Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:LittleBenW edit-warring over diacritics again.

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

---

LittleBenW has been topic-banned from edits related to diacritics (broadly construed) since December.[1] He has since been blocked twice for violating this ban.[2][3] 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.[4][5] In ictu oculi also noted similar TBAN violations not long ago.[6] 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[7] 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[8]) 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.[9][10] (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.[11][12] 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.[13] 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.[14] And Ryulong.[15] (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.[16] 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.[17][18] 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.[19] 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[20], 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.[21]. 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,[22], 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. 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)

Long-running disputes at the Barelvi article, and similar articles.

I'm going to try and avoid as much of the content dispute as I can here, but obviously I cannot fully avoid this. I'm going to primarily talk about the Barelvi article, as that is where I've been party to. Now, this has been at ANI a couple of times in the last few months, and doesn't really seem to have been resolved, despite various temporary blocks, and full-protections of the page. There has been multi-way edit warring - of which I am guilty of, to a degree, although I've tried to keep the article to the version established by a consensus. The primary offenders are Msoamu (talk · contribs), whom is currently part-way through a one week block for edit warring, and Am Not New (talk · contribs).

Msoamu is constantly warring to remove what he views as non-neutral views, regardless of the consensuses at the talk page, and has often referred to MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs), whom has been diligently working to try and get a neutral article, with inflammatory comments and edit summaries, predominantly centering around what Msoamu believes MezzoMezzo's religious stance is, or accusations of bias aimed at MezzoMezzo. Examples of this include:

• [23] - "wahabi views are written in various wahabi pages.It is Barelwi article,rv wahabi invalid undue criticism"
• [24] - "Now there is consensus,In Terrorism heading at least.also i have demanded RS for blatant MezzoMezzo's POV"
• [25] - "There are relation headings/barelvis practices must be about their practices only.NOT POV of Wahabis"
• [26] - "Terrorism heading is 100% relevant and important.MezzoMezzo you have added here minute details of events to show it in bad light and now opposing highly relevant heading"

It must be noted that Msoamu and MezzoMezzo have been involved, on and off, in this dispute since 2007, as can be viewed here.

Am Not New is a different kettle of fish, but no less of a problem. The user's name claims that they are not a new user, yet they have also made the statement that they are - I cannot remember where that was, but it's not really relevant to this discussion. This user seems to be disruptive across a lot of articles, but again, I'm sticking primarily to the Barelvi dispute, which is where I have witnessed the dodgy edits. Examples of POV-pushing include:

• [27] - "Many people say many things about barelvi.it dosent mean to add everything here.it is barelvi article" - ignoring the fact that a consensus had been established on the talk page to include this information. It also made that paragraph far more biased to the Barelvi sect, and generally less informative. Upon being reverted, they then re-removed a (slightly smaller) amount of content, this time without any edit summary: [28]. That removal was also reverted by another editor, whom I haven't seen edit the article before (which is generally a sign that ANN's edit was bad)

"a consensus had been established on the talk page" where is consensus on talk page regarding this passage? mr lukeno the consensus was made on history topic see.you,MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) and Msoamu (talk · contribs) were fighting on history topic.the passage which i edited was totally different.i was particulary editing beliefs.which was my main subject as i improved it before.Dil e Muslim talk 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• [29] - removed as WP:OR by User:Qwyrxian. It had previously been added,[30] and removed by MezzoMezzo.
• [31] - an edit that was quite promotional of the added person. The excessive info was removed, then re-added [32], then removed again (by me, this time), readded once more [33], and removed by me again.

Obviously, there's a lot more than just this, and it's spread over quite a few articles, but I digress. I have two proposals for each user:

• Proposal 1: Both editors are topic-banned from all religious articles, broadly-construed, for the period of 1 year. Any violations of this topic ban would result in a resetting of the ban to its original length, and potentially a block. Msoamu is also prohibited from making any comments on an editor's religious stance indefinitely, and violation of this would trigger a mid-length block (probably around a month).
• Proposal 2: Msoamu is blocked for 3 months, then topic-banned from all religious articles, broadly-construed, for the period of 9 months. Am Not New, due to their lack of positive edits generally (in my experience), should get a 6 month block, and then a 6-month topic ban. Msoamu is also prohibited from making any comments on an editor's religious stance indefinitely, and violation of this would trigger a mid-length block (probably around a month).

Since some of these disputes date back all the way to 2007, it's high time this ended. Due to Msoamu's long history in this area, I'm more than happy to see a lengthier topic ban, if that's what consensus states (including an indef topic ban). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose i think the proposal is abit harsh and seeing that i have offered to meditate afew days ago..i say we give these editors a second chance before topic bans Baboon43 (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• With respect, and let's leave ANN out of this, how is this proposal harsh on Msoamu? If anything, it's lenient - as this sort of thing has been going on since 2007. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

why didnt you wait till he was unblocked to pursue this case? at this moment he cant defend himself obviously & im sure you have seen my pledge to help calm things down over there. Baboon43 (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I left a message on his talk page, specifically stating that I, or another editor, would bring any of his comments here. As for your pledge, it's very good, but remember that, several months ago, I made an identical pledge, got things sorted for a bit, only for it to kick off even more. Forgive me, but I can't see anything short of a topic ban sorting this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

As that user already said that i am not related to this discussion and i didnt made any such edits for which i should be block.these last two edits related to tahir ul qdri is not related to this dispute.as concerned with edit of grave worshipping i had seen it irrelevent so i removed.but let me tell you two other names which are part of this dispute.which are engaged in edit war since years.these are Lukeno94 (talk · contribs) and MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) both of these are main personalities behind this warr.and an important part of this disputes.especially MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs).i request you to see the edit history of Barelvi.

• seriously these users too should also be blocked.

Proposal: 3 years block of all religious articles for MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) and 1 year for Lukeno94 (talk · contribs)

• i want you to look at my edits.i dont deserve that.
• please get comments from Msoamu (talk · contribs)Dil e Muslim talk 17:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've not hidden the fact I've been marginal at times. MezzoMezzo has actually not edit warred very much at all, in recent times: it's mostly other users restoring his edits. Your proposal is pretty damn POINTy to say the least. In fact, MezzoMezzo has only reverted you a couple of times, IIRC. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I am talking on this dispute and edit warr running from years.Sir admin.MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) Lukeno94 (talk · contribs) Msoamu (talk · contribs) are three users are fighting from years on this article and similar type of articles(as they accepted it).where msamu tried to show his prospective(barelvi) there these two were trying hard to show thier(non barelvi) side.i am talking about years.look at thier talk page archives.here you will find many warnings and fights.dear respected admin if you block only masamo i will be unjust,you should also ban these twoo users.to cool this topic it is necessary to block both parties.thanks Dil e Muslim talk 02:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as the admin who's been trying to adjudicate this mess, a little bit, and who blocked Msoamu for edit warring...Am Not New's explanation is simply wrong. MezzoMezzo and Lukeno94 have been inserting neutral, well-sourced info. Msoamu has edit warred, made arguments based entirely on his personal opinions, and regularly introduced "sources" that don't even come close to WP:RS.

Regarding sanctions, I do have to agree with Am Not New, however, that this is the wrong time to ask for sanctions on Msoamu. I know that if I were blocked for a week, I would probably walk away from Wikipedia and not even look at my page until my block was up. There's no reason to believe that he is aware of this conversation and thus able to offer a defense. As for Am Not New, I'll need to review the exact extent of his edits before commenting. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should've waited a week, but Am Not New's continued dodgy edits meant that I put both up at the same time. If you like, I can withdraw the Msoamu part until they return from their block. Am Not New's statements about me edit warring for years are blatantly incorrect - I only started editing this article a couple of months ago. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. Am Not New, care to explain what's going on here? [34] - information inserted (which I left there initially, for a more religiously-experienced editor to analyse), it was then removed by GorgeCustersSabre, readded by an IP with an incomprehensible reason,[35] removed by me, then re-added again by this IP here.[36] Did you forget to log in again, Am Not New? Because it's pretty blatantly obvious this is you, and I don't want to have to file an SPI unless it is necessary, for WP:AGF reasons. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

SPI already filed. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

well i realy think it is you coz there is a complaint against me and you are trying to blame me by making different type of dramas by some ips.i didnt made any edit even.Dil e Muslim talk 05:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I think banning Am Not New (talk · contribs) will be a bit harsh. Although he has been involved in some edit wars and been engaged in conflicts with me, he seems to have seized his edit warring. I think that an Administrator giving him a strict warning will be more appropriate. I think that assuming his good faith is the best option as I think that he can make important contributions. Tommyfenton (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Am Not New, an IP makes the same edit as you 3 or 4 times in a row, and you expect it not to look suspicious? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

As i already said may be it is your ip.as you are trying to prove me problmatic.Dil e Muslim talk 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Holy shit. IP's most recent edit summary: "all that editors are wahabi or either sockpuppets.my demand is again same." I'd like to see evidence that I'm a sockpuppet, and I'd also love to know how I'm a Wahabi when I'm not a Muslim... Can someone block this IP, because this is just pathetic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I probably could have blocked the IP, but chose to semi-protect the article for a week instead. The article doesn't really have a history of useful IP edits, and this editor seems to only be going after this page...but I don't mind at all if someone wants to switch this to a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

And dear user lukeno90 in your edit you are using abusive words like "kettle of fish" "dodgy" for me.this is a straight personal attack.Dil e Muslim talk 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry? Kettle of fish and dodgy are personal attacks? Really? If you think kettle of fish[37] is a personal attack, then I'm not sure that your English is good enough for you to edit on the enwiki, and you should go to your native wiki, for WP:COMPETENCE reasons. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Luke here...neither of those are even remotely personal attacks in any context. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Luke, I will buy you an Amazon gift card if you stop using asterisks for your comments and start using colons. It's a personal preference thing obviously which is why I'm offering a bribe. Laugh out loud. Anyway, damn man...I left Wikipedia for three days so I could spend time with my family and...well, what happened? The sock puppet investigation is very necessary and I will post more diffs there shortly but that's neither here nor there - if there is sockpuppetry involved, it would be a separate thing and the behavior here is a separate thing.
Msoamu's block will be finished by tomorrow and I think this discussion needs to continue. I can bring diffs, but I think Qwezrxian as the supervising admin - yes, I'm putting you on the spot unfortunately - can either confirm the following as true or deny: Msoamu has, at multiple times, blatantly edit warred against consensus. Hell, it's why he was blocked most recently. He received a final warning along with myself (I volunteered to submit myself to such a warning, FYI) which Qwerxian can also attest to. Qwerxian, as the supervising admin, I would also like to put you on the spot to confirm or deny: Msoamu hurls personal attacks frequently and has not ceased doing so over the years.
Alright, that's the factual stuff. Now, from objective to subjective: Msoamu isn't here to help Wikipedia. He's here to push a certain POV. That's one. He is rude when people disagree with him. That's two. He will edit war even against consensus to support that POV. That's three. I am willing to go through every single edit he's made since 2007 to prove that he has never, ever added constructively to Barelvi or related articles, I mean that. That's four. He's been warned enough. He deserves a topic ban. Let him comment on talk pages if he can be civil, but there is no reason to allow him to edit because he has not ever edited constructively to improve the encyclopedia, and we now have reason to believe that he will not ever do so.
Regarding Am Not New, then I need to go to the bathroom and do some stuff and I will get to that in a minute. But regarding Msoamu, we need to hear his defense and I would like some community input - obviously, wide community support is needed for a topic ban. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, regarding Am Not New. In the beginning, he started out like a typical newbie which is totally excusable. A number of editors have tried to work with him in order to explain various site policies, and the process has been difficult. Lukeno and GorgeCustersSabe tried to explain the WP:OR violations he was committing and encouraged him to take things to Talk:Barelvi, as did I. Lukeno was then forced to revert further instances of POV pushing by Msoamu and original research by Am Not New, at which point TommyFenton also got involved in defending the page. Even the admin Qwezxian has to revert the constant insertions of OR on the part of Am Not New, with more diffs by GorgeCustersSabre and Lukeno than I care to link here. The ever-present Mathew Vanitas also randomly showed up to revert Am Not New's OR pushing, as did Darkness Shines. The previous two never had much involvement or interest in the page as far as I can tell and probably just recognized aggressive, tendentious editing when they saw it. It finally ended with Qwerxian protecting the page again which I'm sure annoys the hell out of him. Qwexzian, Lukeno and GorgeCustersSabre tried to explain to Am Not New why his edits were wrong on the relevant talk page (more than just the above diffs but I'm tired of sifting through everything) to no avail.

So, yeah. If the SPI turns out positive, that's a different thing. Even if it doesn't, Am Not New's tendentious editing and refusal to accept advice from more experienced editors is a problem and smacks of someone who just doesn't get it, and doesn't want to get it. I'm actually leaning toward Lukeno's suggested topic ban simply because I've seen the Barelvi page and how it's been manipulated by followers of the movement such as Msoamu, Shabiha and others for the past seven years and considering that YaNabi.com (a website for which Shabiha appears to be the owner or an admin - check that article's related discussions) has an army of zealous young Barelvis who speak...well, I won't say passable English but enough to respond, I don't see why we should assume this case is any different. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, since we are looking at a topic ban here in general, Am Not New's OR pushing and tendentious editing on Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri can be attested to, and perhaps should be attested to, by User:Justice007. I'm exhausted from sifting through diffs now but suffice to say that the article's history alone is indicitave of a spurt of tendentious editing warring against at least three experienced editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've just seen above that Am Not New has accused me of a deliberate attempt to slander them, via usage of an IP. They've made this accusation twice, possibly three times.[38][39] That's fairly tendentious editing, especially considering that the style of English is nothing like mine, I was logged in at the times the IP was making edits, and the fact it most definitely isn't my IP, which begins with 31. I feel like you are only digging yourself into a deeper hole, Am Not New. I'm beginning to wonder if just a standard indef under WP:NOTHERE is in order, whether you're a sockpuppet or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• well there is a sockpuppet investigation.i will love to see even its relation with me.btw language can be coppied.Dil e Muslim talk 18:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, an investigation which was not started by me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

So MezzoMezzo everyone is wrong you are right?infact you are a person which always stop people to make constructive edits since years including lukeno.you want to show negitive side of these articles from years.and as accepted by Qwyrxian and Lukeno94 that both(lukeno and mezzomezzo) are the major and important part of this dispute.and always engaged in edit wars with users.you not left any stone unturned to do war(with mosamu and other users) and show your side.apart from mosamu i again request block of these two users MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) Lukeno94 (talk · contribs). Mr admin this topic will not cool if only mosamu is blocked.you must block his opponts.and will be unjustice with mosamu. As concenred with my edits on Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri that was a misunderstanding and is not related to this dispute.Dil e Muslim talk 06:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a joke. Yes Am Not New/Dil e Muslim, everybody is wrong, because apparently you and Msoamu = everybody. Anyway, I said my piece and I would like community feedback regarding the admittedly large paragraphs above. I feel that the information up there is pertinent. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No everybody=Shabiha and others for the past seven years.Dil e Muslim talk 07:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Utter rubbish. Again you make the completely incorrect statement that I have been disrupting the topic for years: Firstly, I've only ever edited to keep the consensus in place, secondly, I started editing these articles a couple of months ago. If you're going to make accusations like this, at least bother to make them correctly. As to "everybody" agreeing with Msoamu's views, that is patently incorrect. Whilst some users have agreed (Shabiha, yes, and Hassanfarooqi), all neutral outsiders - which I was, when I first came to the dispute, as is Qwyrxian, and several other users - have agreed that MezzoMezzo's edits are neutral, and Msoamu's aren't. Qwyrxian voiced his opinion in this very thread: your failure to pay attention to that shows a WP:IDHT attitude. In addition, your edits have often been so poorly written that they would need a substantial rewrite to remain valid - Msoamu also suffers from this fact. MezzoMezzo does NOT constantly add in negative material: they add in neutral material with reliable sources - and I've seen Msoamu remove some positive bits about Barelvi in their reversions of MezzoMezzo, and then add in their own poorly-sourced POV. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Dil e Muslim/Am Not New, what do you mean by seven years? Your account is only 18 days old. In only eighteen days, in addition to engaging in your regular edits, you already went through the history of the Barelvi article and took a comprehensive enough survey of the edits and discussions that you're now able to make such a judgment call...after only having a Wikipedia account for 18 days? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

mr admin let me clearify some points from above discussion. which are accepted by all the users here.

