been monitoring LBW's ridiculous pattern of harassment/POV-pushing. What business is it of yours, anyway? And why does it matter to this thread? Seriously, if you think LBW has NOT been disruptive enough to warrant an indefinite block, please present a valid argument. I'm not going to respond to you if you make another personal attack. I will, however, post another thread below this one. Stop it now. Konjakupoet (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

So yo have edited under different accounts, you are trying to prevent other editors commenting on this question. I can't help thinking you may also be a part of the problem here? Its all a bit academic anyway, it looks like LittleBenW has been indefed for reasons that cannot be stated but have been reported to Arbcom ----Snowded ^TALK 12:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Konjakupoet please note my question was specific: "Are there any other accounts on en.Wikipedia that you have used?" (emphasis added). I did not ask you if you had edited on any other language Wikipidia. The sentence "I have also occasionally edited en.wikipedia anonymously" does not exclude the possibility that you have edited also [frequently] edited with other named accounts. Now it may be, that in not giving a clear answer to my question, that some may infer that you have never used another account on en.Wikipedia, but other editors may infer that you have. Why not answer the question and reduce potential FUD?-- PBS (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Since it doesn't seem like LBW will get out of this long enough to pose any significant threat to me, there's nothing keeping me from being honest. For 8 years until February 2013, I edited under a different account. A disruptive user posted my personal information and started harassing me at work. Basically he outed me. That is why I stopped editing under that account. And I'm not interested in going back to it, so there should be no concern about me abusing multiple accounts. That is why I don't want LBW going around connecting me to that acocunt. Since that account has already been outed against my will, I feel I have a right to protect myself against LBW effectively outing me again by connecting this new account with that one. LBW is also fully aware that my last account was outed and that I was being harassed at work, so there was nothing "accidental" about him "not intending to out me" or anything of the like. If you send me an e-mail and tell me your real name and which part of which country you live in, I would be all too happy to return the favour. In private. But you don't have a right to force me to out myself in public. I want this to be the last that is said of this matter here. Konjakupoet (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that clear and precise answer. -- PBS (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• PLEASE NOTE: The block of User:LittleBenW is currently under review by the the Arbitration Committee, at the request of both the editor and the blocking administrator, and is likely to be lifted in the near future. Please do not base any other decisions on the current block. Risker (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I have just unblocked LittleBenW because we have concluded that no outing occurred. Please note that we did not investigate any allegation of topic ban violation. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Indefinite block proposal for User:LittleBenW

With two blocks for violating the topic ban already, further flagrant violation of the ban and edit-warring, abundant warnings from multiple editors, and a massive case of WP:IDHT and WP:DEADHORSE, user:LittleBenW has amply demonstrated that he holds community consensus in very low regard and intends to continue the disruptive and tendentious WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior for which he was banned. More than enough of the community's time has been wasted trying to get through through this editor. I propose that they be indefintely blocked until he can convince the community that he is resolved to abide by community consensus and adhere to the terms of the topic ban imposed by the community. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You are calling for an indefinite block but describing it like a ban. A block can be modified at the discretion of an administrator; following accepted best practice. When you stipulate that the community must be convinced, this is indicative of a ban; requiring consensus to modify, in my opinion. My76Strat (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no practical difference between a community imposed indefinite block and a community ban, with the possible exception that a blocked editor is still considered part of the community, and a banned editor is not. In either case, lifting the ban/block would require the assent of the community. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that a block is ultimately the only way we have of enforcing a ban, and that if an editor has repeatedly evaded an already-existing ban, then perhaps we should block. (I have no comment on the proposal myself, as I have not investigated it) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons outlined in the section above and for somewhat offensively accusing me of sockpuppetry numerous times.[303][304] (Also, note his ironic accusation that Hijiri88 was gravedancing despite his continuing to dance on Hijiri88's grave.) Konjakupoet (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Note LittleBen has been canvassing and accusing both me and DV of having some kind of "ultra-nationalist" agenda.[305][306] If either NE Ent or Kiefer.Wolfowitz show up here and defend LittleBen this fact should be taken into account. Konjakupoet (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

@Konjakupoet, you should control yourself and think.

In previous discussions, I have always supported the use of the highest quality most reliable sources, and therefore I have opposed fatwahs against diacritics. I have also noted that diacritics have been frequently used by English writers from Shakespeare to Blake to Henry James, etc. I suspect that I was asked to take a look as a neutral observer. NE Ent is an honest intelligent administrator, also, and probably was invited for the same reason. I have trouble imagining NE Ent as a anti-umlaut zealot. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair analysis. I have never interacted with NE Ent, and I will take your word that he is (and you are) a good-faith user. But the fact is that you were both invited here by a user making a ridiculous accusation of me being an "ultra-nationalist" -- I think LBW if asked could not guess my nationality, though -- and so if he is truly impartial he should probably refrain from participation given that he was canvassed. Konjakupoet (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

And here. PBS is another user who should now be considered compromised. Konjakupoet (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Tarc as well.[307] Should 4 consecutive instances of WP:CANVAS over an 8-minute period count towards a potential community-ban/indef-block? Konjakupoet (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A Quest for Knowledge, too.[308] And Ryulong.[309] (The latter diff also includes more gravedancing.) Konjakupoet (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Pot calling...? -- PBS (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice personal attack there, PBS. If you mention someone's name in an ANI post you are supposed to inform them. So I did. LBW is the one who went to 6 different users and asked them to oppose his block. Konjakupoet (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

So do you think if Little Ben had previously listed here on this page the user names he canvassed, then it would not have been conversing if he had then informed them of that after such a posting? I think you could have constructed your initial post without naming Iio, so I think my point is valid. "6 different users and asked them to oppose his block" are you sure? Because Little Ben did not ask me to oppose a block (his posting was "More bullying by the ultra-nationalists here [sig]") -- PBS (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think IIO has never voted against LBW here or on AN, and I think that the reason I knew LBW was under a topic ban in the first place was because IIO pointed it out. He is the only one who has been calmly reminding LBW on all of these occasions that he is under a TBAN. Please stop making personal attacks against me. I didn't post on the talk-pages of the dozens of users with a history of negative interactions with LBW in order to get them to come here and vote. He did just that. That is why he was blocked for canvassing and I wasn't. If you seriously think I have been canvassing make a new section below this one and ask the administrators to block me for "canvassing". Seriously go on. I dare you. Konjakupoet (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, I wonder if he canvassed you because you opposed his initial TBAN? You were in a tiny minority there, but you are thus far one of the only participants there to have been directly informed of this current discussion. Konjakupoet (talk) 10:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I blocked him for the canvassing, as a provisional measure. Like Boing! said Zebedee above, I have not yet formed an opinion on the actual proposal. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