• i am(am not new) is not a part of this dispute.as accepted by all these.
• user am not new is not part of these sanctions.(tahir ul qadri sanction are not related to this dispute and that was a misunderstanding even i now provided some authentic sources on Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadris talk page that he is a barelvi.)
• user mezzomezzo is a major part of these dispute from years
• user mezzomezzo is envolved in enforcement from 7 years
• user mezzomezzo is engaged in edit war from years
• as related with behaviour of mezzomezzo.mr admin only people associated with it think that he is right.many of users think that he always try to show negitive side on these article barelvi and related articles.his edits are not constructive and often doesnt let anyone to add constructive edits.
• user luken94 is major part of this dispute.
• user lukeno94 is envolved in enforcement wether it is from years or months.
• use lukeno94 work hand to hand with user mezzomezzo wether he is right or wrong.
• user lukeno94 is engaged in edit war from months.

• from all above parts i demand block of these two users on religious articles.
• and claim that i doesnt deserve that block.Dil e Muslim talk 14:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm really getting fed up of you making the same arguments, even when they've been proven to be wrong. I do not go around "hand in hand" with MezzoMezzo, in fact, I can remember at least one AfD where I expressly disagreed with him. Look through my talk page archives, and look at the times I've told MezzoMezzo to calm down, because they've overstepped the mark. You most definitely are part of this debate, and I have no idea why you're claiming you're not. MezzoMezzo hasn't edit warred (I possibly have, to keep the consensus) for quite a while. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• point to be noted "lukeno94 told MezzoMezzo to calm down, because they've overstepped the mark"Dil e Muslim talk 15:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• So you're now going to try and manipulate my posts to suggest something else? I've told MezzoMezzo to calm down when Msoamu's POV pushing has really got them riled. Again, if you actually go and look at my talk archives and find the thread, rather than just deliberately quoting me out of context, you'll find that there's nothing untoward. Can we have an admin deal with this WP:POINTy behaviour please? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

dear luken94,cool! Where i manipulated just copy paste.perhaps you should explain it while writing.why didnnt you explained earlier.Dil e Muslim talk 16:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Because there should've been absolutely no need to. I pointed you to where you'd need to go for evidence that I don't go "hand in hand" with MezzoMezzo: instead, you deliberately manipulated my words in a WP:POINTy way. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

mr lukeno94 every person which will see your above paragraph will conclude the same as i did.Dil e Muslim talk 17:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Dil e Muslim, I have read what Lukeno94 wrote, and I agree entirely with him: you are trying to manipulate what he wrote. Sadly, I am now convinced that you are a partisan and provocative editor who will not accept advice. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hence the consideration of a topic ban; we're seeing major issues of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT right before our eyes here, on ANI of all places. Even beyond the fact that Am Not New seems to be an agenda account, the extremely combative nature he's displaying here is enough for some sort of action to be taken, even if community support isn't enough for a topic ban. And it might not be enough; what I've noticed with Msoamu's own ANI discussions in the past is that when someone floods the discussion with enough blatant personal attacks, random accusations and manipulation as Am Not New is doing now, outside observers don't take interest because there's simply too much text to read. For my part, my three comments here, here and here express my own position clearly. Lukeno has been the target of some rather nasty personal attacks by Am Not New right here, in the middle of ANI, so I understand why he has responded though I myself will try to minimize comments from here on; I don't want others to be scared away. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Look through my talk page archives, and look at the times I've told MezzoMezzo to calm down, because they've overstepped the mark" dear admin please read the above passage and decide please. mr luken used the line that they have overstepped the mark.here lukeno included both persons mezzomezzo and mosamu.mr admin do you find any word here in the favour of mezzomezzo which lukeno explained later.Dil e Muslim talk 09:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Dont try to blame me by some pretty team workDil e Muslim talk 09:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Can you please stop being WP:POINTy every time you respond here? Again, you're trying to manipulate my words. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Am Not New has received two warnings for violating WP:NPOV today from User:Pass a Method:[40][41] Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

After seeing how this has played out here, and how Am Not New's edits have continued to be problematic since after this report was filed, I have to support some sort of sanctions. There is no question that he either misunderstands Lukeno's comment he's quoted above twice (which indicates a lack of the required English language competence), or he's deliberately and transparently trying to manipulate words to tarnish editors who are doing extremely important work in making our religion articles more NPOV. As George Custer say's above, I'm inclined to believe it's the latter; the bans he is calling for are simply absurd. That type of lashing out is generally a sign of behavior incompatible with collaborative editing. I don't know if another admin is willing to step in here (I'm probably WP:INVOVLED), but it does look like something should be done. I'd even be happy with a clear "final warning" from an uninvolved admin that any further POV pushing or tendentious editing will be met with blocks. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that any discussion involved Am Not New/Dil e Muslim, Msoamu or even Shabiha results in them posting walls of repeated text which kills any interest outside observers might have had. Bbb23 has some experience with this issue but I don't know if contacting them about this would violate WP:CANVASSING or not.

Anyway, if something is to be done about Am Not New/Dil e Muslim then what about Msoamu? Am Not New's account is only three weeks old. Msoamu has displayed that same behavior for seven years and after every block and warning before the last one, he was unrepentant. I'm still convinced they're the same person but since the SPI isn't getting anywhere, I suggest that both accounts receive some sort of repercussion. Although Msoamu hasn't edited since his last block, we all know he stalks Wikipedia because he magically appears any time I edit Barelvi. I have no doubt that he has been reading this thread while laying low, just as he does with the discussions on Talk:Barelvi without commenting yet swooping in to revert out of nowhere. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Msoamu's dormant for now. We can re-open a thread on them if this one is dealt with, and they return. As to CANVASSING, I requested Qwryxian to take a look into this again, since no other admin appears to want much to do with this case - which were pretty much my words. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Qwezxian is correct about being somewhat involved. All of it is legitimate involvement as Am Not New/Dil e Muslim has been edit warring across half a dozen articles, and Qwerxzian is one of about six or seven editors now trying to clean up the mess, but nonetheless if he isn't comfortable enacting sanctions on his own perhaps we could contact someone else. As it stands right now, I doubt many of the admins are reading this thread any more. Who could blame them, I think I need prescrption glasses after going over this so many times. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Am Not New/Dil e Muslim is apparently harassing Pass a Method due to Method's reversion of Am Not New's POV pushing/OR on Sunni Islam, plastering his talk page with templates like some noob. Am Not New is now consistently being reverted by at least half a dozen editors plus one admin across more than half a dozen articles as of mid-day April 30th. Some of his comments are even bordering on trolling at this point. Please, if another admin does take the time to look at the end of this discussion, please take the time to check a bit more. This is ridiculous. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

My edits are under discussion even now.Mr admin they are trying to prove me problmatic by making such long paragraphs against me.i didnt even broke any rule for which they are complaining.even many admin are seeing me they should block me if my edits are so problmatic.Dil e Muslim talk 17:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, I mention your long paragraphs and you accuse me of the same. Great tactic. Anyway, you've been reverted by half a dozen editors for violations of policies ranging from WP:OR to WP:NPOV to WP:IRS, including by the admin Qerxian, who only hasn't blocked you because reverting you across multiple articles means he is involved and he would prefer another admin does it...per his words above. And I know you read all this, so please don't play dumb. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr admin my appolojy that was previous edits in which i was not aware of wp:or policy because i was a new user.i had given some evidences that he is barelvi.that was proved OR.even these is a discusion established on the talk page of Muhammad Tahir-ul-qadri that wether he is barelvi or not.and i didnt made any revert after this on that page.and for your information that page is not related to this dispute.i didnt broke any rule there alsoDil e Muslim talk 17:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

as you are now talking about my revert by Qwyrxian.mr admin i added some contents with sources.user qwyrxian reverted that by questioning on sources.then i didnt reverted that.after sometime i collected more authentic sources and added it again and now it is accepted by users.even my sources are accepted my users see hereeven my sources are accepted my admin qwyrxian.just want to tell you that my edits are normal and i didnt broke any rule.Dil e Muslim talk 17:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

mr admin please dont believe on thier long discussion.if i am a rule broker then an admin should block me but i didnt happend.even now these two are only users which think me problematic as problem is different.Dil e Muslim talk 17:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

mr admin now about my edit on topic sunni islam .i added something with refrence from oxford dictionary of religion.that was reverted by user pass a method without reason.see here history.i am right even at that place (discusion is here).as other users is just deducting thier own logics.Dil e Muslim talk 18:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Spam attack on Evolutionary psychology

• Evolutionary psychology (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Evolutionary Psychology of Culture (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution and Culture
• Masterofthepages (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jhicks0207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Evolution and Culture

There is something very odd going on here with a huge amount of (spammed?) content beong added to this article by two brand new users. One of these new users has created the second drivel article. Mathsci (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci Just trying to update the old page with new information and formatting. The old article was insufficient. While the new one can definitely be further organized, I was just trying to make a new page with further information on evolutionary psychology and culture. I cannot speak for Masterofthepages (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Is this some undergraduate project gone badly wrong? That's what appears to be happening. Mathsci (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The entire work is verifiable, and I believe it is much better than the alternative lack of information on wikipedia.

• Both new editors are out of control. They are both adding large amounts of gobbledegook content. Mathsci (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• One new page is not large amounts, please add specific problems with the new page. jhicks0207 (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

All the content you are adding constitutes an WP:ESSAY, like the deleted article with its bizarre capitalization. Wikipedia is not a blog. It looks as if Jhicks0207 and Masterofthepages (who presumably created the deleted essay-article Evolution and Culture) are the same person. Mathsci (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• The cache on Google tells me that Evolutionary Psychology of Culture is an identical copy of the recently deleted article Evolution and Culture. Jhicks0207/Masterofthepages is abusing wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• I came into this imbroglio in the middle. I've deleted the article created by Jhicks (per WP:CSD#G4), but it took me a bit to figure out what was going on. Unfortunately, Mathsci, whose heart is in the right place, tagged the article as WP:CSD#G1 (nonsense), which, frankly, was a nonsense tagging. I removed the tag, read the talk page comments, which were also pretty silly. I finally traced it back to the article that had just been incubated per a deletion discussion. That article had been created by User:Psyc452-lrockwell, whoever that is. I assume there's a relationship between Jhicks, Masterofthepages, and Psyc452, but it's possible that they're just all fellow students, not a single individual. They do need to stop recreating the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It could be students, but it's hard to say. If so, they should not be let loose on articles like evolutionary psychology, which is a contentious and problematic article. I watch it, but do not usually edit it. The changes being made at the moment do not conform to normal wikipedia standards. I have requested full protection. As far as school projects go, I have seen students involved in fairly narrowly defined areas, such as certain parts of ecology, trying to add essay-like content in a prominent but WP:UNDUE way to top level articles such as Europe. Mathsci (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Perhaps somebody should give advice to Jhicks directly now that he is trying to recreate the content for a third time in the article incubator. Wikipedia is not the place for pseudoscientific "essays" of this kind. Mathsci (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This looks like another undergraduate project that has got out of control, cf User:Psyc452-BFrancisco/Evolutionary psychology of Personality. It's Psychology 452 at San Francisco State University as far as I can tell. Mathsci (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Matsci, it is an educational project which unfortunately seems lacking in guidance. Please see Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Evolutionary_psychology_.2F_Psyc452. I'm dropping a line on User talk:Psyc452-GGeorge--they're one of the students and seem like a nice person. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Possibly this could involve User:Memills, a long term editor of Evolutionary psychology. An account User:Psyc452-mmills created Evolution and culture. Mathsci (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Memills now blocked for a week for shenanigans in another field of interest. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, I've been working on the article in the incubator, where hopefully I can get extensive help from the wikipedia community in order to make it presentable for wikipedia. I see your pointsMathsci, and I agree with Bbb23 that the problem was in how you tagged the content because I certainly see the flaws in the article itself. jhicks0207 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhicks0207 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, this work is part of a greater project to increase available information about evolutionary psychology which myself, User:Psyc452-lrockwell, and jhicks0207 are all involved in. We by no means wished to abuse wikipedia by adding our Evolution and culture page, and are working to have it meet wikipedia's standards. Thank you Mathsci for realizing our mistake, we sincerely appreciate your feedback and are only trying to contribute to wikipedia's greater mission to empower and engage people from around the world, to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. As the information on evolutionary psychology currently on the web is limited and inaccurate, including the current wikipedia page, we are trying to help correct and build upon it. We are not spammers or vandals, we are academics well educated and researched on the field. I am currently having all of our group members, as well as extending this to others working on our same project, the online seminar wikipedia provides for new editors. Incase other students are reading this, here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Training/For_students Thank you all for your contributions, myself and my team members will work all weekend to bring the page up to wikipedias standards. If there are any further issues please contact me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyc452-cwlodarczyk (talk • contribs) 04:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sanctions for Memills?

The usernames mentioned above, Psyc452-cwodarczyk and Psyc452-lrockwell, confirm that this editing to articles related to Evolutionary psychology was coordinated off-wiki by Memills (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There is no doubt that those involved were editing in good faith as part of an educational project. It would appear that they have been misled about the purpose of wikipedia by Memills. He is currently blocked for one week for disruption on Men's rights movement. Adding content on a controversial subject in an uncritical and unbalanced way in the voice of wikipedia is unacceptable. There have been three unsuccessful but repeated attempts to add the same problematic essay-like content: Evolution and culture, Evolution and Culture and Evolutionary Psychology of Culture, and a fourth version of the content is being edited in the incubator. Given his past problematic editing and history of blocks, it would appear that something like a community ban for Memills might now be appropriate. Mathsci (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't looked into the issue but have interacted with Memills elsewhere. I thought it's worth noting that he has a second legit alt account User:Psyc-mmills (separate from User:Psyc452-mmills which is listed above). At this point these accounts are not linked but should be. Also a number of articles were created by this account and have since been deleted. User:Psyc-mmills was also warned by Yunshui in Feb 2013 regarding this issue--Cailil ^talk 20:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Super strong support for sanctions on Memills & Co. He's incorrigible, and hundreds of discussion threads over many years have failed to get through to him. Memills only cares about Memills. He has no interest in Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Other stuff

Collapsing off-topic discussion per administrative warning from Future Perfect at Sunrise. Mathsci (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What is the basis for the accusation that Memills deliberately misled and coordinated the others? The only evidence I see is that he has an alternate account with a similar username. Maybe he's participating in the same project as the other editors. Akuri (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Your Chinese open proxy was just blocked by Materialscientist. That ipv6 left a creepy trolling message on Memills' talk page.[42] Are you now editing using yet another illegal open proxy? Cailil carefully explained the problems with the alternative account of Memills (there are two other ones Psyc542-mmills and Pscy452-prjct) and the warnings he got from administrators for repeatedly re-creating deleted essay-articles. Why not go back to Timotheus Canens talk page (remember he's an arbitrator and checkuser) and explain to him why you think you have the right to edit using illegal open proxies. Mathsci (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC) I won't let you hijack this discussion with attacks on me the way you usually do. I asked you a simple question, which is whether you can support your accusation that Memills deliberately coordinated and misled the other editors. You haven't supported it. Memills was blocked for a week because he made an unsupported accusation against another editor, which counts as a personal attack. If you can't support your claim that he deliberately misled and coordinated the other editors, what you're saying about him here is just as bad as what he was blocked for. Akuri (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Your edits here are off-topic (eg User:Psyc-mmills/sandbox, etc) and show absolutely no clue about the education project. Having the same article or articles deleted and re-created 4 times in a two month period is not on. Please stop following me around in this creepy way. Hint for beginners: try doing some normal content editing for a change and stay away from project pages. Mathsci (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC) The only reason I showed up is because you've been following me and The Devil's Advocate around for a few months (see my hatted comments here), and I've asked you to stop and you won't. I think your conduct is a problem in a lot of ways, and I hope maybe the community will be able to deal with it here. I don't care how many mistakes the newbies made, you still aren't supporting your claim that Memills coordinated and misled them. Akuri (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC) As far as these students are concerned, they have been misled because they have repeatedly created the same articles which have been repeatedly deleted. That is not a useful wikipedia experience. Mathsci (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC) If you really believe," I think your conduct is a problem in a lot of ways, and I hope maybe the community will be able to deal with it here," why not try getting me community banned here? Good luck. Mathsci (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC) A community ban would be excessive, wouldn't it? As far as I can see, you make useful edits to maths articles. I just want something to stop the battleground attitude and constant accusations of bad faith against editors you disagree with. Akuri (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC) You have made 17 content edits in a month and most of those are in contentious R&I subjects. If you continue making unsubstantiated personal attacks on me, as you have just done, your account is highly likely to be blocked again. (Your range has been blocked twice, this time it could be your account.) If you want to write false statements, do it in your sandbox, not on this noticeboard. You have made it quite clear that you have no interest at all in student education projects and that your intent here was to sabotage this thread with your dreary and tiresome agenda. Mathsci (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Mathsci, please don't do actions that are supposed to be for uninvolved admins. I posted here to ask what the evidence was that Memills was responsible for the other editors' mistakes, you diverted the thread into a discussion about me, and then your removed all my comments as "off-topic". I tried to keep the discussion on the original topic of the thread, but you couldn't avoid bringing up my editing history etc. If you're going to do that, and then remove all of my posts (including my original posts about Memills) as "off-topic", it looks like the whole thing was just a pretense to get rid of what I had to say. Akuri (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Since your contributions became off-topic, you now have your own separate section where you can add whatever kind of content you want. You can propose arbcom cases; can propose ex-arbitrators who request arbcom cases on your behalf; can propose administrators at AE who propose arbcom cases on your behalf; complain about editors supposedly frightened off wikipedia; complain about abusee of administrative powers by Timotheus Canens, Future Perfect at Sunrise, MastCell, Dougweller, KillerChihuahua, etc. You can express your feeling about the injustices of not being allowed to use open proxies. You can feel free from the unnecessary distraction of either adding content to wikipedia or discussing Memills and his alternative account Psyc-mmils, which he has edited as Memills. You can shout out "battleground" to your heart's content. The best of British luck to you. Mathsci (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Akuri is showing strong signs of WP:IDHT. As Cailil commented, it is clear Memills has an alternative account Psyc-mmills, where the info page for the project is kept. As Memills he edited the info page here.[43] This is a legitimate alternative account. On his user talk page Pstc-mmills explains that he is supervising the student project. The accounts are not linked either way. As Cailil says, they should be. As Yunshui commented on User talk:Psyc-mmills#Please stop, the project was run improperly in several ways and should have involved WP online ambassadors. Mathsci (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC) As a point of information, Akuri received a specific warning from Future Perfect at Sunrise two weeks ago: I didn't actually notice Mathsci reverted me, but I now see he reinstated the hatting, though in a slightly different form, a short time after. Surely, you noticed that too, did you not? And now to the substance: Hijacking noticeboard threads for in-fighting and pursuing grudges between commentators, in ways that are unrelated or only tangentially related to the actual topic of the thread, is seriously disruptive. I saw you doing that on AN (or was it ANI) the other day and hatted you off there; now I'm seeing you do it here. Don't do it again. Please take this as another official warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Mathsci (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The initial comment in the above section: "What is the basis for the accusation that Memills deliberately misled and coordinated the others? The only evidence I see is that he has an alternate account with a similar username. Maybe he's participating in the same project as the other editors. Akuri (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)" is not off topic and should not be hatted. (The rest of the conversion pretty much is). NE Ent 18:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

In the section above it is disclosed that Memills edited the project subpage of Psyc-mmills. That second account is a legitimate but undeclared alternative account of Memills. On their talk page they state that they are the professor responsible for this wikipedia educational project. It's a trivial matter to check what's going on off-wiki, but because of WP:OUTING issues we do not discuss that publicly. Nevertheless it does indeed confirm the identification. The on-wiki edvidence, however, is completely adequate and water-tight. (Some trusted administrators and arbitrators are aware of the off-wiki information.) Cailil confirmed the identification on-wiki which is very easy (see above). As regards Akuri's postings, Future Perfect at Sunrise warned him about misusing noticeboards in exactly the way he has above (hijacking a discussion to move onto an unrelated topic). Akuri has ignored that warning and proceeded to replay the previous performance on this noticeboard that resulted in his first narrow range block by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Timotheus Canens blocked a much wider range a second time because the reasons Akuri gave for editing through a webhosting site did not add up, particularly in a contentious subject. He has declared himself to be mostly interested in R&I, with a special interest in WP:ARBR&I. Akuri is currently editing through open proxies. He has not sought or received permission from the arbitration committee. Instead he has accused Timotheus Canens of "wheel-warring." The diffs I gave above concerning the topic of the thread (an educational project) speak for themselves and are unambiguous. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Akuri has not helped here, nor his advocate-apologist NE Ent. Memills has now confirmed that he used these alternative accounts. However, he has not addressed the problem of why he did not declare his main account when questioned on the talk page of the alternative account. As the main editor of Evolutionary psychology and its talk page, that is unhelpful. The problem is that the article is on a controversial topic and not really the place to let students loose. Memills has also not addressed the creation-deletion cycle for the fork articles. With Akuri's intervention, Memills has now made a personal attack on me, while following NE Ent's advice to post an unblock request. There he stated,[44] "These edits were made under the auspices of the APA Wikipedia Initiative. Unfortunately, Mathsci is, IMHO, a malicious editor, and does not respect or appreciate Wikipedia's mission, or its policy on good faith edits." But Memills has already been told in great detail by administrators what the multiple problems have been with the way his class project has proceeded. Here is what Yunshui wrote:[45] "From the notices you've been given above and the pages that have been deleted, it is clear that you are not sufficiently conversant with Wikipedia's content guidelines and editing policies to be running a class here. If you want to use Wikipedia editing as an educational tool - and believe me, we want you to do that - then please sign up to the Wikipedia Education Progam, get a course page set up and work with one or more of our Online Ambassadors to create a suitable course for your students. If you continue creating inappropriate content, then we will - with some regret - be obliged to block your account from editing. There are ways of using Wikipedia for the purposes you intend, but if you continue to insist on disregarding them, you will not be permitted to continue editing here." So the problem is two-fold. As the principal editor of Evolutionary psychology, Memills is using his students to "help" him, effectively as proxies, with his favourite article on wikipedia; there has been little openness or transparency. Memills himself started the cycle of create-delete for new fork articles; his students, editing in good faith, have followed that pattern. That certainly must have marred their experience of wikipedia. Memills should have taken the advice of Yunshui and others concerning how to run an educational project. What positive benefit can there have been to his students from this experience on wikipedia? Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for anything in the past, but as one of the students I can discuss this project. I believe this whole educational assigmnent and Memills' behavior concerning it can be characterized by one word: Ambition. The whole project was Ambitious because Memills was indeed advised that creating articles in a controversial field was challenging; many editors chimed in by saying that content editing and improving current articles were better alternatives for new users. However, through a firm belief in one of the pillars of Wikipedia, Memills forged ahead with the project, one that would allow students to dive right in to Wikipedia. Of course, this was a trial by fire and we ran into many difficulties. Yet all these difficulties could be managed through talk pages, discussion on the articles for deletion page, and eventually the Educational Noticeboard. I do apologize for any confusion or editor inconvenience that was caused by our project, especially at the onset, as I admit clear lines of communication would have smoothed over many of these difficulties.

However, the only blatant and repeated infraction of Wikipedia policy was the continued creation of the "Evolution and Culture" page, which I stress was not endorsed by Memills. It was the result of confused, well-meaning students who were concerned about their performance in the course. Memills did inform us that the articles could be mercilessly edited and/or deleted and that it was our responsibility to work with the editors to make progress. If it falls to Memills to take responsibility for one group's repeated rule infractions, then I also ask you to also consider groups that DID cooperate with editors as a sign of good faith for Memills and his proactive attempts to inform students of their responsibilities.

In the context of this project, the claims that Memills is incorrigible and using students as proxies to further his agenda are baseless. Sure, Memills is passionate about the topic, stubbornly so sometimes, yet I never felt like a pawn carrying out some grand scheme. I felt like I was part of a drafting and editing process. When my group's article was accused (rightfully so) of being a content fork, it forced me to think critically on how to improve the article, on whether to merge it with another etc. It's unfortunate that so many articles ended up being essaylike and uncritical. I assure you, that was not the intention. There was no intentional 'misleading'. Quite the contrary, Memills provided us with links to wikipedia's policies and even quizzed our understanding with a small test of wikipedia knowledge.

There's no doubt that using the Educational Assignment Guidelines would have been much easier on everyone involved in this project. However, the resulting trouble seems to just be a misunderstanding. With his ambitious project, Memills seemed to overestimate the student's commitment to quality articles and understanding wikipedia; this created the current dilemma for wikipedia editors. On the other hand, most wikipedia editors seem convinced that Memills is hellbent on raising trouble for wikipedia through his students by disregarding policies meant to help them. I'm personally convinced that this project was well-meant but not properly executed. The things we should take from this is that students MUST know what is inappropiate (repeatedly creating deleted articles) and that this message should be reinforced by both the instructor and editors, preferably working together with clear communication.Psyc452-GGeorge (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

But your own deleted-re-created article has just been deleted at an AfD.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary psychology of non-kin group interactions I'm sorry, no matter how passionate Memills might be at your educational institution, that does not excuse the fact that he has been consciously ignoring wikipedia rules, despite warnings. On the talk page of the alternative account the following articles were listed as having been deleted:

• Evolutionary Psychology of Ethics and Morality
• Evolutionary Psychology of Kinship and Family
• Evolutionary Psychology of Consciousness
• Evolutionary psychology of emotion and motivation
• Evolutionary psychology of abnormal behavior
• Evolutionary psychology of sex differences

Two articles mentioned on his talk page survived, Evolutionary Psychology of Group (Non-kin) Interactions (but only as a redirect to a deleted article) and Evolutionary Psychology of Language (also recreated [46]): whether they would survive AfD's is another thing. Evolutionary psychology of language seems to be a content fork of Evolutionary psychology#Language. I do not know how many other articles were deleted and possibly recreated. Anyway Memills knows that this is a controversial topic, so choosing it as the topic of an educational project was not a good idea. Here is another deleted-re-created essay:Evolutionary psychology of kin selection and family (including logged out edits [47]). These problems surfaced already in February, when Yunshui warned Memills (as Psyc-mmills). After two and a half months it has finally registered that making incremental changes to existing non-controversial articles is a better way to proceed. The constant deletion/re-creation of fork articles and the more recent "major updating" of evolutionary psychology was unhelpful, no matter how well intentioned. There's also Evolutionary psychology of parenting and Evolutionary Psychology of Sex Differences / Mating (with logged off edits [48][49]).

So the three surviving fork articles are:

• Evolutionary psychology of kin selection and family (fork of Evolutionary psychology#Family and kin, recreation of deleted article Evolutionary Psychology of Kinship and Family)
• Evolutionary psychology of language (fork of Evolutionary psychology#Language) (deleted in February [50])
• Evolutionary psychology of parenting (fork of Evolutionary psychology#Parenting)
• Evolutionary Psychology of Sex Differences / Mating (fork of Evolutionary psychology#Mating; listed for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary Psychology of Sex Differences / Mating, already deleted in February as Evolutionary psychology of sex differences)

Mathsci (talk) 07:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

APS Wikipedia initiative

For background here, there are a number of groups editing Wikipedia articles as part of an initiative sponsored by the Association for Psychological Science (APS). See http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/members/aps-wikipedia-initiative for more information. I'm not sure the group here is part of that, but probably it is. Some of the groups are working under the auspices of the Education project and are well organized, others are sort of hacking around. However it is worth emphasizing that nearly all of these people are acting in a good-faith effort to improve Wikipedia. Looie496 (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Fladrif with their finger on the trigger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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 [51] 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: [52] --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 [53]

*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 [54]. --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.[55][56] 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.[57] 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 [58] [59] that got Dreadstar a 1 week block (on 15 November 2011 [60]). Also, it is several years since Fladrif's last block, which was 72 hours [61]. 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. 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)

Admin impersonation and other mischief

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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. 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:[62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70] (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:[71][72][73][74]

Further revert after deleting warning:[75][76]

ANI notices:[77][78][79] --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)

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:
[80] -- assertions of criminality and a Kate Coleman SFGate piece
[81] -- 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: [82] [83] [84]
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)

Orlady

I feel it is my duty to inform the group of a situation that has arisen due to my work on the Category:County government in the United States category. I am sure that many of you realize that this is an area which had been neglected because people do not care enough about it, even though it deserves the attention. County government is just far enough out of people's attention that most people could not name a single one of their elected county officials, yet perhaps more deserving of attention than, for instance, the mayor of a municipality within a county (a person which most people usually could name).

I soon ran into a few small issues that came up, and I responded to the eventual consensus. The matter was the question "Is a county government local government, or is it an agency of state government?" I can tell you for absolute certain, that with a very few possible exceptions, that county governments are agencies of the state government that are locally accountable through elections. The Wikipedia consensus was that county government is local government, and I organized it as such. Even thought the campaigning and elections are local, the actual governing involves state powers.

In the course of these discussions User:Orlady was very immature, unhelpful an obstructionist. There were no policy violations, at that time, but the fact is that I lost respect for this person quickly, and for my part I have refused to respond to her immaturity, and informed her not to contact me further. At this point I think I have a case for Wikipedia:Harassment, and if it does not rise to that level yet, then I feel I need to put these events on the record, so as to establish that a pattern is occurring.

A) Orlady spammed about a dozen state article talk pages (including Rhode Island and Connecticut which have no county government?!?). At some point I interjected and pointed all the discussion to WikiProject United States, and WikiProject Politics. I was willing to enter into a discussion of the matter, but not 50 discussions. Orlady interpred this as **ME** starting new discussions while there were on-going discussions. Obviously this is very disingenuous.