user:Konjakupoet I was not going to comment here, but you have implied that if I did I would be acting in bad faith, and I object to that. Just because LB has informed me of this debate it does not mean I can not make up my own mind on an issue. You wrote above "You are the one who reverted me three times (the other one was a short while ago 102" yet that is a different user account from the one which you signed accusation. As you are using two accounts you need to add a warning on the second account that it is a sock-puppet particularly as you seem to have remembered your Konjakupoet password and to be using your primary account again. -- PBS (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No, please see my userpage. There is no sock-puppetry, just being overly paranoid about security to the point where I have at some point forgotten both passwords. I am unable to post on the userpage of my other account (how could anyone be tricked to think "Konjakupoet2" was a different person?), as I do not remember the password. I would not oppose that secondary account getting blocked under these circumstances, though. Please do your homework before making accusations like that, anyway. Also, any look at what LBW posted on your page would indicate that it is not neutrally-worded. He accused me of being an ultra-nationalist despite never having even interacted with me on a talk page. And it was most certainly canvassing, as that is what he has been blocked for. Konjakupoet (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Why can not write a message on User:Konjakupoet2? -- PBS (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite block - this editor has worn the community's patience to a nub, and his continued refusal to listen on this issue means he is a negative to the project. I don't think this rises to ban level yet, but a block of indefinite length is called for until he understands what is required of him to return to editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I can understand if he has exhausted your patience and you would support a ban, but how have you assessed what the "community's patience" is (as I doubt that 1% of active users will comment here)? -- PBS (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Community consensus gathered against him at least four times (here, here, here and here). This one actually saw him get a "final warning", so he should be taken as having been on thin ice since the start of March. Konjakupoet (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I asked the The Bushranger a question! Why did you Konjakupoet consider it necessary to answer for The Bushranger? I think it would be a good idea, having presented your concerns, that you now refrain from participating in this ANI unless you are asked a specific question. -- PBS (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support and consider him community banned, continued BATTLEGROUND behaviour and repeated incivility. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 09:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support enough is enough; editor has been warned too many times. --Rschen7754 09:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This discussion has had ridiculous shotgun-blast charges, with too little concern for fairness. Anybody who has behaved hyperactively should go away, and let calm persons discuss this. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

So you think LBW, who responded to the thread by calling me names in six different places, should refrain from posting here? Please provided a valid argument as to why LBW should not be indeffed, rather than more ad hominem arguments against me. Konjakupoet (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Both of you should relax. Perhaps you both could strike-through your own incivility or personal-attacks and reflect on ways that this discussion could have gone better. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

What personal attacks did I make? Seriously? It seems you don't have a leg to stand on because you know LBW should remain blocked, so you continue to try to change the subject to my behaviour. Konjakupoet (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:Boomerang, your behavior, my behavior, Karla's behavior, Control's behavior, etc. are open to discussion in this thread. You have been the one calling numerous editors "compromised", as though you were George Smiley, etc. I am so polite that I consider anything stronger than "sigh" to be a personal attack, of course. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Note one: Contrary to statement above I'm not an admin.
Note two: As I already have 1,588 posts to ANI, asserting my commenting here is only due to the canvass isn't supported by the evidence.
Note three: BSZ has indef'd LBW for outing, so tobe this discussion seems to be moot.
The original poster is 3rr on WP:SET and I don't see that repeatedly reverting a contribution made before a topic ban is a legit exception. NE Ent 11:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

OMG. 1,588 posts to ANI? Did you hear yourself saying that, NE Ent? That's addict behaviour, and I can see it leading to somewhere round about here. You need help. Please consider yourself topic banned from ANI for one month. Of course I'm not saying you're not extremely useful here—you will be missed—but we'll have to manage somehow. My best advice: don't read it, either. Take it off your watchlist. Please continue to edit helpfully at other boards! Once the ban has expired, and provided you feel you have got that monkey off your back, you are welcome to make useful contributions at ANI yet again. If you would like to be unbanned, you may appeal this ban by adding the text "Help help, abusive ban" below this notice. Bishonen | talk 13:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC).

Re "I'm not an admin" - you should be! ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

(Cough). Glasshouse, stone, sauce, gander. – iridescent 2 13:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Bishonen is an admin.[310] Konjakupoet (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Bish is, but Ent ain't -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Re "(Cough)" - Wow, I hadn't realised I'd made even more appearances here than Ent, but at least I'm still behind Drmies and Dennis -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You may need a little ANI break too, Boing. I'm surprised Iridescent thinks my 1227 posts in eight years are goose and gander with NE's 1583 posts in half that time. Apologies for making everybody's eyes glaze over with statistics, but it's a fact that I've got a lot of posts everywhere because I've been here a long time. A more reasonable argument against my offering opinions on other people's editing might be that I've been here too long altogether. No argument there. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC).

I expect you're right about that break (No, I *know* you're right!) Maybe I'll manage it before too long. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, btw, I've just realised there's a possible interpretation of "Glasshouse, stone, sauce, gander" that I missed earlier, and I'm really not sure what it is supposed to mean now. But too clarify, when I said "you should be!" to Ent, I meant it genuinely - I think he would be a good admin, as a look here will attest. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC) (My misunderstanding, sorry - it wasn't directed at me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC))

Am I missing something? I thought it was kind of expected that admins contribute on the admins' noticeboard... Konjakupoet (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Draconian solutions are very seldom useful, and this particular one seems far more intent on "getting at" an editor than at helping Wikipedia in the first place. Collect (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

LBW has been extremely disruptive, and has been making real-world threats. How exactly is blocking him a "draconian solution"? Konjakupoet (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I am completely uninvolved, as I have never edited anywhere near these editors or topics. After review: the editor LBW has has plenty of chances and now needs to firmly be shown the door via a community ban. There is no need to waste good editor time any further with this. Jusdafax 11:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This whole incident -- edits made in November violating a topic ban imposed in December?, 3rr was violated, --is sketchy. and LBW is unable to post on Wiki due to alleged doxing, which has been kicked to ArbCom. Let's let the committee do their thing first. If the committee decides not to take action, their will be time later to consider when additional community restrictions on LBW are appropriate. NE Ent 12:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that the edits I linked two were made in the last few days, not in November. I didn't 3RR. I should never have had to revert in the first place, since LBW's first revert (of my other account) was already a TBAN violation. Additionally, what do you call this and this?? In ictu oculi seems pretty sure what they were.[311][312] The reason he wasn't indeffed months ago is because In ictu oculi has never brought a single charge against him here, but he definitely deserved it. For you to twist the facts here and claim he hasn't violated his TBAN because the only violating edits were made in November is extremely ingenuous. It's actually probably better that LBW did canvas you, since if what you say is true you may have otherwise just showed up, and I might have been forced to assume good faith despite your obvious bias here. Konjakupoet (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support When an editor stoops to WP:OUTING in order to disparage their "opponents" in a discussion, it's time to pull the plug. LBW does not have the personal self-control to reign themselves in regarding diacritics, period. That means that protecting this project - and the other editors - is paramount (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The Arbcom reverted the outing block, so does that mean that you no longer give Strong support to an indefinite block? -- PBS (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - This user has been brought here far too often and gotten away lightly, the proposal has gained even more weight in light of their continued personal attacks and canvassing of a select few editors. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - This has gone on too long. Worthy criticisms of other involved editors (including myself) notwithstanding, LBW's conduct is unacceptable. Even aside from the canvassing and the outing, his persistent IDHT behaviour is beyond manageable. I particularly object to his attempt to forge official policy through the use of search templates. Underhanded, biased, and deliberate. Enough is enough. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This is at least the third significant breach of LittleBen's topic ban. It is clear that we cannot trust this editor to honour it himself, therefore it behooves the community to separate him from the project until such time as he is willing to step away from this topic area. There is a veritable alphabet soup of reasons why this editor should be blocked, including IDHT, TE, CANVASS, BATTLEGROUND. I haven't looked into the outing accusations above, but I am aware of LittleBen's attempts last fall to entice another editor under an arbcom enforced diacritics topic ban to break it. I think it is obvious that the community has wasted entirely too much time on this editor. Resolute 15:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. LittleBenW, from my observations, has failed to behave in a collegial manner and he has broken numerous policies. Enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Let it run Given the history of the December ban, Note to closing admin: let this run, as long as comments remain on point and there is no present need to close, quickly -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

*Support - Do not indefinite block, but block for two weeks to a month. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive, but preventative. Two weeks is double the last block and the editor should have to file a promissory note or something to refrain from breaking it again or face a full-on indefinite ban until such a time as the matter can be safely resolved. Then after some time the appeal of the topic-ban can begin. This matter is annoying, but not a severe concern and Wikipedia has severe issues with policies around diacritics. Other editors should file an RFC to clear the matter up in the mean time and try and work towards establishing a policy or guideline. This editor is not the singular example of this problem, there is no need to make an example OUT of him. In light of the evidence, I change to support.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• It is preventative: it prevents anyone being outed, attacked or such by this user, which is a common practice of theirs. It also prevents users/sysops/whoever from having to waste further time on discussing their actions. I fail to see how this is "not a severe concern". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Lukeno94 -- outing is very serious, and he threatened to do it numerous times, including on his own talk page after getting the canvassing block. This is not "just about diacritics" anymore. LBW is a dangerous user who has been "stealth-appealing" his TBAN for quite some time because he knows the community will never let him off the hook.[313] Konjakupoet (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Threats to out and other issues, namely trying to learn who blocked his email account is a major concern. I change my !vote to support. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Disregard. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. A major case of extreme disruption exhausting the community's patience. He's already been blocked and he should not return under nearly any circumstance.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I can understand if he has exhausted your patience and you would support a ban, but how have you assessed what the "community's patience" is (as I doubt that 1% of active users will comment here)? -- PBS (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• I see they have already been indef'd, but we need to quit paring down the number of people allowed to edit. WP is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not as it is now, the encyclopedia who only some can edit. Apteva (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

  In all reality, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone who follows policy can edit. This user did not follow policy, even after having been warned several times about it, so he was blocked. TCN7JM 20:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

  Studies have indicated that WP acts like a small clique who only allows those who conform to a confusing labyrinth of rules are allowed to participate. In fact the model that we want is for anyone and everyone on the planet to click "edit" any time they see something that would be useful to add. It is frankly our problem that we tolerate a lot of the behavior that we complain about and then use as a rationale for chastising someone. We only have one tool in our toolbelt - blocking someone. That clearly is not what we need. For example, deleting and oversighting offensive remarks would probably work better than deciding whether those remarks deserved a block. We need something that helps people learn, and what we are doing is simply not working. Apteva (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• What's the point of this? Are you seriously that ignorant about the actions of this user? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

  The point is that we are not meeting our objective of "anyone can edit". Said user has quite a few edits[314], mostly in the last year. All I am saying is we need to do better than to keep driving people away, and being exclusionary. Apteva (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• @Apteva: I'm afraid you're confused. Our objective is to build an encyclopedia. The method we use is open-editing. When the methodology conflicts with achieving the objective, the methodology must be adjusted. Doing it any other way makes no sense whatsoever, as we would end up with a project that is gloriously free for anyone to edit, but is full of crap. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

How do you know that most of those edits are actually productive, devoid of problems? What makes you think that if we hand-hold these kinds of users like that, that they will produce a similar amount of constructive edits in the future? People who have an axe to grind don't work that way. There's a reason The Scorpion and the Frog is such an old saying that nobody remembers its origin... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• This non sequitur, while interesting, is ultimately a bizarrely irrelevant attempt at defending this editor. Wikipedia *is* the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. LittleBenW could edit Wikipedia. But like any community, there are policies, guidelines and norms that are expected to be followed. LittleBenW has thus far chosen not to, and it has only been after a considerable amount of time and effort that we have reached this point. You are obviously ignorant to LittleBenW's history, Apteva, or you would not be making laughably absurd statements like "we have only one tool in our toolbelt - blocking someone" in a case where many efforts have been made - including RFCs he's participated in and the topic ban - to end LittleBen's disruption without a block. It was his own decisions that have brought us to this point. Resolute 00:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it would be highly surprising if Apteva didn't know about LBW's history considering the previous ANI's that they've both been party to. Both have been vocal supporters of each other in the past. Blackmane (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support and remove his access to email. He's just sent me an email (via wikipedia) with a link back to this message.He and I have never spoken about anything in the past, so he appears to be canvassing.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  21:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Harassing and outing users he disagrees with, disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, canvassing users to support him — these are all signs of one thing: He simply does not know when his actions have gone too far. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. If sanctions continue to be applied selectively to editors who think that English Wiki should be written in English, I have who wonder who will read the resulting multilingual wiki-speak. As I see it, the more resources the harassment community is devoting to LBW, the less they have to make trouble for other productive editors. Kauffner (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I wouldn't have expected that you'd present yourself as such a clique so openly here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I find your lack of good faith disturbing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me??? "The harassment community"? You're defending someone who violates topic bans, canvasses supporters, threatens to out users, and tries to sneak his personal opinions into official policy by cleverly nested template inclusion. You are blatantly mischaracterising the underlying dispute, as well as importing it here. This discussion is not about diacritics, but about LBW's conduct. So please refrain from personal attacks, and keep the content dispute out of here. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