B) At some point I mentioned my education and experience in the subject matter, and I have not heard the last of it! How arrogant I must be! There is a brain drain problem at Wikipedia, and knowledgeable editors are being driven away by the hoi polloi that very often prevails. For myself, when there are editors who are knowledgeable in subject matter in which I am not, I stay out of their way.

C) Orlady specifically mentioned the idea about discouraging me from editing, and the idea that perhaps in the future, I would not be editing.

D) I had asked for some time to do some work on the category, but that has been met with cries that I am WP:OWNing content. So I have been dealing with hypersensitive sniping, nitpicking and reverting of my work in the area. It's hard enough already without her. She appears to be wikistalking me.

E) Orlady has opposed every proposal for moving, renaming or deleting categories, as well as every proposal to merge articles which I have made, and which is her right. However, I feel it is my duty to express my view that she has not brought up a single useful point in the entire course of the discussion.

F) The most disturbing development is that it now appears that even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Orlady is standing by her false beliefs and imposing it in the content. This is agenda editing, and not appropriate. My claim is that a county government is an agency of the state government, and this claim is supported by several sources, and is what I learned in graduate level studies in local and state government. Here are just a few sources which support my claim: (Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin) Furthermore, the NACO website itself states that "...early state constitutions generally conceptualized county government as an arm of the state." Orlady has looked at this evidence, and rather than accept and learn from it, is clinging to denialism1, and trying to rationalize her own views with her own wild interpretations 2. Most recently she deleted a substantial amount of content from County government in the United States which is completely objective information, but which contradicts her agenda.

H) She has posted about me personally, which is not relevant to any discussion underway.

G) Orlady announced her intention to continue to hound me in the future.

I am perfectly willing to account for all of the nuances and variances in county government as the evidence arises. However, At some point I think a topic ban may be in order for Orlady. I need to be able to work in a mutually respectful environment. Could some reasonable and mature editors intervene please?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregbard (talk • contribs)

I have only a few comments to your wall of text. First, for so many accusations, there are very few diffs. Second, just glancing at Orlady's talk page, your comments appear rather lopsided. Third, I took a look at some of the articles, and, in my view, they are a mess. Your just-created article, County government in the United States, has ONE source for a very large article. Then, there's Local government in the United States, which was created quite a while ago. Putting aside some problems (an imbedded Wikipedia reference in the lead?), it's not clear to me why you needed to create your article, particularly given yet another longstanding, pre-existing article, County (United States). As an aside, when you report someone here, you are required to notify them; I did so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, my fifteen minutes of reading led me to the conclusion that you are primarily unhappy that consensus went against your viewpoint. Sorry about that, can't be helped. This admin page is not the place to resolve content disputes.

This page is for examining editor conduct, and I can't find anything Orlady did which was sanctionable, certainly nothing meriting a topic ban. [OK, this diff deserves a wrist-slap, and one will be duly administered. But beyond that, I see no evidence of an agenda, conspiracy or serious misconduct. Your own conduct appears to be far more tenditious (eg. repeatedly dismissing other editors' comments as "Not Helpful"). Manning (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrist-slap was deserved and is duly acknowledged/accepted. For the record, I've investigated some of sources that Gregbard offers in support of his claim that counties are in fact state agencies, and I've recorded my analysis at User:Orlady/County by state (structured after his user page of the same name). --Orlady (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The original poster called Orlady a liar in this post [85]; I request they strike the comment (preferred) or support it with diffs if unwilling to do so. NE Ent 02:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Other editors have expressed concern to me about Gregbard's ownership and tendentious behavior with respect to his theories on the nature and derivation of local governments in the US, and his use and structuring of categories to support his assertions. He appears to assert that he is entitled to edit-war over categories "Because I had asked for your cooperation and you refused to give it." [86] Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I find the comments: "... you have an entitled attitude..." and "It is very clear that you have supreme confidence in your own beliefs" in the link provided by NE Ent to be ironic, if not outright hypocritical. I'm sensing that there may be a WP:BOOMERANG nearby. — Ched :  ?  02:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that this case appears to star an inbound WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

So the question is, what to do about it? Is Gregbard's participation in this particular domain a net positive even as he wars against what would appear to be wider consensus? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: Gregbard is currently saying the same sorts of things to (and about) Alansohn as he has said to and about me in this section of Gregbard's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Gregbard

• Sheesh... OK I read most of the cites given above and frankly Gregbard's perspective (My claim is that a county government is an agency of the state government) seems quite... unique. To be fair, I am coming to the topic in near total ignorance, but even so, nothing he provided seems to visibly support his position. The Alabama example is a legal dispute over shared costs... and well, "dependent entities" don't tend to take independent legal action. Even the NACO site seems to confirm the consensus position. (Gregbard's NACO quote above was talking about how things were back when state constitutions were drafted, it then goes on to contrast how things are different today). Of the several parties who have participated in discussion, I did not find one who agreed with his position.
• Despite all that, we're not here to rule on content matters. So... what I DO see is someone seriously unwilling to abide by consensus, who ref-dumps and then claims victory (even though the refs are far from conclusive), who has apparently major WP:OWN issues, and who is quite uncivil to anyone who gets in his way. As a result, I'd be well inclined to recommend a topic ban on GregBard for any local government related articles.Manning (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• In looking through the contribs, especially on various talk pages - I can Support this. — Ched :  ?  17:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - A no-brainer. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support as it seems related changes continue to be made against consensus per this recent editBoogerpatrol (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment You people should be ashamed of yourselves. I came here in good faith to report a situation to the supposedly mature members of the community. The climate here is more similar to a prison yard than an academic senate. Boomerang, indeed. Let me go on the record to state that I put in a great deal of effort in a neglected area, which in any fair and reasonable universe would be appreciated, and I was promptly derided and hounded by people with no special knowledge or experience in the subject matter. I reported the situation to the wider community, and rather than have logic and critical thinking prevail, they got mired in the egos and personalities. I provided about a dozen references, any one of which taken at face value suppports my conclusion, and which together form a strong argument for my claim. Rather than accept the simplest, most reasonable interpretation, you chose to accept the wild convoluted rationalizations of a immature person with no claim to expertise in the area. I stand by my claim that I am the mature adult in the room.

• Even my mature response to her immaturity is being interpreted as *MY* being immature. Orlady's comments were unhelpful, in that they did not address the actual issue, but rather were an attack on myself to which I maturely refused to respond. These discussions are open and readable by anyone at anytime into the future. Let the record show that I did not back down from the ignorant, and the ignorant plowed forward. This is a Wikipedia:Fail.Greg Bard (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You asked for a referee on the matter. It has been provided. I did not previously know Orlady or any of the other participants, so I had no bias toward any individual. I did not examine the conclusions of any other participant. I did, however, examine all of your references, and was unable to see on what basis any of them supported your conclusion (as discussed above). The NACO reference you provided above specifically contradicted it. No-one has derided or abused you, but you have abused and derided everyone who disagrees with you. I stand by my claim that I am the mature adult in the room. You are welcome to make any claim you like, it will have no impact on our collective decision. Manning (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"A mature person is one who does not think only in absolutes, who is able to be objective even when deeply stirred emotionally, who has learned that there is both good and bad in all people and all things, and who walks humbly and deals charitably." -- Eleanor Roosevelt, channeled by 71.139.157.86 (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support this as preferable to the watered-down 3-month version below. Civility problems, WP:OWNership issues, and an apparent persecution complex make a rather nasty cocktail when mixed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure why Gregbard is informing readers of over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy about the proposed topic ban on local government. I'm also not sure why he felt it necessary to edit other people's comments in the process. Very odd. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a form of WP:CANVASSING. --Orlady (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Support topic ban and a side order of trout. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion to above

• Sigh Ok, I WP:AGF about what Gregbard is trying to do. However, his method is frickin ridiculous. What I would prefer to see is this:

• a 3 month topic ban from making changes to any article related to government, broadly construed. He may continue to discuss changes or potential additions on the talkpage of any government-related article. Gregbard is also subject to civility parole during those 3 months. Although "optional" in my view, I would recommend mentoring for him in order to better learn what CONSENSUS really means, and how this project works as a whole through its many processes, policies and community nature (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - The claim that a county government is an agency of a state government is patently absurd, and the fact that not only does he refuse to change his position but is attacking other editors to defend it is extremely concerning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. --Orlady (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• From my WP:INVOLVED perspective, this seems like the right sort of direction to take, but with a couple of modifications:

1. The topic ban should apply not only to articles, but also to pages in the Template and Category spaces. I suggest this because much of the recent contention has occurred in those spaces.
2. For proposed categorization projects, once consensus on a proposal has been reached (as determined by someone who isn't Gregbard) on an appropriate talk page or project page, Gregbard may make edit government-related pages to add them to categories. To avoid misunderstandings, the consensus to authorize Gregbard to make such categorization edits should be recorded (by some other user) as part of the conclusion of the talk-page discussion. I suggest this because categorization has been Gregbard's main focus recently in relation to government and much of his categorization work has been productive and non-controversial. --Orlady (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I can agree with the first, but no ... do NOT allow him to edit those pages, other than talk. Pushing the envelope like that will just lead to problems later (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support with Orlady's conditions. Gregbard is willful and disruptive but can be productive. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I have been give absolutely NO warning prior to this sudden non-judicious proposal to ban me from a topic area in which I have made a huge contribution. Even my original post to this group about Orlady was only to put the issue on the record. What have I done to deserve such a rash, severe response? The problem could just as easily been resolved by rashly banning her (which, I was too fair-minded to propose). I have violated no policies, so this amounts to a political issue. I have start over 60 articles in the area of local government. If I am banned, I will immediately appeal. Don't waste my time or others with this outrageous impatience. For my part, I have stopped editing, as I am shocked at the shark tank mentality here. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. I have only my words, as reasonable and decent people don't have a lot of tools at our disposal. If you use administrative powers against me, you are a bully, and don't deserve them. Greg Bard (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Reporting something to ANI is never just "putting it on the record". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)What he said. Also accusing people of being bullies doesn't help your case; 'I will immediately appeal' and 'Don't waste your time' are not words that help your position, either. The fact of the matter here, Greg, is that after reviewing your claim here - which you continue to insist is correct without even the slightest possibility of your being mistaken, despite everyone else contending you are, being considered - it is entirely without basis. If you make a claim that cannot be verified, such as 'county governments are agencies of state governments', and then personally attack people who call you on it while continuing in the aforementioned 'I'm right because I'm right' behavior, you shouldn't be surprised when people start wondering if you're a net positive to the project. Your "huge contribution" matters not if you refuse to follow policies that are in the Five Pillars in your editing. I'd strongly suggest you drop the stick, accept that you are in the wrong, have some seafood, and move on - if you continue as you have been above, a topic ban is inevitable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Greg - I've run into you before (I forget where...) - I'm not involved in this, I couldn't care less about the definition of county governments, I'm not an admin, and I'm not gonna vote. I just wanted to say two things: (1) Read WP:Boomerang. I've seen this happen before - anytime you bring anything to ANI, everything you do is scrutinized equally. No warning is required for any action that results (2) I can see your frustration, but in some of your edits you're not really taking a consensus-building approach. You may be right, but you may not win with that approach. Maybe take a break, go into another topic area for a while, walk away from wikipedia, do something else. It will still be here when you're back. Every time I've gotten fired up about something, I have eventually regretted it here, and every time I've tried to work in a more gentle fashion, things have worked better. Just a few thoughts. cheers --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wise words, those are. Heed them, you should. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll try a different angle. Gregbard - we ("the admins") only have one agenda - to protect and enhance the project. We do not support any individual - we don't even support each other - unless the project directly benefits. You may have believed that coming to AN/I would only provoke the admin body to examine Orlady's conduct. But it didn't - we ALWAYS examine the entire situation, and then we try to do what we believe is best for the entire project. We don't always get it right, and we definitely encounter a lot of criticism, but that is exclusively what motivates us and directs our action.

I know you believe quite strongly that the project is benefiting hugely from your contributions. However your agenda ("to present the truth") and our agenda ("to preserve the project") have now come into direct conflict. You state above that you have not violated any policy, but I can say with great confidence you've clearly violated two of our biggest ones - Civility and Consensus.

SO, your approach to presenting the truth is strongly going against "how we do things" - through the Five Pillars. You are welcome to criticize our process (everyone else does). But for all of its faults, our process works, and we have Wikipedia as proof. So please examine The Bushranger's and Obi-Wan Kenobi's advice given above - it is well worth heeding. Manning (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If Gregbard is dropping his participation in this domain voluntarily then we're done here, at least for now (his misunderstandings of the consequence of consensus, of the role of administrators and of the purpose of ANI may work against him elsewhere, but that's for another day). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that Gregbard is dropping out of this area voluntarily, if his most recent statement on this talk page (later than anything he's said on this page) is any indication. --Orlady (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on the above, it seems clear that discussion and negotiation are not really achieving any success. Can an uninvolved admin review this discussion and make a determination? Manning (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support I've experienced much of what Orlady has endured in dealing with Gregbard. The inability for GB to recognize that consensus may conflict with his interpretation of ultimate truth has led to an inability to work together as part of a community. There is room for cleanup and reorganization of county and local government articles, but the idiosyncratic interpretations of source materials and the failure to work towards consensus have made these areas more of a mess than they ever were before. A period of reflection and observation would be helpful. Alansohn (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Admin abuse

We have a new issue here. I have tried to defend myself against accusations, and my attempts to defend myself are being met with offence that I should even try! I have stated that I think I am being bullied at this point, and I am being told "not to take this approach." Bullying is an important issue in our society today. We have a system here with no due process, and my options, in terms of my free speech are limited here (i.e my ability to defend myself without running up against some other restrictive policy). You know if someone told me that I was "bullying" someone, I would be taken aback, and stop to investigate the nature of my offence, because I am a morally reflective person. When I tell this group that I am being bullied, and told not to speak out about it, well that's how bullies act. They don't hear plaintiff pleas to stop, and they plow forward. I am being accused of thinks that I didn't do, and this situation has just gotten way out of control on your part. I'm getting very condescending messages on my talk page filled with presumptions, and I don't have a system of due process available to me to defend myself. What are the limits of consensus? If there is no policy violation, do you just make up a conflict and then claim that the consensus itself is the policy violation?!? What are my options here? Is there a wikiadvocate who can investigate this whole situation for me? Can I post a message to this board every day for the next three months, or will that be intrerpreted as a policy violation? The most recent false accusation being levied against me is that I have stated that I will not cooperate with the consensus. So where exactly have I said that?! People are plowing forward with their presumptions as if they are real, and here I am telling people to stop, and not being heard. Who do I go to if my claim is that this process is being abused? I take this situation very seriously, and I wonder if those who have the power to abuse me take what they are doing as seriously as I do. I have stopped editting and am devoting my full time to the political and judicial issues which have arisen as a result of my good faith report to this noticeboard. Does anyone have a problem with the idea of issuing sanctions on someone for good faith actvities?! I have stated that I will cooperate. You basically have a gun to my head, and I have my hands up. If you pull the trigger, that really supports my claim that this situation is abuse. Greg Bard (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"I have stopped editting and am devoting my full time to the political and judicial issues which have arisen as a result of my good faith report to this noticeboard." See also, WP:NOTHERE Bobby Tables (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about, but I guess it relates to the ANI thread above about Orlady? I'll look at it, but in the meantime: "Does anyone have a problem with the idea of issuing sanctions on someone for good faith actvities?!" Not necessarily, no. People do things in good faith that are wrong all the time. If they can't learn from their mistakes, then we have to stop them through sanctions. An example: take a person who doesn't understand copyright policy. They keep uploading text from copyrighted sources without attribution. Now, they might think, "Oh, well the text is published, so it's out in the public and not private, therefore it's in the public domain and okay for me to copy." That's not an entirely unreasonable conclusion, and they're doing it in good faith, believing that it's okay and in Wikipedia's benefit. But it's still wrong, and if they don't listen to explanations and learn from their mistakes, then eventually we may be forced to block them, to prevent more copyright violations from seeping into the project. Everything they did, they did in good faith, but it still ended up in blocks and sanctions. It's unfortunate, of course, but it's necessary. Again, I don't know what your situation actually is, so this isn't a comment on or an analogy to your actions specifically; just a response to the general principle of sanctioning someone for good-faith actions. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Saw the thread title and came here to abuse an admin. This is false advertising. :) Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You were cautioned previously what could happen if you would not come in line to the Wikipedia community consensus regarding behavior and how to build consensus. Now you've opened another ANI thread and it looks like you're complaining about the cries of "Admin abuse" for being properly warned and some community members suggesting that it would be in the best interest of the community to not edit for a while. Having looked at your talk page (and it's history) I'm inclined to agree. Wikipedia is not the government, and you don't have rights here. Wikipedia grants you privileges that can be suspended or revoked depending on the community's perception of your actions.