In fact I have noticed that the anti-diacritic crowd does indeed get more sanctions. This is not because of unfair application, but because, on average, the members of that crowd exhibit a greater degree of battleground mentality than the pro-diacritics crowd. Indeed, Kauffner's own comment pretty clearly exhibits much the same, suggesting that those in favour of diacritics don't want to write an English encyclopedia and calling them the harassment community. And openly strategizing to keep them busy. So when he says his side is getting more sanctions, he can just look at his own comments and see why. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• As if anti-English crusaders don't violate any rules, or I don't who these people are. In any case, writing an article that English speakers can read should take precedence over expressing national pride by introducing non-English words and spellings. Kauffner (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Just listen to yourself! Do you really think that those who are in favour of correct use of diacritics are anti-English crusaders? For what little it's worth, I am English, and I favour sensible use of diacritics. To suggest that anyone who takes such a position is motivated by 'national pride' is a wild allegation of poor faith. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Kauffner, you make my point far better than I ever could. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - This user has knowingly violated multiple policies, multiple times. TCN7JM 01:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block. I would support a block of specific duration not to exceed 90 days. My76Strat (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite is not permanent. An injection of clue a few months down the line is always possible. For now, this is pretty open and shut. Opposes could scarcely be less convincing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

  I understand that "Indefinite is not permanent". I also understand that many would object to an un-block request based on their own perception of what constitutes "too soon"; irrespective of any assertion of clue. I stand on my belief that 90 days is commensurate to the misdeeds I have observed. My76Strat (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

  That seems to make it de facto a punitive block, however - 'he's done X, Y and Z, the sentence is 90 days'. Blocks are at least supposed to be preventative, not punitive - the thing to ask is, if we imposed (say) a 90 day block, would we be right back here on day 91? Signs point to yes - which is why indef is appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It might also be pointed out that LBW has never once formally appealed a block. He silently accepts his "punishment", waits for it to run out, and then goes right back to exactly what he was doing. We shouldn't let him get away with this a third time. Konjakupoet (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, long overdue. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - This voting section should be closed immediately as pointless. Risker stated above the block is being reviewed by Arbcom so the arguments and supports and opposes here are not needed. Arbcom will make the determination. Kumioko (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Um, a community-ban and an ArbCom block/ban are two different things. Why do you bizarrely believe that the two are mutually exclusive? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• ArbCom is reviewing a block based on "canvassing/outing". This discussion is about a block for "repeated flouting of a topic-ban". The two are seperate issues. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support has already violated his topic ban two times and has been blocked twice for it. Short blocks haven't been working so an indefinite block is the only option left. -DJSasso (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The issue isn't that he thinks diacritics don't belong to an English publication, but how he manifests this with his behaviour. He is already subject to a topic ban which he considers unjust and has happily ignored on more than one occasion, and he continues to treat WP as a battleground. His statements above, the recent latent TB violations not sanctioned and his declaration that he intends to appeal the TB shortly without having demonstrated any sign of contrition are highly disconcerting. Going around accusing editors who oppose him "ultra-nationalists" and raising of an ANI complaint "bullying" are uncivil and unhelpful respectively. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 01:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This may be moot, since LBW has been indeffed for outing, but I'll add my voice to the chorus. Unlike some of the others here, who have been waging a pitched battle against LBW for some time now, I have little to no interaction over this issue, but I generally support LBW's position on diacritics. However, this position appears to be a minority view, and I recognize that community consensus has primacy over my personal views. LBW's editing surrounding this topic has been clearly tendentious and disruptive, and it's obvious that he is either unable or unwilling to abide by the restrictions of the existing topic ban. An indefinite block is the next logical step, with the understanding that indefinite does not mean permanent. Horologium (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Kick it to ArbCom While I would definitely support on an indef, I find it pointless to try and impose blocks and/or sanctions here while ArbCom is already trying to work on a solution. Changed to support after review. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 02:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

As the user he "outed", I should point out that whether "outing" actually took place is sort of up-for-grabs. As I already pointed out above, LBW did not directly state my personal information in public. What he did was directly attempt to tie my new WP:CLEANSTART account to a previous account that had been outed. By a user LBW was colluding closely with. LBW, knowing all of this, posted the claim that this account is linked with my old one on about six separate forums (those are the redacted edits). While LBW's actions here make it obvious that he is basically malicious and did intend to cause me harm/out me, it is entirely possible that ArbCom won't accept this as falling within the standard definition of "outing". Therefore, this discussion needs to continue: no point letting him off the hook for all his other violations just because his harassment of me didn't technically qualify as outing. Konjakupoet (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that does technically qualify as outing, actually. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Is ArbCom reviewsing the whole kit and kaboodle, or just the current block he's currently under for 'canvassing/outing'? Because 'flagrant topic ban violations' is a whole 'nother kettle of hagfish. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Our review is limited to the alleged outing. T. Canens (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• CLOSE AS NO CONSENSUS - LittleBenW contacted me on my talk page, which some call canvassing but I disagree with that assessment, as anyone is welcome to ask for help and I'm always free to disagree or refuse. That puts me in an awkward position that good judgement tells me I shouldn't close, although I would like to. Obviously, many think he is continually violating his topic ban and he should listen to them and comply with the spirit and letter of the ban. My concern is our ability to be objective at this point when determining a sanction. I've watched and given this a great deal of thought, understanding that many would mistakenly think this is a free pass, when in fact, it is only trying to uphold our ideals. If I were convinced that no one would object to my closing, it would be as follows:

The entire process has been messy, confusing, with lots of claims made (in good faith I believe) of outing, which ArbCom has decided is not the case, blocks and unblocks for outing and canvassing. At the end of the day, the well has become so poisoned, and many of the !votes now moot, that the entire process is better aborted. I don't think it is possible to reach a fair conclusion at this stage, nor truly determine consensus due to all these circumstances, and if the process can not be objective and unbiased, then I have no choice but to close as No Consensus at this time. I will note that there are a number of people who have issue with LittleBenW's activies here and I think there is likely merit to their concerns, so I would add a warning to LittleBenW that it is sincerely in his best interest to avoid anything that could be interpreted as voilating his topic ban, as he is likely to simply be blocked by a passing by admin the next time he violates the topic ban, without the benefit of a discussion here. I would suggest taking a few days off, collecting your thoughts and treading carefully for a while to prevent any misunderstandings. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Committee has stated LBW's actions were not outing -- and, as the outing allegation is cited multiple times in the reasons for the ban above, I concur with Dennis Brown this should be closed as FUBAR. NE Ent 02:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, I've stricken my !vote from this mess. The weight of the matter taints this discussion anyone who read it was likely influenced by it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose community indef though I would support an admin imdeffing right now and leave it up to any admin to be convinced that an unblock is warranted.   little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  02:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• WTF - OK, if the outing part is incorrect, so be it. But why on earth have they been unblocked (and not merely had their block reduced) when no evidence has been presented to disprove either the canvassing, the constant stream of personal attacks, the topic ban violations, the edit warring? Surely those are all majorly blockable offences as well? ArbCom's decision baffles and infuriates me, ESPECIALLY as this ANI thread was opened with no mention of outing initially. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

  ArbCom said their only role was to review the outing, nothing else, so there's nothing to blame on them. However, I don't quite agree with the "no consensus" close — most of the supporters of an indef block have said that their opinion is based primarily on the topic ban violations, not the alleged outing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

  The original block length was three hours, it was then extended to indefinite as a result of allegations of outing. Since we determined that no outing occurred, we reversed this extension. The three-hour block would have expired days ago and, so, I decided to unblock him. Doing something else, in my mind, would have been disrespectful towards the community for they were already discussing the case and could reach a reasonable result by themselves and towards LittleBenW... Or, at least, that's what I thought at the moment. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 07:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I can only pop in briefly, but as the indef-blocking admin I have to comment. I thank ArbCom for taking this over on request, and I'm happy to accept their findings. What I interpreted as outing (based on information that is not public) appears to have been mistaken, and I offer my apologies to LittleBenW for my misinterpretation of the evidence. As my block appears to have influenced the discussion here, and as some people have made their choice based on the now-overturned suspicion of outing, I don't think a fair outcome based on the original topic-ban issue is possible at this stage. So I Oppose any sanctions on LittleBenW in this instance. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Close with 2 clear warnings to LBW: 1) any attempt to link an account with a previous account can be a violation of WP:OUTING if it was a valid WP:CLEANSTART; 2) Any (and I do mean any) violation of his topic ban will lead to an immediate block. From the above, it's clear that the community isn't tolerating and pushing of envelopes or other forms of mucking about (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• There's quite a bit of discussion about the unblock decision at User talk:LittleBenW#Unblocked on my talk page which may be of interest to people here. To quote myself from my talk page: "I do not know the user's identity and so cannot have "outed" him". (He links to his own former user ID from this ANI discussion; if that is considered to be "outing" then he has outed himself—some would call using multiple unspecified user IDs to attack other users "socking"). "I can accept that an Admin. would in good faith give Konjakupoet the benefit of the doubt, and block me for "possible outing", but I don't think that Konjakupoet's making such bogus claims to prevent me from participating at ANI (and to encourage people to vote to ban me) can in any way be considered to be "acceptable" or "good faith". LittleBen (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• In my reply to Salvio on my talk page I also say: "The continuing vicious attacks on users who ask that WP rules on properly researching (in reliable sources) and neutrally reporting (NPOV) BLP names and place names indicate that this is an issue that cannot be solved by the community. Organized lynchings at ANI are not the answer, I believe. I think that the best way to solve this issue would be for ArbCom to consider guidelines. May I submit a case on this to ArbCom?" but I have not yet received a reply. Maybe I need to submit a summary of the proposal to ArbCom separately. LittleBen (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • ArbCom does not comment on content issues, only those of conduct. While you could certainly try to press your argument of "organized lynchings", I suspect you'd end up with a pretty big WP:BOOMERANG upside the head if you did. Resolute 14:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I will probably comment on the bogus topic ban here later (you can find some discussion on my talk page). (I'd prefer to get a decision from ArbCom on the issues involved). The discussions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 21#Template:Google RS are also related and so may also be of interest. LittleBen (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm glad to see the open minds, and respect the concerns as well. LittleBenW was blocked for a time, so he has had some time to think about the situation. I think NE Ent summed it as FUBAR, which is exactly what it is. It is more comparable to a mistrial, not a declaration of innocence. It isn't anyone's "fault", sometimes these things happen even when everyone is acting in the best of faith, as is the case here. If LittleBenW moves forward from here and doesn't violate his topic ban, then he got by with a flesh wound and will have become wiser from it. If he really is unredeemable enough to require an indef block, then he will end up back here again soon enough, and a fresh process can be started at that time. I think it is important that we recognize when the process has gone awry and are willing to back away, making it clear to the rest of the community that fairness is important when deciding the fate of a fellow editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I need to point out that while this proposal is basically done for the moment, all of my concerns and the majority of the arguments for the block made by about 80% of the participants here have yet to be addressed. LBW should have immediately got a block of more than a week for violating his TBAN for the the third time, anyway. He has therefore been let off easy with only just over two days. He has also been making admirable use of his freedom since being unblocked -- going around numerous talk pages and violating WP:AGF by claiming that either Zebedee or myself manufactured a "bogus" claim of outing in order to silence him. I just wanted him to stop spouting BS about how I was "outcast by the Wikipedia community for being disruptive" or something like that. Frankly, I told him before posting here in the first place that if he violated his TBAN by reverting me one more time I would take him here, but then my immediate impetus for bringing this up was not a TBAN violation so much as a personal attack he made against me on Boneyard90's talk page. If he makes one more personal attack against me, I will post the same proposal as above again, and this time with no "iffy" charges. Consensus is overwhelmingly against LBW at the moment. He is walking on thin ice, and he'd better be careful not to slip. (Additionally, since my only interactions with him have ever been over diacritics, his making attacks against me could be interpreted as a TBAN in and of itself.) Watch your back, LBW: one more personal attack and I'm bringing you back here. Konjakupoet (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that you've only been here for 4 days (under your current ID), you might need to watch your own back - there could be a boomerang coming. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have eight years of constructive edits under my belt, and I have nothing to hide. I have already responded to your query below on my user page, but I'm not posting it there because it's void (the user in question was blocked on being found to be a sock). What boomerang could be coming? Whenever I get in conflict with people on here they tend to wind up either getting indefinitely blocked or having broad TBAN's placed on them, or getting so tired of consensus always being on my side that they just stop harassing me: why would this be any different? Konjakupoet (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose While I don't want to condone topic ban violations of any sort, this, particularly given the issue, is way overkill. A far more productive use of community time would be a comprehensive look at the diacritics issue. We don't want to be in the position of banning otherwise productive editors because we can't decide when a ' should go over a letter and when it shouldn't. --regentspark (comment) 15:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think LBW is productive? He hardly ever edits articles, and most of his talk page comments involve comments that are iffy at best and extremely poisonous personal attacks at worst. Anyway, you're late to the party. Consensus was in favour of a block but a mistrial involving ArbCom means that nothing will come of it. If LBW steps over the line again he'll be out of the frying pan, though. Konjakupoet (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I meant that as a general comment about the diacritics mess not specifically about LBW. Apologies. --regentspark (comment) 15:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I know better than most how messy it is. That's why we don't need LBW and Kauffner aggravating the situation by calling everyone who disagrees with them an "ultranationalist" who "don't want to write an encyclopedia in English". Konjakupoet (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment We have common English language usage for place names, but we also have respected and independent data thereof, e.g., the BGN database. That said, when it comes to people, they are not places. Scholarly sources increasingly use Eastern European individual's "real" names. Making judgemental and baseless accusations of ultra-nationalism and complaining about said same individuals on the pages of admins or arbcom members is not the way to settle content differences. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I strongly disagree with the proposal to close this as 'No consensus'. There was a clear consensus in favour of the block, and the muddying of the waters regarding 'outing' was largely due to LBW's own disruptive behaviour. It should not be possible to avoid censure simply by messing up the process by which censure is decided upon. LBW refers to the topic ban itself as 'bogus' just a little further up this page, and that hardly suggests to me that he intends to abide by it. His interactions with practically everyone on this thread, and with PBS and IOO on his own talk page, show that WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND are still his method. And as for describing this as an 'organised lynching' - all I can do is suggest that LBW familiarise himself with the history of the southern USA, and with the meaning of the word 'hyperbole'. The accusations of poor faith against LBW's and Kauffner's opponents are getting to be extremely wearing, and not a little offensive. Do we really have to sit on our hands while the cycle repeats itself again? AlexTiefling (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Further Comment - I see that over at WP:TFD, LBW is back to his old disruptive habit of using the live site as a preview, or if you prefer, of repeatedly refactoring his own comments while people are trying to respond. At one point, I see 7 consecutive edits to the same section in less than 20 minutes. I can't tell whether this is a WP:COMPETENCE issue, or a ham-fisted attempt at exercising ownership, but it's not acceptable. Numerous users have complained to LBW about this in the past. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I notice that perhaps as many users as those who voted against a block have come back after the ArbCom ruling to protest the potential "No consensus" ruling. Don't worry, my friends: history is on our side. The tide of history is shifting, down the page, to a new discussion of LBW's latest TBAN-violation. Konjakupoet (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• I should note that my original call for an indef made absolutely no mention of outing anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, the user continued to disrupt the workings of the site despite a mountain of requests and warnings not to do so. The user should be indef blocked until they agree that they will follow community consensus, even where they disagree with it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC).
• Oppose its stale and Konjakupoet seems to have a battleground mentality that is all to frequently associated with this subject which makes it far from black and white. Put both of them on a 1rr limit and a civility warning. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a battleground mentality. LBW and his friends harassed me for months before I left Wikipedia. Now I'm trying to come back, but they continue to try to force me off. I have never made a negative edit to an article to deserve the kind of comment you wrote above. Konjakupoet (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