'TL:DR You were warned about WP:BOOMERANG and now here it is.

PS: Where's the abuse of admin I came to enjoy? Hasteur (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Suicide by admin (board (post)). LOL. 79.119.87.157 (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Greg, at this point it's as if you're asking to be blocked, as you are clearly not listening to a word that's been said - or, perhaps more precisely, you're putting your own, prejudiced by virtue of your obvious "I'm right, because I am right, and I CANNOT be wrong" POV, spin on what is being said. Consensus is that your original contention that raised this whole mess is erronious. That's not "made-up conflict" - the only person causing, and escalating, conflict here is you. I repeat what I said earlier: you could easily avoid any and all topic-bannings by simply realising that you are not in the right here, admitting as such, and stating that you won't WP:BATTLEGROUND against consensus in a WP:IDHT manner in the future. If instead, however, you post another rant as you did above, you'll simply establish, through your own actions, that you don't understand the very basis of how Wikipedia works, and that you're here to spread WP:THETRUTH, not to build an encyclopedia. (You might also want to have a look, based on your comments above, at WP:FREESPEECH.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to the admin abuse claim

Greg - I will continue to try and negotiate with you. I'll note I have made several previous comments and you have not responded to any of them.

• I have tried to defend myself against accusations - Could you show us where have you done this? There are many comments and suggestions above from a variety of admins (not just myself), and I don't see your response anywhere.

I still have yet to see a valid accusation! What exactly is it that I am accused of?! The idea seems to be that I have gone against consensus, and I have yet to see a discussion that has been closed! As far as I know, I was still trying to inform the consensus. We do, however have the example of Orlady redirecting the County government in the United States article after a merge had been proposed, one person registered their opinion, all within 24 hours. Is that the way we are supposed to achieve consensus?!? This is outrageous. I am not playting games here. I am telling you this situation is out of control, and AI am getting nothing but patronizing, condescending, ill-informed statement directed toward myself. My proposal is to delay any sanctions for one week. I think this has been very rashly put forward. I have recieve NO warning. I have been given NO opportunity to correct myself, nor has anything been put forward that I need to correct. The idea seems to be that I should roll over and die, and anything less is some great offence that is making my situation worse. That isn't judicious. That isn't fair-mminded. That isn't a mature, rational use of administrative authority at all. I have been present in discussion from the very beginning of these issues, so the idea that punitive sanctions are needed is gratuitous abuse of power.Greg Bard (talk)

As to what you are accused of, I would list ignoring/bypassing Wikipedia consensus procedures and severe incivility, particularly but not exclusively directed at me.

The above comment includes a false accusation against me. I did not unilaterally redirect County government in the United States. It was redirected by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah following merger discussion at Talk:Local government in the United States, where that other user judged that the consensus was to redirect. My subsequent edit there was a null edit done to supply an edit summary to identify the talk page that the other user's edit summary had identified as the location for continued discussion. I personally thought that Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's action was premature (if I encountered it in my role as an administrator, I would not have closed the discussion or taken action), but I think the judgement of consensus probably was valid in view of the direction that the discussion was taking. Your comment here indicates that you didn't look at the edit history or the talk pages when you restored the full article and blamed its redirection on "one person". I did revert that edit of yours 23 hours later, after additional discussion had occurred on the new talk page the other user had started and after this WP:ANI discussion was well under way. At that point, I did comment that the redirection had been "proper" and based on consensus; mostly I wanted the edit history to document why the redirection had occurred. --Orlady (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Is there a wikiadvocate who can investigate this whole situation for me? - Yes, that is us. And despite your protests and accusations of "bullying", many of us are actually trying to help you. No actual action has been taken by anyone, we are still trying to sort the matter out. However if a ban is applied, you can take the matter to the arbitration committee's ban appeals process.

You don't seem to be listening to me at all, and instead seem to be presuming guilt from the beginning.

• The most recent false accusation being levied against me is that I have stated that I will not cooperate with the consensus. So where exactly have I said that? - In numerous places, but this is a good example.

Excuse me! That doesn't state anywhere that I intend to go against the consensus AT ALL, but is rather still an attempt to inform it. So I will ask the same question again, and please show me one of the "numerous places" that are not a matter of a wild interpretation! Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have stated that I will cooperate. Good. Please start by explaining on the talk page of the relevant articles how you achieve your conclusion from the references you have provided. Sweeping statements like "Any intelligent person can see I am right" are NOT helpful. I am an intelligent person, as are all of the admins here, but I cannot not see how you got to your conclusion from the references you cited. If anything, they contradict your claim (particularly the NACO example). If an argument is not strong enough to persuade the editors, how can we expect it to sound reasonable to our readers?

The NACO claim directly supports my claim in no unambiguous terms. It clearly states that the original intention was that "counties were created as an arm of the state", and sure does not name some event where any of that changed.

I provided about a dozen links. If the sun came up yesterday, and it came up the day before, and it came up the day before... it is reasonable to believe that it will come up tomorrow. That's how the principle of induction that underlies all of scientific knowledge works, and that is how theories work. So each one of the dozen or so individually support my claim, and together they form a strong argument for my claim. At this point my explaining this seems like I'm being condescending, which I do not wish to be. However it appears to be necessary. At least one of those sources includes the clear statement: "It is a well settled matter that counties are an arm of the state."Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Greg, you provided those links on a page in your user space (where I am not permitted to engage in discussion) and on a couple of other users' talk spaces. You have not presented your evidence in venues designed for content discussion at Wikipedia. If you want other Wikipedians to accept your opinions as valid, you need to tell us what your opinions are, you need to provide a sourced basis for your views (saying "I was taught this in college in no uncertain terms" doesn't qualify as sourcing), you need to let other people participate in discussion, you need to be willing to interact with those other people, and you need to let the discussion take some time. Finally, you need to accept that Wikipedia consensus might go against you; you cannot "win" by announcing that your position is correct because you know you are correct and because you know that everyone else here lacks your superior qualifications.

As for the links you cite as evidence, I have to confess that I laughed out loud when I followed some of them. (Thanks for adding a little levity to my day. See User:Orlady/County by state for my comments on some of your evidence.) For the most part, your links are to primary sources, which are not generally relied upon at Wikipedia because they are susceptible to misinterpretation and misrepresentation. Your "it is a well settled matter" quote is from this document, which is not only a primary source, but a non-authoritative primary source, being an attorney's legal brief, specifically a "Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint". One lawyer's argument is hardly authoritative, and my reading of the brief indicates that your quotation has far less significance in context than you place upon it. Some of your quotations are even more severely misinterpreted; for example, at one point you cited this court document to say "several Washington decisions refer to the county as an arm or agency of the state," but the complete sentence says the opposite: "Although several Washington decisions refer to the county as an arm or agency of the state, a county is not generally considered an agency of the state in spite of the general language found in these cases." Your assertions of moral, intellectual, and academic superiority might be more compelling if your evidence were not so weak. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Also please stop telling anyone who disagrees with you that they are ignorant and/or not helpful. That is textbook incivility. Please also do not tell people to "defer" to your opinion - that is the very opposite of consensus building.

People really seem to be offended that I responded to Orlady's comments at WP:USA with "Not helpful" REALLY?! That was an attempt to avoid arguing about irrelevant issues. That was a very mature move on my part. Those statements of hers were not helpful, and my identifying them as such were not some great insult. Furthermore, I thought we were mature enough to handle requests to defer. That was my presumption in the context of AGF. I think this is a gross hypersensitivity on the part of people who are just looking to make trouble for me. That isn't AGF. I say it again: people should be ashamed of themselves. It isn't rhetoric either. I am a fair-minded person, and I have demonstrated that conspicuously. Being "ignorant" is not a morally blameful thing. It isn't offensive to a mature adult to have one's ignorance pointed out to them. There are plenty of areas in which I am ignorant. Knowing right from wring isn't one of them. Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You said "not helpful" to multiple other participants in that discussion. That was just one example of a refusal to engage in discussion aimed at reaching consensus. I've been trying to figure out why you consider that responding to another person with a curt dismissal of "not helpful" is a sign of maturity, and all I can come up with is that it's similar to a parent telling a child "because I said so". As a veteran parent myself, I don't see that parental behavior as particularly mature; regardless, unsubstantiated assertions of superior authority aren't how we resolve differences of opinion at Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The admins are charged with a responsibility - to prevent disruption to the project. Right now it is very difficult to interpret what you are doing as anything other than disruption. So work with us, talk to us as reasonable people, please stop insulting everyone involved, and and maybe we can work this out. Manning (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a harsh, unnecessary, interpretation and goes completely against AGF. You should apply the same disposition toward Orlady with regard to the fact that I requested she not contact me again, and yet she has repeatedly badgered me, as well as the merge without consensus which she performed, the evidence of which is indisputable. I go back to my original claim: Orlady is a troublemaker, and she has you all played. For my part, I have stopped editing in the articlespace, and if I am sanctioned I feel I will have no choice but to address the systemic issues that have lead to this attack on myself. We could analyse this situation in depth for months if you feel that the priority is to teach me some lesson. Please do articulate what that lesson is first. Show me a closed discussion, whose consensus I have gone against. Show me an example of incivility, which could not also be interpreted as standing firm in ones position. The lesson so far seems to me to be a political one, that just defending oneself is itself on offence. I don't think that is what admins want to impart. So please do use your words, not your powers, of which I have none. Pretend for a moment that the respect of a person who has no powers over you matters.

We don't rd" tiue process here. We rely on the fair-mindedness of administrators. Yet we have people mockingly throwing "boomerang" as if stating that makes it fair or reasonable. I have receive NO warning, and the moment the proposal to sanction me arose, I stopped in my tracks. This has put a chill on my contributions (which are substantial and numerous in the very area which it is proposed I be banned). Where did this proposal of three months come from? Was this well thought out? Do we have a sanction seriousness index, or is this one size fits all? We already have a several day stop in my activities to address this administrative action on me. Does this time count? I am requesting that sanctions be immediately taken off the table. I have about a dozen biographies of mayors, and representatives which I am working on for which there is NO good reason to stop me from creating. Where are the priorities here? Is Orlady so well trusted that you are willing to stop this productive work? Is that not a real "disruption of the project" or do you not see it that way? Is the process more important than the goal here? If so, I think you have lost your way.

When I was in college, I was appointed chairman of the student Bill of Rights committee for the entire California State University system (the largest system of higher education in the world with 450,000 students). I served in that capacity, because caring about protecting people's rights are important to me. I went on to serve as commissioner of judicial affairs, and later served as the "lawyer" in the case that established judicial review at my university (you don't need a license to practice law before a student judiciary). I am fairly certain that I take respecting people's rights more seriously than is being taken here. When I say, that people should be ashamed at abusing their position, I have done what I need to do in my life for my words to mean something here. I have made over 70, 000 edits to wikipedia. I feel personally responsible for the integrity and reputation of Wikimedia, and I have defended it publicly. I have reached out to other organizations on Wikimedia's behalf with the idea that they are worth it. Do not disgrace yourselves by eating one of your own most loyal, decent and valuable members.

The Wikimedia Board of Directors does not seem to involve itself in the consensus decision making process here. Do not prove them wrong by abusing your given administrative powers for no good reason. I used to be on the board of a community radio station, as well as a public access tv station. Those organizations were in their adolescent stages when I served on their boards. There were all kinds of issues and conflicts, and by the time my term on their boards were done, I had helped make them more professional organizations. Please drop the condescending to me, and consider for a moment that I am all that I have claimed to be -- a mature adult waiting for those around me to join me. Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yea, that's what way too many admins think. protect and enhance. WP:Administrator doesn't actually say that. You know it's called a mop -- not a sword and shield. What the better admins (of which there are many) get is the real purpose of admins is to help editors. This editor came here looking for help. So help him. That doesn't mean talking at him. The AGF interpretation of Gregbard's actions is that they're a frustrated editor who doesn't get the consensus model of Wikipedia, and the total lack of due process per WP:NOJUSTICE. By the way, Orlady made unnecessary posts to GB's page [87] after being requested not to [88]. That "defer" diff [89]? Doesn't say "defer to my opinion." Says defer to Wikipedia:Capitalization -- hardly a radical statement. NE Ent 02:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent - It is the responsibility of ALL editors to protect and enhance the project. Admins are no different in that regard, they just have a few extra tools to accomplish some specific tasks, and by community consensus are entrusted with making certain judgment calls. As to this case, no sanction has been applied. Numerous admins have reached out to Greg Bard to try and resolve the situation. Yes, I did interpret that diff as meaning "defer to my opinion" - but if I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected. Either way we need GregBard to participate in the discussion in a constructive manner. Manning (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Of potential additional relevance

I don't want to get into substantive discussion but for information purposes another discussion relating to Greg and county categories is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Opposed nominations, hinging on whether or not a number of categories on county government should be speedily renamed in line with others recently created by him or whether that does not constitute a convention that qualifies them for speedy. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

My recommendation and final comments

OK, I've gone as far as I can productively go here, so this will be my last comment. Based on the above, GregBard seems wholly committed to his stance which boils down to "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong". Our collective attempts to engage him in productive discussion have largely failed (see above, and also here). As NE Ent observes above, GregBard does not appear to "get" the consensual model, at least as far as this topic is concerned. In this example he declares he will "abide by consensus", but then goes on to misrepresent the consensus that emerged in the preceding discussion as aligning with his viewpoint (by placing all categories under "state government").

In my opinion (speaking only as an editor, not as an admin), none of his references lend support to his position, despite his repeated insistence to the contrary. The NACO example seems to completely contradict his claim - the page directly contrasts the original formulation of county government (as GregBard states, as an "arm of the state") with the current arrangement, and states... "After World War I, population growth, and suburban development, the government reform movement strengthened the role of local governments.... Changes in structure, greater autonomy from the states, rising revenues, and stronger political accountability ushered in a new era for county government." Throughout the various occasions when someone has questioned his reasoning, the response is either "it's obvious" or "I am the educated person, so you should abide by what I say". Needless to say, neither of these response types reflect "how we do things".