And can someone give LBW a new TBAN from CANVASSING?? Konjakupoet (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You have received four warnings on your talk page from four different editors about insulting edit summaries and about attacking other users in just four days, you have been warned to cool it, you even brag that you can easily get other editors blocked at ANI because you are always in the right, and you are claiming that you don't have a battleground mentality? LittleBen (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Konjakupoet's behaviour aside, would you care to explain how that was not canvassing? Resolute 16:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sick of LBW's personal attacks over this. I continued editing Wikipedia under my new account as though I had never left. This made some good faith editors think I was just being aggressive. But the fact is that the only edit war I have been involved in since coming back was the one where the block-evading sock-puppet Darkness walks started revenge-reverting all of my edits. When I asked him to engage me on the talk page he refused. He eventually got blocked. But, LBW, if you really think I am in some way a problematic user, why have I never been taken to ANI, and why have I never had community- or administrator-imposed restrictions on me? Seriously, instead of making one more ad hominem attack like the above, why not try posting about my behaviour in a separate thread here, or on AN, or on RFCU? Anyway, we need to keep focused: this thread is about LBW's behaviour. Since he was unblocked and the outing question was resolved, he has posted on numerous forums the ridiculous accusation the Boing! said Zebedee manufactured a fake outing charge against him to silence his voice here, canvassed some more, made the same repeated attack against me as above a bunch of times. And even though only two users (I think) who were not canvassed voted against him getting indeffed, more than that have come back and said he should be indeffed based on all of the objective evidence and nothing to do with the outing question. Konjakupoet (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I see that you are continuing to stalk me and harass other users, and you blanked your talk page to remove all the warnings that you have been given. LittleBen (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• To be fair, you are allowed to blank your own talk page. Read WP:BLANKING. TCN7JM 05:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Konjakupoet you write above "I don't have a battleground mentality" (15:00, 26 April). yet you wrote on your talk page "Gentlemen, to be completely fair, my new account is much more aggressive in dealing with harassers than the last one was" 14:45 25 April.[315]. While it is quite possible for someone to change their mind on an issue, other editors I am sure are able to look at your edit history and draw their own conclusions as to which is the more accurate statement, and if indeed you have changed you opinion and started to walk the walk -- PBS (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• If Konjakupoet gets sanctioned, as they possibly should (they've overstepped the mark a few times here, although under provocation), that shouldn't make any difference to LittleBenW's case, really. Forget outing: look how often they've canvassed people, sent personal attacks, on and off Wiki, to various people, edit warring, violating their topic ban, ignoring any effort to resolve disputes properly, etc... this user may occasionally make good edits, but they can't edit within the collaborative environment here, and don't belong here. This is why I, and many others, called for an indef. I fail to see how there is no consensus for this, there are far more calling for an indef, without outing being part of that call, than are opposing it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree, and would like to point out one other thing/ask one other question: if an indef is not applied, what are the odds this editor will be back on ANI again, for exactly the same reason, quite soon? Based on observed behavior, "chances are very good". That is, logically, supporting the indef position. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

    If being "back on ANI again" is reason for a site ban, you should consider yourself site-banned Bushranger. It's a pity that you haven't had the decency to comment on the bullshit accusations of "canvassing" or the overkill in the tag team attempts to ban LBW. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

    I presumed the "for exactly the same reason" made the intent clear, but as it seems only part of the sentence is being read, it can be changed to "back on ANI again with regard to misconduct in exactly the same area as multiple times before". I am weighing LBW's conduct only on his dealing with the diacritic issue; any "canvassing" (as rejected, it seems, by Arbcom) is utterly irrelevant, as is alleged "tag-teaming". LBW's record with regard to his topic ban is the only issue being weighed here in my !vote, as it is the only relevant issue with regards to a potential ban, and when weighing his conduct w.r.t. his topic ban in the balance, I find it wanting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

KW: Wow. Where do you get the idea that accusing LBW of canvassing is "bullshit"? Surely noticing that someone has proposed you get indefinitely blocked, and then immediately posting on the talk pages of 6 different users (most of whom have supported the same in the past) and linking here with the accusation that one's opponents are "ultra-nationalists" is ... well, what would you call it if not "canvassing"? Do you want to propose KoH get sanctioned for making the same "bullshit" accusation and blocking LBW accordingly? Would you consider that block to have been an abuse of KoH's administrative powers? Further, as far as I can tell Bushranger has had no editing restrictions or blocks placed on him, while LBW has violated his TBAN hundreds of times and has been blocked (only?) twice for it already. Konjakupoet (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is one of the most ridiculous attempts to ban a user. Creating a template that helps to search for The Economist and New York Times etc. is disruptive? Really? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't. Flagrantly flaunting a topic ban therefore indicating he has no respect for the community? That is disruptive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• I expected you to respond like this, Kiefer. You've ignored the edit warring. The fact canvassing has CLEARLY happened. The constant stream of personal attacks. The violations of his topic ban. The POINTy comments about their topic ban. And everything else that just shows this user is not capable of editing in this environment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

  Luke,

  Canvassing has been clearly alleged, but absurdly. I was "canvassed", despite my being adamantly pro-diacritic. Then I was "canvassed" because I (like 100 thousand other editors) was ignorant of LBW's alleged offenses. Others have expressed alarm at the tone and sloppiness of this discussion, e.g. Drmies on my talk page.

  My take: There is a gang trying to ban LBW that, regardless of LBW's behavior, is repeating falsehoods and absurdities and disrupting WP by the broken-record call for a ban.

  LBW seems to be a somewhat confused and perhaps productive editor who has created a nice set of templates to find high quality reliable sources, who (being ganged up on) has responded by openly asking for outside opinions, on Wiki and by email---not smoothly but often by asking persons who disagree with him. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Rubbish. He's not canvassing about the topic ban, but things like this,[316], are inappropriate and constitute canvassing. There's been several other diffs to prove this. Is this discussion a bit sloppy? Yes, is is, and Konjakupoet has been no saint either. Giving people notifications about this ANI with headings such as "More bullying by the ultra-nationalists" is not an open question. It's also a personal attack on people, which is what LBW has been doing all along. Also, your comments here have only attempted to refute (incorrectly, as well) the canvassing claim. Again, you ignore the history of personal attacks, edit warring, topic ban violations - whether the edits were good or not is irrelevant. If they violated the topic ban, then he needs blocking. And I myself remember inappropriate and frankly disgusting behaviour from LittleBenW when the ban for JoshuSasori was discussed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

  Konjakupoet's behavior here and on my talk page puts him in the same boat as LBW, as far as I'm concerned. If both receive substantial blocks, then the decision might be fair. It would be unfair to scapegoat LBW in a conflict which you acknowledge has had several misbehaving editors. I would like to think that LBW has potential to contribute to the project. Most of our editors are young, and I can forgive a young person for behaving panicky when being threatened with being banned (in an unfair discussion). What is essential is that all participants try to treat both LBW and Konjakupoet with respect and also try to conduct themselves soberly here. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hardly scapegoating LBW. Konjakupoet has been nowhere near as bad as LBW, either in this discussion, or generally, since LBW has been at this for a very, very long time. I am a young editor, and age has absolutely nothing to do with reacting to sanctions - a 60 year old could be just as panicked as a 16 year old. I'm trying to keep my (very low) personal opinion of LBW out of this, but the number of times they've been at legitimate ANIs for violating various guidelines means they have no place here. Konjakupoet probably needs a cool-down block, but not the indef that LBW has earned themselves. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Konjakupoet: Eight years of constructive edits, not a single block except for a minor technical issue, demonstrating good faith, until LBW and his hounds harassed me off Wikipedia for a couple of months. LBW: Constant, flagrant topic ban violations, making absurd personal attacks against those who disagree with him, assuming bad faith, harassing, canvassing... Why are we in the same boat, Kiefer? Konjakupoet (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Konjakpoet, you have shot yourself in the foot in this thread: you were probably quite right to make the points about LBW...once. You were also right to defend yourself...once. You were probably even right to reply/defend your original points...once or twice. However, you have continued to badger and re-state the exact same point again and again and again until you lost the support of the community - as you can see, many on this board now see you as equivalent to LBW. You've screwed this up badly, when it should have ended differently (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That's overstating it a bit but it's a valid point Konjakupoet's best tactic right now it to walk way from the thread. NE Ent 15:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

My original point that the entire process has been compromised and should be closed still stands. That doesn't mean future actions can't be considered, but we are well past the point that the stick should be dropped. I was hoping that by now someone would have closed this discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Request for a reconsideration