On that basis, it is thus my assessment (as an admin) that GregBard is engaged in disruptive conduct - although in fairness there is no deliberate intent to be disruptive as such. On the plus side, he has not editing any county related article since this AN/I discussion began to focus on his activity. If this remains the status quo, then this thread can be closed without further action. If however, the disruptive editing resumes, then I believe a topic ban of some duration will become necessary, as per the above discussion. I will let another admin to make that determination.

To another matter - Gregbard has repeatedly requested punitive action be taken against Orlady. I and several other admins have reviewed the actions of Orlady, and I reprimanded her for improper conduct in one case (a reprimand she accepted without dispute). Others are free to examine her actions, of course, but I do not feel there is anything else actionable here. I do encourage both of them to refrain from interacting as much as possible, as it is clear that (at least for the time being) GregBard holds considerable animosity against her. I also suggest Orlady refrain from reverting any more of GregBard's edits. Instead bring them to the attention of an admin (such as myself, or any other admin willing to take an active role).

That's about all I can say at this point. If the discussion dies hereafter (as I hope it does) another admin can close this discussion at their discretion. If it continues, I will refrain from commenting. Good luck. Manning (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Oppose Not only does this proposal fail to take any actual action against Gregbard (which clearly has consensus above), it also bizarrely includes a revert ban against Orlady, which isn't warranted at all. This comes dangerously close to blaming (and worse, persecuting) the victim. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• • • I'm not certain how the word "suggestion" constitutes a 'revert ban'. For your reference, Orlady was in fact the subject of the original complaint, thus the the final paragraph (which clearly indicates there is nothing actionable). Manning (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I have to say that I have a bad feeling about the suggestion that Gregbard's "considerable animosity" towards me means that I should refrain from interacting with Gregbard or reverting any more of his edits, and should instead bring them to the attention of another admin. In its effect, suggesting that I ought to defer to his wishes is saying that a user can declare ownership of articles and edits simply by declaring "I have considerable animosity toward you, so you'd better stay away from me" to every user who disagrees with them, issues warnings, or takes administrative action. Gregbard's "do not contact me further" declarations (first on his talk page and then on my talk page) were in fact his response to my having warned him to desist from getting categories deleted by emptying them outside of the WP:CFD process. Are we going to start telling disruptive users that every time they receive a warning they should post a "do not contact me further" message to exempt themselves from future interactions from the user who warned them? --Orlady (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I will not accept any sanction of any kind. You don't stand up in the middle of a discussion, declare a consensus, and the last person who reverts something get banned for three months. I have maintained my innocence from the very beginning, and have not wavered from that. However, the shark tank here takes offence at the very idea that they could be wrong, and refuse to back down. That's administrative abuse. The comment from admins directed toward me concerning my understanding are completely oblivious! I have been an editor since 2006. I have made over 70,000 contributions. There are whole swaths of content and organization that I created. I have acted in legislative, executive, judicial, and diplomatic capacities es on behalf of Wikimedia. It is unfathomable that anyone would point to me and say that I just don't understand the consensus process. This issue barely began a few days ago. It is beyond impatient to just stand up and declare a consensus exists. Certainly no discussion has been closed yet even at this point! I am a very fair minded person, and if I had done anything to warrant a sanction of some kind, I would be able to admit it. In fact I have in the past. I won't accept a sanction in this case. At this point I believe I am owed an apology, and whether the political reality is that I will get it or not, I will demanding that for the entire duration of any sanction. I will dramatize this issue in any and every venue that I can possible identify, including certainly the arbitration board, the board of directors, and even the media if I have to. I have been around far too long for this disrespect. Drop the idea of sanctions. Period. I have used terms like "decency" "reasonable" "mature" and "shame" It seems like I am the only person using those kind of terms. Now I am using another term: "conscience." So if no one's conscience tells them that they are doing the wrong thing here, that will be a shame on them forever. This is all the power I have here: my words. It seems that attitude is to take offence that I should ever attempt to defend myself. That's not a fair, or decent process. Show some respect for yourselves, and exercise restraint. Forgo the ego gratification that comes from using your powers. PLEASE DO relent and defer, and consider for one moment that this is not some great insult to yourselves. Greg Bard (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, if the community decides to impose a sanction on you, whether or not you "accept" it is irrelevant. You would either edit in accordance with the sanction or not, and if you did not, further and more drastic sanctions, up to and including a site ban, would most likely be forthcoming. Considering this, it might be a good idea to step down off your soapbox and consider just what, exactly, is being said above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Can someone look at this diff of a Greg Bard edit and try to figure out what is going on? At the bottom there is some potential canvassing, however there seems to be some bizarre vandalism going on as well. Manning (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That looks a lot like the damage to my user talk page that I asked about at the Village pump: Why are new edits introducing seemingly random errors into previous page content?. Gregbard apologized for it, blaming it on a problem with his computer. However, but it hasn't stopped. (I also saw it on another page he edited in the last couple of days.) The last post in that conversation was a suggestion that Greg might have some malware on his computer. --Orlady (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @ Greg. What BMK said ... quite frankly? If I had the time to monitor the situation? I'd have likely blocked you already. You're not some new guy. You should know the rules by now. Either get with the program, or deal with the consequences. — Ched :  ?  19:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Request to eliminate restrictions

Alright so it's been 18 months since User:Bwilkins gave me restrictions because I uploaded several non-free images that I tried to take full ownership of. I believe I can continue on Wikipedia without these restrictions and not get into any more trouble. Since September 2011, I have not been called upon at WP:AN/I and have been taking some wiki breaks as a result of my overall good behavior on Wikipedia. I understand what I did was wrong and promised not to ever do it again. I have a full understanding of Wikipedia's non-free content requirements and rules and need the ability to upload these as I begin to take articles I've expanded substantially to FAC which requires the use of non-free content to illustrate the article and to inform the reader. I've been asking several users on Wikipedia that I've been in good terms with to help me with artwork and/or music file uploading when the article I've expanded needs one. I believe I have demonstrated since 2011 that I won't be a menace on Wikipedia, and believe I can be counted on to take full responsibility of my actions and not act immature towards editors. Hope you guys can see the good in me and grant me back my full user rights . Best, Jona^{talk to me} 01:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Support removing restrictions. NE Ent 02:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Support   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I am at least a little bit worried at seeing rapid endorsements of this request when Jona (AJona1992) has not actually described to us (or even linked to) either the specific restrictions that he is editing under, or the circumstances that led to those restrictions being imposed. Does anyone have links to all the relevant discussions?

From what I can piece infer from Jona's user talk page archive, it appears that he created more than one sockpuppet to push article(s?) he was working on through GAR and to engage in deliberate copyfraud. (There was apparently also some personal nastiness, including an unblock request that included "but the bitch needs to know, well everybody, needs to know is that if you piss me off then I'm going to attack" as justification for his conduct.) I can't help but feel that we're being rushed to a decision while being kept in an information vacuum. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Their block log has been clean since Bwilkins imposed the restrictions. The request is unambiguous in acknowledging their past mistakes as well as their promise to avoid such behavior in the future. I'm willing to AGF this is a sincere request. If Jona betrays this trust, then shame on them and call me a sucker.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the misbehaviour described by TenOfAllTrades is pretty strong. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  I actually apologized to those users I commented on when I was asking to be unblocked. That was years ago and my behavior is nothing like that anymore as you can tell in my more recent archives and has improved since those remarks were made. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 03:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  To be clear, I'm not coming down one way or another on this request. I don't mean to torpedo it out of hand; my concern is that we're missing too much detail to make an informed decision in response to this request. Were there one or more noticeboard discussions that pull together the relevant history and evidence? (Sockpuppet checks, AN/I reports, any previous appeals, etc.?) The discussion on AJona's user talk page gives some hints about what the problems were, but doesn't tie it all together and put things in context. As I said, I do find it troubling that AJona didn't feel it necessary to provide that information – or even a clear list of the restrictions he seeks to have lifted – as part of his original request. Care and attention to process details matter—both for requests to lift or modify sanctions and in uploading non-free content. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment For some past history, I've posted the previous ANI's that Ajona was called up for.

The copyright issues started back in 2010 and were discussed in ANI. The ANI wasn't limited to just copyright, but the discussion at the time cleared the air of these other issues (incivility, edit warring, socking, the usual kitbag)

ANI was where AJona first appealed the restrictions. Ajona's name pricked my memory a bit and it was at the same time that Ajona also agreed to my proposal for a sort of mentorship as a precondition for a lifting of the upload restriction.

Ajona asked for advice this ANI, which wasn't really a request to lift sanctions, so shouldn't be really held against him.

Ajona was restricted from making any image uploads due to their lack of understanding of copyright and attempting to pass off copyrighted images as their own, which was noted in the 2010 ANI. I'd support a lifting of their restrictions since Ajona has managed to keep himself out of trouble with regards to image copyright, but would counsel that they return to image uploading very slowly and carefully. Blackmane (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Restrictions are on top of users' talk page User_talk:AJona1992. For me, all the relevant information is: a. date of restrictions and b. no blocks for violation in the intervening interval.NE Ent 09:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as their block log shows, their last block was in August 2011 and unblocked in Sept 2011 with the aforementioned restrictions. Nothing since then. Blackmane (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support My criteria is similar to Ent's although I consider more than just blocks. Lifting the restriction seems a worthwhile "risk" after this long. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• waiting for a comment from Bwilkins. (leaning support) — Ched :  ?  16:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't include those here because I've apologized to every user I badmouthed to so there's no need to bring my past back up if its patched up already. I still talk (from time to time) to several of them and they are okay with replying back especially User:Moonriddengirl who has given me several links to help me understand Wikipedia's non-free content and I sometimes go to her for advice. I also requested several non-free images on Commons to be deleted and worked there for a short time helping fight vandals. If this isn't enough proof then I don't know what else is. I know Bewilkins didn't approve of the loosen of my restrictions (the last time I requested it) because he felt that I didn't understand what I was doing was wrong, but this time around I did and even read several polices about non-free content. I hope you guys can see that I've changed over the past two years. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 19:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Question Which restrictions do you want removed ... all of them? I would disagree with removing the restriction to one account - it should stay. Obviously following CIVIL and NPA to the letter should still apply ... and I see no suggestions about what type of non-copyrighted images ant Ajona needs to upload all of a sudden. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I believe that in his opening statement, Ajona says that he would like his upload restriction lifted, in a somewhat roundabout way. Following CIVIL and NPA should be a given and the single account restriction being lifted wasn't mentioned. Blackmane (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'm just guessing here, but perhaps being allowed to remove that scarlet letter notice on their talk is an issue too. — Ched :  ?  03:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I just want to be able to upload images and music files as my main contributions relate to music-related articles especially ones that are stubs and turning them into FAs. I don't mind staying with the notice on my talk page if everyone here believes it should remind me to stay civil and only have one account. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 13:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so you won't mind getting indeffed the first time you upload any copyrighted material...the block was your final warning - you don't get 3-strikes-and-out anymore ... so what I'm asking is that are you 110% certain you understand WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:IUP and all other vital policies related to images and files? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I understand and have made myself familiar with the non-free content polices. Jona^{talk to me} 16:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support lifting upload restrictions, especially in light of his comment just as above. As one of the admins who was working cleanup during these issues, I've seen a huge turnaround in Ajona1992 since the restrictions were rightfully imposed and personally I have confidence that the problem will not repeat. That said, I think that this is in a way offering a bit of rope. I expect that Ajona will be very careful; I would encourage him to be extremely scrupulous about documenting where images come from and if in doubt seek feedback before uploading. I think he's being doing good work, and I'd be really disappointed if we lost that. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per MRG and discussion above. — Ched :  ?  22:07, 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. 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[90] 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 [91], 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[92] 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.[93] 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[94] 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: [95] 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.[96] Wayne edited it for the first time on October 20, 2010.[97] I added a lot of material on October 17 in four consecutive edits shown here:[98] I was active on the article's Talk page, and I had also edited the article on October 20,[99] 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[100] and his first edit to the article mainspacein nearly six months on March 2, 2011[101] 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.[102] For transparency: Phoenix and Winslow has active accounts on the German[103], Spanish[104], Norwegian[105], Polish[106], Romanian[107] and Swedish[108] 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.[109]
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.[110] 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.[111] 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.[112]
• On 26 March P&W posted these personal attacks against two editors.[113]
• An editor warned P&W about additional canvassing on 26 March and suggested administrative action be taken.[114]
• P&W did not complain about the wording of the original question until 8 April by which time consensus was clearly against him.[115]

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,[116] 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 [117] 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. 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):[118]
• UrbanVillager (talk · contribs) [119] [120]

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 [121][122][123] and Ćuška massacre [124][125] and Albanian/Serbian names in Climate of Kosovo [126][127], Đakovica [128][129], and Ferizaj/Uroševac [130][131]. Staro Gusle's IP [132] 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 [133]

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. [134] [135] [136]

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[137][138] 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 [139][140] 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)

User:Milowent has engaged in unsupported personal attacks, insults and disruptive emptying of categories under discussion

User:Milowent has engaged in multiple very reude actions. This user has called me "The Unintentional He-man women haters club president". I do not appreciate this rudeness. This user has lied about what I said in a facebook discussion on the discussion which had no relevance to wikipedia, and used this to personally attack me on the discussion. In this [141] eduit she implied that those of us who do not see eye-to-eye with her "do not live in the real world. She has called me "the primary source of the problem", when I did not create the discussed category, was not the first person to add to it, I was not the first person to move people into it and out of Category:American novelists. Here persistent attempts to blame me for it and insult me and malign me in the process are very disturbing. They also suggest that their comparison to Nazis and to the support for slavery were both meant to be personal insults at me since she claims that I am personally resposnsible for the problem. Here [142] is where she calls me out with "do you admit or deny" that " your public facebook page you advocated that a female president should be called "presidentess"" I emphatically deny that as a false representation of what I actually advocated. What I advocated is people know as "mission president's wives", and officially identified with that title in the most relevant publications on the matter, such as this [143] Deseret News article that discusses their added role, should be called "presidentesses". This editor did not aplogize for comapring me to those who massively exterminated the Jews and Gypsies. This editor's rhetoric rhetoric of claiming I am "the most responsible" shows that their statements on the discussion of Category:Americn women novelists at CfD that those involved there were like the Nazis, shows that they are trying to specifically compare me to a Nazi. I do not appreciate such personal attacks. This [144] posting of a statement from my private facebook page was totally inaprpriate and clearly constituted a personal attack. Their false explanation of what I said, both on that page and in the discussion of Category:American women novelists is even more disturbing. Here [145] is where they bring up her totally personal attack on me, but falsely representing my postion on titles. Here [146] is where they bring in slavery, Here [147] is where she compares wikipedia editos to "Nazi soldiers". Here [148] is a diff where they trie to ban me from editing an article because the subject has supposedly "directly called into question John Pack Lambert". Tht is a new one, a-I have still to see where the subject personally attacks me, and b-when did it become possible to personally attack an editor and thus ban them from editing your article, and c- All I did was move the person to a more specific, by genre article, yet they have acted like I am somehow the one who has removed text from the article involved, which is totally not true. I find the tone of their comments on JohnHinsdales user page seen here [149] also disturbing. To call other editors edits "fecal matter" is needless rude and combative. I find the personal attacks very disturbing. Editors should not have their comments on wikipedia attack on false represenatations of what they have said elsewhere. To do so is a personal attack that is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Milowent's behavior is out of control, as indicated by the cited diffs. Some action is appropriate to stop the disruptiveness and incivility. There are multiple parties to the situation, though, so there may be other editors whose behavior needs to be addressed. (I haven't looked to see who else might be at fault here.) --Orlady (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Orlady, I have responded to JPL below. Hopefully you will not cuff me. I invite more editors to be aware of the substantive issues we are facing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, that is quite the paragraph. To respond to all this would take quite some time. The short version: John Pack Lambert is the primary editor defending Category:American women novelists despite the NYTimes op-ed and numerous other respected commentators uniformly decrying this unfortunate event. Jimbo (whose first comment on the whole drama was titled "WTF" - ban him now for uncivility, btw!) basically suggested he might be banned for this behavior, though there's been no real push for a ban (User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#WTF.3F). What does need to be done is that the problem needs to be fixed. John, unfortunately, has also been willy-nilly creating other new categories since the "scandal broke", including putting the author of the NYTimes op-ed (Amanda Filipacchi) into another new category he created (Category:American humor novelists, also now at CfD). Indeed, I did empty most of the Category:American men novelists category because it was created as a JOKE by an editor who put two females who use initials into it. JohnHinsdale, an infrequent editor, then put about 50 of the best known male American novelists of all time into the category; I believe he did it as a joke, though he has not confirmed that. My actions have been in good faith, the "NAZI OMG" aspersions cast against me have come in the back and forth of discussions and not as personal attacks. I admit that I misunderstood JPL's promotion of the term "presidentess", which is an archaic term for a female president, but not the way he apparently intended it to be used in a context outside wikipedia. I also admit I used the term "fecal matter".