I'd like another editor to review this closure. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of an ANI closing is to neuturally summarize the consensus of a discussion, not make comments about unrelated matters/editors; accordingly I've asked Bbb23 (talk · contribs) to remove his inappropriate commentary regarding users other than LBW from the closing statement. NE Ent 18:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:Boomerang and consider the importance of having some perception of fairness and uniform standards in the community. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what your point here is, Kiefer. Far more voted for the block than against. Even discounting the disproven outing comments, the fact remains that it was a 2:1 ratio, near enough, of votes, and the vast majority on both sides were proper ones, not just bandwagon jumping. LBW's behaviour during this ANI alone would be enough for a hefty sanction. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Try reading about "consensus". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with NE Ent, the close had an unintentional air of involved supervote. A dispassionate evaluation of the discussion indicates that no consensus was reached. I ask Bbb23 to withdraw his close and convert his input into a 'vote' supporting the block. My76Strat (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not objecting to the finding of consensus to indef block; I'm saying the comments about kp and PBS contained within the summary are inappropriate for a summary of the entire discussion. NE Ent 22:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• The close doesn't have an air of a supervote at all. It analyses both sides' comments, both their numbers and their contents, and comes to a logical conclusion. You may not agree with it, but that doesn't make it a supervote. Ched appears to support the close. Besides, as it was an indefinite block, and not a community ban, Bbb23 actually had every right to close it as an indef. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• The finding that the consensus was for an indef ban is fine, as I have already stated twice and I don't think I was that cryptic (was i?) . This comment: Somewhat reluctantly, I want to comment on two users in this discussion. Konjakupoet should have kept their comments factual and civil. They don’t help themselves by some of the intemperate comments in this discussion. PBS should have reduced his role as an advocate for Little Ben. PBS’s comments, for the most part, did not help. reflects the closer's personal opinion, does not summarize a consensus of the discussion therein, and isn't actually relevant to the topic at hand. Putting such a comment in a "closed" discussion on a high visibility forum is unfair to the editors involved as it's unclear whether they'll be allowed to refute / rebut such an accusation. If the closing editor has advice related to the subject at hand they could certainly use an appropriate forum, such as the editor's talk page; in fact, a couple editors had already done so prior to the close. NE Ent 01:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• That's my fault for poor placement, it was aimed at those who had said it was like a super vote. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 you wrote above "PBS should have reduced his role as an advocate for Little Ben. PBS’s comments, for the most part, did not help." Of the statements I made above which one do you think most typifies my advocacy for Little Ben? Which one of my comment do you think is the least helpful? -- PBS (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Rather than reply here to my question at 09:54, 29 April that starts "Bbb23 you wrote above ..." Bbb23 replied on his/her talk page (see here). I think that is a mistake, as the record of the questions and replies ought to be archived together as part of the ANI.

Bbb23 the point of an ANI is for a fair and frank exchange of view to take place, and I think that ANIs are frequently kangaroo courts with little natural justice. Over the last 12 months I have stated several times that I do not that that for high profiles editors ANI is fit for purpose.

In your reply you noted that I posted questions to Bushranger and Cúchullain's support votes, and you wrote "Neither editor answered you, which I also think was telling" so do I! but I suspect for different reasons from you. When a person justifies expressing an opinion based on "community's patience" then they ought to be able to articulate how they draw that conclusion. I think that for you criticise someone for asking an editor who uses such a phrase to explain how they have assessed what the "community's patience" is ... surprising. -- PBS (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer - perhaps instead of white knighting for LittleBen, you might perhaps engage with him on amending his behaviour and accepting that he is topic banned, so that the block can be lifted? It should be obvious that if he is allowed back in and these antics continue, his next stop is a community ban. Resolute 13:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolute, please read my talk page if you wish to correct your false allegations, which I assume were made in ignorance. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer, what would your reading of consensus be here? Bear in mind also that there is not and never has been any requirement for a closing admin to be neutral with regard to the matter at hand, but merely uninvolved; we trust that closing admins will only close in line with their own thoughts in the case that those are coincidentally in line with the broader consensus. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Straw man argument -- there's never been an actual "closing ANI" policy. NE Ent 10:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Erm, are you endeavouring to make my point for me? The straw man here is the occasional insistence that Justice herself step off her pedestal and issue a closing statement devoid of any human emotion or influence. In reality, where the evidence is straightforward it is perfectly common for a closing admin to agree with one particular side while closing. So long as the close reflects the consensus, this is absolutely fine. In this particular case some other users (yourself included) have indicated that this could be perceived as a supervote simply due to the wording of the close, which can be corrected easily enough without altering the outcome: however, Kiefer seems to be suggesting that he doesn't agree that the decision itself was a reflection of the debate. As such, I'd like to know what Kiefer thinks the consensus was, so as to compare it to the close as-is and decide which one is a more accurate reflection of what's passed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to indefinitely blocking someone, it would seem to be a reasonable to work on the same %ages for a rough consensus as are are used for selecting administrators. In this case was that sort of rough consensus reached? If not, but there was a significant majority in favour of a block (say 60-70%), perhaps as block of several months or a year (depending on the perceived majority and the severity of the offence) might have been more appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

RFA is a vote. This isn't. "Not a vote" does, in fact, mean "not a vote", no matter how firmly one's fingers are plugged into one's ears on that particular point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

IIRC, 17:10 was not, in the past, considered a "clear consensus." Removing the "outing" votes was proper as ArbCom ruled that it was not "outing" so Bbb23 was safe there. Collect (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.

Also, vote-counting does not establish consensus, or even approximate consensus. Let's use terms like "nearly a 2/3 majority", to avoid jeopardizing our souls and offending Quakers.

It's not clear that the indefinite block has consensus. A month block might have been agreeable to almost all discussants. Many supporting an indefinite block (through the end) joined BWilkins in also raising concerns about the discussion's civility, and the behavior of those criticizing LBW. Now we here statements that there is not consensus about the behavior of the critics. Really? We don't have consensus that "SHUT UP", etc., is unacceptable? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing to suggest that there would have been broader agreement with a time-limited block. It's not an uncommon sentiment for editors to believe that time-limited blocks for severe behavioural problems are ineffective, and in this particular case there is quite clear evidence that two previous time-limited blocks have had no corrective effect on the subject. The behaviour of other editors is a red herring: other editors are not responsible for LBW's behaviour in the main, and that goes doubly for comments made during an ANI thread after the fact. And once again, the number of people adding bold words and bullet points to either side of a discussion is not how consensus is determined, no matter what euphemism one uses for the process; if one side provides a convincing argument and backs it up with evidence, and the other mainly provides noise and whataboutery, then it doesn't matter if the former are outnumbered, let alone whether they form a plurality of the commenters. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Obviously I disagree with Bbb23's conclusions but his close is within normal process and policy. What others may perceive as sounding "like" a supervote is just his opining, something that is often informative but carries the risk of people perceiving it as something it isn't. I believe his comments were an afterthought, not the rationale. I see no flaw that requires overturning the close. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)