Lastly, I admit, though JPL calls me "she" four times above, that I am male. If I've been a little heated, I promise to calm down. But the most uncivil actions on Wikipedia are deeds, not words. And the deed that has been done recently to female novelists, even if done unintentionally, must be rectified.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• An editor holding opinions different than yours is not grounds to compare them to those who put people in slavery or to Nazis. The bottom line is that disagreement with actions does not justify personal attacks. I do not think Milowent understands this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

See John, this is why you have trouble interacting with folks around here. The way the slavery/nazi references came in was because Obi-Wan Kenobi pooh-poohed the whole categorization problem by saying the U.S. Library of Congress was just as guilty and sexist as Wikipedia. The comparison was ridiculous, so I noted the US Government also supported slavery, but that's wasn't a reason to endorse it. Obi then replied to my comment by saying I basically went Godwin in no time flat by referencing slavery--Godwin is a reference to invoking a Nazi comparison, as I noted in response. I did not EVER compare any editor to a slavery supporter or nazi. I tried to maintain good humor throughout a very very disturbing situation, which you have exacerbated in many ways since the "scandal" broke.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to correct what Milowent said, my intent in these edits [150], [151], was to point out that the world was making a lot of noise about one particular cat, but ignoring the much larger structural issues, both in wikipedia and in the broader world, over which those writing articles in the NY times should be even more incensed. I wasn't joking when I said why aren't they attacking the Library of Congress - these are professional librarians, professional category experts, and even they have so-called "ghettoized" categories for female novelists. Thus either they are also guilty of rampant sexism, or the whole thing is overblown and just a misunderstanding of the nature of categorization and sub-categorization. In any case, Milowent quickly turned the Nazi/slavery thing into a joke, and I don't think the whole Nazi thing is worth exploring further - it was a pecadillo and definitely worth moving on.

Milowent has however (a) admittedly emptied categories that were currently being discussed at CFD, in contravention of policy and (b) behaved in an uncivil manner, throwing around the terms racist and sexist with abandon. For this at least a trout is certainly merited.

In any case, I invite all here, especially Milowent, to take the categorization quiz I put together, so we can see if anyone, on any side of this issue, can correctly and fully categorize a single bio without falling prey to a situation that would get you accused of either "sexism" or "racism". I've spent about an hour in total now sorting out all of the possible categories, and I'm quite sure no-one will pass the test (even my answer key is likely flawed!) - that's the challenge with this domain- you can correctly and in a non-sexist manner categorize someone in 32 different categories, but if you miss one - BOOM - you're a sexist. Non-diffusing gender/ethnic cats are actually quite hard to do really well, that's my main point - so accusations of sexism and racism are uncalled for and serve only to fan the flames rather than help us move forward with a workable solution.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• • If saying "this whole activity is akin to nazi soliders "just carrying out orders," glad to see you make the comparison." Is not saying that those who created a category are like Nazis doing massive executions than nothing is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Can we please not fill this [soon to be] unmercifully long thread with you two going back and forth on this particular sub-point? Shadowjams (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• lol, Shadowjams. You just e/c'ed on following from me: "If you want to get in the weeds all day, I know the admins who work on this page really love it. Let's back-and-forth with increasing indents until we need 50 inch wide screens to read our debate. No need to talk about the substance underlying things."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Hopefully someone with some sense will come along and close it right away - otherwise it will go and and on and on and might get ugly. I've been asked on my page to adhere closely to policy, (especially civility and AGF), which has had a chilling effect so won't say any more at this time. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• The disruptiveness over this issue is not limited to these two editors. There are a few others who have been fanning the flames with personally insulting comments and/or allusions to ignominious historical events. It wouldn't do much good to block several editors. I suggest that the experienced users who have been misbehaving (including JPL and Milowent) should withdraw from the battlefield (stay away from the discussions for 24 hours) -- but only after you excise the personally offensive comments you have made. A renewal of hostilities may lead to more severe sanctions. --Orlady (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Surely the best response to this debacle. Mangoe (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• To be honest, "mission presidents' wives" is a somewhat unwieldy term to be using, so I can see why someone would want a shorter alternative. "Presidentesses" would probably be too much of a neologism though to be using in articles though. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't comment on this one - that is another reason for a nice wet trout for Milowent. Going off-wiki, finding a random facebook posting an editor made having nothing whatsoever to do with wikipedia or the articles under discussion, and then mis-representing the intent of that posting in several places is going too far IMHO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Mark Arsten's comment illustrates why the issue is totally irrelevant. Facebook and news article comment board comments I have made were with the intention of creating a new use of a term. I fully accept that terms are not to be created on wikipedia, and have not to my knowledge tried to do so. I edited the article on Mission (LDS) to reflect the most recent policy changes but did not try to insert the new term into it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In response to Obi, I did not go trolling around off-wiki for the presidentess thing, it was posted by others on twitter. But I can't believe anyone is focusing on that tiff rather than the underlying problems. And for anyone still interested in the weeds, I am discerning JPL didn't know the pop-culture source of my one edit summary joke referencing him as "the unintentional He-man women haters club president" for doing most of the editing work removing women from the American novelists category, which is what triggered the controversy. Its from a 1937 Little Rascal's episode.[152].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Nonetheless, *you* grabbed it off twitter, and then *you* posted it in various forms and made various accusations about it on several pages. I see that you've apologized about that, so I would also consider that closed - once the wet trout is applied. :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, there is now a Salon piece [153] decrying the recent treatment of Amanda Filipacchi's page as "revenge editing" since the 1st op ed appeared. --Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, but off-topic for this particular discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic? What about this detailed expose of JohnPackLambert's actions in the The New York Review of Books by James Gleick?[154] He concludes, "People of Wikipedia! You have a problem." No one rational, absolutely no one, is complaining about editors like myself who have raised the red flags and tried to stop this fiasco.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Milo, you're still engaging in the same sort of behavior which brought you to ANI in the first place - for example, going off wiki and bringing in irrelevant stuff. Now, the James Gleick piece clearly relevant, but the Salon link has *nothing* to do with JPL. You seem really obsessed and upset with what the media is writing about us here, but it is all going to blow over, and once several hundred women have been put back in the famous Category:American novelist category, everyone will go away - even as endemic ghettoization remains. There won't be more exposes in the NY Times or Salon or anywhere else about ghettoization of Christians, of native americans, of male prostitutes, of gay people, etc etc. Those people out there, that are writing this stuff? They don't care enough to fix it, so I tend to ignore them more or less...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I got brought to ANI by the editor who is documented by numerous reliable sources, cited everyday on the project for our content, to be the problem. I love how when Wikipedia is the subject, some editors wish to ignore all those same sources on which the project is built. Its pathetic, which is why most people are staying away from this thread. Let it be closed and let the CfDs continue.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, out in the real world, people are asking questions about Wikipedia's culture, how the use of procedural tactics to shut down disagreement is why many people are inclined to not help, but just to complain. A direct quote is not a personal attack, but it did provide relevant context to the matter under discussion, and this procedural attack on Milowent is entirely disingenuous. Certainly Milowent's research here is not "unsupported" or "baseless" or whatever. Avt tor (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is not a "proecudral attack". This is a legitimate complaint about persistant lines like "those of us who live in the real world". The attack implied, that anyone who disagrees with you does not "live in the real world" is an unacceptable personal attack. If you disagree with decisions or policies, voice views on those. However to engage in personal attacks on other users, as this editor has done, is totally unacceptable. This is a requirement of civility in wikipedia, and when a user has been persistently insulted, lied about and attacked, it is reasonable for them to respond. It is a lie to claim that someone advocated something that they never did.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• I brought up very specific complaints about personal attacks. This diff [155] is not civil dialogue at all. People should not be summarizing edits with personal attacks, as was done there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

JPL, you need to let it go immediately, rather than continuing to berate Milowent here at the same time you complain about him to a third party while deleting comments you don't like on your talk page and creating another edit war over a category. What your doing is a textbook example of not being able to take criticism at all. You cook lots of omlettes at CfD, it's hardly surprising that you've broken a few eggs, Milowent's being one of them. pbp 17:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Some outside media have claimed that Category:American women novelists was the work of "one misguided editor". This is clearly not so. To take an easy to study example, there are two articles under the letter E in that category, added by two different users. I probably added the most articles to that category, but I added neither of the articles under the letter E. Both of the articles under the letter E were transfered from the parent Category:American women novelists. On the other hand, the claim that it is "edit warring" to add someone back to a category they clearly fit in, while it is under discussion is a strange claim, when the person was removed while the category had a tag on it that said "Please do not empty the category" and no comparable direction that says "please do not expand the category".John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Filapacchi is sort of defending you John, she agrees you were not alone, the problem is more widespread (and I agree), even if you went on a "spree" in early April.[156] She also does note, however, "The editor who went on his spree in early April (username Johnpacklambert) did something particularly interesting and annoying after I'd been put back in the "American Novelists" category. He took me out of it again and put me in a new category he had just created: "American Humor Novelists." He also added three men to it, probably to make it look ok. Another editor then came along and undid what he had done."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:American humor novelists still exists and still has most of its original contents. The fact of the matter is at one point we opened our article on Filipacchi by saying "is an American writer best known for her humorous, inventive, and controversial novels." At least to me that line said "she belongs in Category:American humor novelists." The whole rhetoric of "probably to make it look ok" suggests there is something wrong with sub-cats, which is a very problematic view. However a search for "humor novel" on wikipedia turns up multiple results, so it is clearly a term that is used. Whether it is one that is well used enough to justify a category is another question, but the rhetoric of "make it look ok", with its claims that this is all vendentta driven is ridiculous. Filipacchi has clearly failed to assume good faith, and we should not be repeating her poisonous attacks on editors who are trying to abide by rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Johnpacklambert

User has a history of contentious and frowned-upon practices regarding WP:CfDs and categories. His talk page is littered with requests to change his behavior, and notices of edit-warring regarding the addition or removal of categories. There have been numerous instances of him mass-adding pages to categories he wants kept, and mass-deleting pages from categories he wants deletion. Oftentimes, the adds or deletions are of dubious correctness, and often occur when consensus is forming against him. But also troubling is his OWNership of CfD. JPL responds to almost every CfD out there (a bad practice in and of itself), and often makes 5-10 comments in CfDs, usually deriding detractors. Most troubling is that he's dug in on a number of CfD discussions over a number of months, often making 40 or 50 comments in a single CfD and berating almost everyone who disagrees with him. The combination of this attitude combined with the general dismissiveness of comments on his talk page (when I asked him to tone it down one time, he asked a mop to block me) indicates that JPL has problems getting along with other Wikipedia editors. A perfect example of this is how he's reacting to Milowent above; someone disagrees with him, therefore that person should be booted. Jimbo himself has noted that JPL is giving Wikipedia a black eye. It's time for JPL to be forced to step away from WP:CfD for a spell. pbp 18:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Response If This user really does not think responding over and over again to people who differe from their views at a CfD nomination is appropriate, then why exactly did they do it on the discussion of Category:People from Los Angeles, California.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

For one, because it is patently ridiculous that that category is at anything but Category:People from Los Angeles. For two, had you actually looked at the discussion, you would see numerous comments I haven't responded to. By contrast, in this last discussion and the American female writers discussion a few months back, you combined for about 150 comments. That's 150 comments in TWO discussions. Overblown? I think so. Did people tell you to cool down? Yes. Did you ignore them? Yes. pbp 03:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• On the other hand this editor has been going around doing things like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_Hampton_Brewster&oldid=553080371&diff=prev} which are totally inapropriate removals of a category while it is still under discussion. It has the added result of excluding the person involved from the Category:American women writers tree, a tree that is not even nominated for deletion (it is possbily going to be renamed, but that is another matter).John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The antecedent in this discussion is you, JPL, and you're correct in that you have been inappropriately adding categories to Brewster and other categories in violation of BRD. In other words, you've been edit-warring. This is particularly egregious on Brewster as at least three editors have reverted your BOLD edit, and you've undone all of them. You're yet again nearing 3RR regarding categories pbp 19:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no rule against adding categories that exist to people that clearly fit in the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There is against edit-warring, though. Edit-warring knows no right or wrong. pbp 19:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban Johnpacklambert from CfD?

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

---

1. Support as nom pbp 18:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. --Orlady (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Note that User:Purplebackpack89 previously took this to an RFC - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Johnpacklambert. There are a lot of broader issues here and singling out one editor will do no good. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose - No Shadowjams (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
5. No, absolutely not. Disagreed w/ John in the past, but nothing justifies a ban. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Comment: Nobody has yet to give a valid reason as to why Johnpacklambert's actions are acceptable. "No" or "Oppose" is not a valid reason, sorry. JPL has clearly been a disruptive influence at WP:CfD for months. As such, the one-word "No" or "Oppose" votes should be stricken unless someone can provide a better reason why JPL's disruptive influence should continue pbp 19:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Hm. You haven't given reasons, so what exactly should one say other than "no"? Your personal rants aren't reasons. Diffs are. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) No, the onus is on you (pbp) to substantiate your claims, not them to substantiate theirs. Also, "someone disagrees with him, therefore that person should be booted": pot calling the kettle black? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   The burden of proof is on the person asking for the ban. Nobody needs to give a reason not to ban. You need to provide a compelling reason why it should. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   My reasons are pretty clearly delineated in the section entitled "User:Johnpacklambert" above. The general reasoning is his tendency to edit-war over categories, his tendency to mass-add or mass-delete categories from pages when he's losing at CfD, his tendency to respond to almost every comment in CfDs he's started where others disagree with him, and in general major, major, major OWNership issues at CfD pbp 19:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Another rant w/o reasons. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Excuse me? Ownership and disruption at CfD are perfectly acceptable reasons to be banned from there. pbp 20:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   When are you going to provide reasons/diffs? Prolonged unsubstantiated accusations are personal attacks and could very much lead to your own block or ban. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

6. oppose what looks like an opportunistic attempt at settling an old grudge. Mangoe (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Note that Jimbo suggested something akin to this on his page. Please comment on JPL's actions, not irrelevant past history between him and me. pbp 19:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Pretty sure we consider argumentum ad Jimbonem to be a rhetorical fallacy around here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   We even have a page on the topic: Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

7. Oppose - per Timroll. There are bigger issues here, and I don't think this solves enough of them. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
8. oppose I have respect for JPL and the work he does on categorization, and even though I sometimes disagree with him I think his heart is in the right place. Also a note: if JPL has emptied cats currently under discussion, please provide diffs - I haven't seen that. I would however, respectfully, ask that he (and I!) slow down on comments on this CFD - the world has probably heard enough from both of us. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
9. Oppose, where is the fire. I looked at the log for the discussions to be normally closed today. In there JPL had one comment in a discussion that had varied opinions and it just so happens that the position he advocated, with a reason, was how it was closed. There is no evidence in that days log of domination or ownership. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
10. Oppose, close, and trout PBP for this - regardless of the merit of the rest of the case (which I will not comment upon one way or the other), this has the smell of "opportunistic score-settling" all over it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Evidence, Please. Pbp/Purplebackpack89 has been asked several times to provide diffs to prove his case. I think that it is fair to assume that if someone won't provide proof it is because they can't provide proof. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    Consider the following:

    • Here,
    • there
    • everywhere.
    • and more

    In four days of CfD discussions, I count over 270 edits. And of those 270, the majority are in only a handful or two of CfDs. Ownership? Yes. Also, I went to his talk page, I counted no fewer than four separate notices about edit warring, and that's in the last six months alone pbp 03:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    And yet, despite being asked repeatedly, you have yet to provide a single diff (the above links are not to diffs). Why is that? Why are you unable or unwilling to pick two or three examples and post diffs to them? WP:DIFFSPLEASE. Also see: WP:DIFF and WP:D&L. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    I consider those to be diffs, and they most certainly are examples. Would you rather I posted all 270 diffs those pages represent? I didn't think so! The very problem here is that, in those four days of CfDs, JPL generated a TLDR amount of content in each of them. This much more succintly proves my point about his OWNership issues on those four days of CfDs, and in particular in regards to discussions of gender and ethnicity. pbp 04:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    What part of "pick two or three examples and post diffs to them" are you having trouble understanding? Please read Wikipedia:Shut up and show them the diff. Please do not respond with another reason why you are unwilling to provide diffs. Please do not respond with any other non-diffs that you "consider to be diffs". As a matter of fact, if your response does not contain two or three examples with diffs, please save us all some time and don't bother replying at all. I cannot hear your words over the defining sound of your actions. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

12. Oppose, and trout Purplebackpack89 for this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
13. Oppose Not only is there insufficient basis, I am not even sure what is supposed to be achieved by banning him from CfD.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Alex2564 (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
15. Oppose Also a bit pointless arguing about Cat-issues now anyway. Catagories are going to be dead as soon as wikidata is working as it intends to. Granted that could take awhile.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Related issues

Three days ago I posted the following about the whole broad area here. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

Sockpuppets at work

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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. [157], [158], [159], [160]). 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. 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. 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. 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."[161] 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)

SPECIFICO is deleting content without seeking consensus, repeatedly threatening blocks, making false claims, and being quite condescending

On the Stefan Molyneux article, SPECIFICO has unilaterally deleted material that was discussed on the article's talk page. No consensus was sought by SPECIFICO for these changes, and it seemed to me that it went against the consensus on the talk page, so I reverted the changes and added a section on the talk page in order to discuss the matter.

SPECIFICO then added a message that included the following to my talk page:

Please undo your recent edits and pursue your views on talk to seek prior consensus for your view that it should be reinserted. Merely asserting your rationale for your undo on talk is not sufficient. Please review WP:EW and be aware that such behavior can result in you being blocked. Thanks.

This is when I had reverted SPECIFICO's edits according to prior consensus, and SPECIFICO apparently hadn't yet commented at all on the talk page in order to try to change the consensus. The tone is threatening and condescending ("Thanks" for something I don't agree to). The initial message to me on a good faith edit on my part threatens me with a block.

SPECIFICO then responded on the article's talk page, including the following:

Please undo your recent edits and pursue your view here on talk to seek consensus for reinserting the content I reverted. Once you have undone your reinsertion I will respond to your concerns. Thank you.

It appears that SPECIFICO will only seek consensus once I comply with their demands and reinsert changes that were against consensus and that were made without seeking consensus. I responded, including my policy rationales. SPECIFICO then falsely claimed on my talk page that I had reverted them twice, that it appeared that I was engaged in an edit war because of that, and again threatened a block. It's quite clear from the edit history that I only reverted them once.

SPECIFICO then claimed on the talk page that:

Since you refuse to undo your edit, I will do it for you and once again ask you to respond to the specific policy-based reasons for my reversion of the unsourced, non-RS and trivial content. Just state your views as to why these policies do not apply or whatever other rationale you may have, but do not edit war. Please re-read WP:BRD Thanks.

This is again condescending ("I will do it for you" as if it was my job to comply). This is when I wasn't edit warring and the comment they were responding to was me "just [stating] my views as to why [those] policies do not apply apply".

I really don't appreciate being treated uncivilly, falsely accused, threatened with blocking very quickly and repeatedly, demanded to comply under those threats, and so on. I also don't like that SPECIFICO has ignored past consensus and refused to seek consensus on the changes made, preferring to demand that I comply with their desires before they'll contemplate following Wikipedia policy.

While I haven't discussed it with them on their talk page specifically, I have, as you can see above, discussed it elsewhere. — Olathe (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment – While SPECIFICO can be terse, I've always seen him as a cooperative editor most willing to engage in discussion. E.g., he'll engage in WP:BRD. He's not an admin, so threats of blocks (which I do not see in the discussion) are unfounded. The edits complained of (above) may have been better handled with kid gloves, but do not warrant ANI action. If there are disagreements between these two editors, WP:3O is a better COA. – S. Rich (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Response — It's not that he's terse. I'm fine with that. It's not even that I think that he always acts like this. He might be generally fine. It's that in this instance he's bossily demanding and threatening, which shows up more on my talk page and in the sequence of events than on the article's talk page. This unpleasantness has apparently happened to at least one other user in the past. In that incident, he apparently accused a person who had reverted his changes only once of edit warring, which that user describes as slander. This sort of slander during what should be fairly minor editing disputes is apparently an ongoing problem that he has not corrected.

His false accusations look like a barrage to me. He's accused me twice of edit warring for one revert on my part, he accuses me of violating policies in my reverts, he says that I should discuss things on the talk page after I've already started to discuss things on the talk page months before, and he falsely accuses me of not trying for consensus on the talk page.

I've looked over the article's talk page before and after this incident. It has people talking a while back about the things he deleted because another user deleted them as well. The consensus certainly doesn't support his high level of deletion. He disregarded it.

More notably, he has no comments at all before he made his significant deletions. His only comments are responses to me, and they include demands that I must comply with before he will even discuss things with me. This is obviously not consensus-seeking on his part, which would appear as him discussing things with me even though I don't take back one revert I made.

The talk page does, however, include me seeking consensus for a change I made to the article a few months ago. He deleted what I'd added to the article without any comment in that section, which makes it quite hypocritical and false when he repeatedly informs me that I should discuss things on the talk page before I'm supposedly allowed to revert his changes. His demand applies directly to him. I have no reason to believe he even checked the talk page before I reverted him.

I don't mind trying a third opinion if that's what's supposed to be done, but the primary purpose of my bringing this up isn't to resolve the editing dispute, since that can be done through consensus. The primary purpose is that I don't want to continue to be bullied by him with the risk that people will believe his false accusations. — Olathe (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply – But we don't have to discuss WP:BB changes before we make them. We make them and then let others contend with us about what we did. The WP:BURDEN is on the editor who want to insert or remove material. Seems to me, for the most part, SPECIFICO has been on sound grounds as I have watched him make edits. If he makes edits that contradict earlier consensus, point out the consensus and open up a new discussion. Contact me, if you like, and I'll take a look and help if I can (although this stuff gets pretty abstruse for my poor brain). Finally, I think SPECIFICO will take a look at this ANI and work on being more diplomatic. (Got that, SPECIFICO, these are opportunities for you to mentor.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Response — I don't mind his being bold, but I was as well with my revert but was criticized by him for that with the associated threats. I didn't want an edit war, which is why I reverted once and haven't rereverted his unrevert. He's mentioned which policies he thinks the content violated, but not yet why he thinks those policies are applicable. I have a different understanding than him, but he may be right. I hope he'll explain on the talk page. — Olathe (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

As a co-participant with SPECIFICO at Talk:Bitcoin, I'd also ask him to lighten up a bit. I'm not alleging misconduct per se, but the atmosphere at the talk page is pretty unpleasant and SPECIFICO seems to be contributing to that. Here one of the maintainers (also mentioned in a usertalk diff above) quit being involved in the article after a conflict with SPECIFICO. The article itself is in terrible shape and I don't think the current approach is working. I've looked at old revisions, they had obvious POV problems needing straightforward cleanup, but they were otherwise clearer and more informative than the current version. So I think there's been a heavy-handed approach that has thrown out the baby with the bathwater. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Account sharing between Riley Huntley and Gwickwire

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

---

During the course of DeltaQuad's checkuser duties, it came to his attention that Gwickwire had accessed Riley Huntley's account on 01:03 22 March 2013 to make a single edit to Riley Huntley's talk page. DeltaQuad spoke to Deskana and DoRD, who verified his findings. At present, we do not believe that any other access of Riley Huntley's account by Gwickwire has taken place, but we have no way of verifying the integrity of either of the accounts.

Due to the permissions on Riley Huntley's account, disclosing the password to his account represents a breach of trust that the community has put in Riley Huntley to keep his account secure. As Riley Huntley's login is unified with advanced permissions on other wikis, there was great potential for misuse in disclosing his password. Similarly, by accessing the account of another user, Gwickwire has shown disregard for policies and standards.

Gwickwire and Riley were invited to comment on the matter to Deskana. Gwickwire said that Riley asked him to make an edit for him with a temporary password when he was unable to do so. Riley said that he was on holiday and made his watchlist send him an email whenever a page was edited, and he couldn't use the website well on his mobile so he asked Gwickwire to edit for him.

In light of the above, we hereby propose to the community that all permissions on the Gwickwire and Riley Huntley accounts be revoked due to violation of community trust and standards on account sharing. Riley Huntley's rights are currently Account creators, Course online volunteers, File movers, IP block exemptions, Reviewers and Rollbackers. Gwickwire's has resigned his rights, so this discussion would label his resignation as "under a cloud". Please comment on this below.

We will also notify the other wikis which Riley Huntley and Gwickwire have advanced permissions on, so that they can also decide on what actions they wish to take.

On behalf of DeltaQuad, Deskana and DoRD,

--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Certifying this was the assessment. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Further

Not having discussed this with my colleagues, I won't go into detail, but I will say that both users turned up incidental to a routine check. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally? As in there was another commonality between Riley or Qwickwire and another account related to the check?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"Routine"? Are you routinely checking random people 'cause you're bored of picking your nose? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Seb .. I think a lot of folks have concerns about CU types of checks, myself included; but I really do think that particular comment was way out of line. Please don't do that again. — Ched :  ?  07:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I will whenever I see fit. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You might just want to check that attitude at the door. Up to you, but I'm just sayin. — Ched :  ?  09:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You should check yours. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The natural response to this sort of needless hostility is that the perpetrator will find himself ignored outside of his own social circle. While this isn't quite as helpful as self-correction, it does help to ensure that the community as a whole is not unduly influenced by its ugliest commentary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm just going to comment here on the comments by people who think that DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) or DoRD (talk · contribs) checks accounts for the fun of it. Among other things, running a checkuser investigation against anybody with more than a few edits is commonly a time-consuming task. I'm not a checkuser, so I don't know the real reason, but there are several possible scenarios in which a checkuser could have uncovered the account sharing.

1. DeltaQuad assigned IP block exemption to Riley Huntley due to an IP block affecting him. Checkusers will routinely go through the list of IP block exempt editors to see if they are still affected by IP blocks and remove unnecessary IP block exemptions. This would result in DeltaQuad getting Riley's IPs, and the fact that a different computer (Gwickwire's) accessed it would show up.
2. A checkuser may have been considering applying a rangeblock to stop abusive edits from an IP range. Naturally, he or she would want to ensure that any good-faith editors trapped in the rangeblock would receive IP block exemption. This could result in a check on Riley, Gwickwire, or even both and would show that a different computer accessed Riley's account at some point.
3. A checkuser could also have been investigating Gwickwire's IP range if disruptive sockpuppets were arriving en masse from it. In the midst of Gwickwire's edits, that edit from Riley's account would have shown up as using Gwickwire's computer, prompting further investigation that would prove the account sharing.

Thus, before you assume checkusers are horrible, abusive people, think of other possible scenarios. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Or, additionally, let's simply recall that Riley was an admin of the ACC interface, which in and of itself, as DeltaQuad told me (when I was previously involved in the program), causes one to be subject to frequent additional checks, due to...frequent additional risk. No need to create a mountain out of a molehill, friends. Theopolisme (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Reaper for that insight. That does change my perspective.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 12:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Just to note that Riley removed himself from toolserver account creator access where he had access to sensitive information. His account creator right is separate from that now. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• What reason was there to be scrutinizing either Gwickwire or Riley's account? Was there any behavior evidence to justify use of checkuser? As far as the violation -- really? I care why? Was there any harm to the encyclopedia?? NE Ent 02:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • As Riley was a sysop on Wikidata, this was a serious security risk for us. --Rschen7754 02:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Risk of what? "Serious security risk"? It's a frickin' website, not the finish line of the Boston Marathon. NE Ent 02:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Risk of blocking all administrators, deleting several pages, etc. When admin accounts have been compromised on this site, the Main Page has been deleted, and arbitrators and Jimbo Wales were blocked, and this would have continued had the account not been emergency desysopped. --Rschen7754 02:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict × 3)Ok, thats a bit far fetched. Especially since Jimbo hasn't autocreated his account on Wikidata yet. Legoktm (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) Well, account creators have, if I recall correctly, access to user IP data (considered private info, requiring IDing to the foundation to have access). So theoretically someone with AC access and bad judgment could do some real-world harm using people's personal data. IPBE is also considered by some to be sensitive, since it allows users to edit through hard blocks. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) (edit conflict) Riley also had access to sensative information such as IP addresses and relevant information as an account creator on the toolserver, so sharing passwords is pretty serious. Also, administrators are also privy to information that is not public, and Riley is/was an administrator on two wikis. Also, downplaying the situation as "it's just a website" as compared to a terrorist attack, probably isn't the right response. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I agree. There could be severe repercussions on the entire project if immediate action isn't taken. The bombing comment was also unnecessary, and in very poor taste. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 02:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • @Ent: Probably about as serious as removing some permissions from an account on "just a website", so this is a pretty proportional reaction. I am curious as to why a CU was looking at this, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Riley has also resigned as a Wikidata sysop. [162] I believe that this would be considered under a cloud, but I am sure that we will be having a discussion related to the matter, once we are officially notified. --Rschen7754 02:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Why discuss this? Both have retired which clearly means both agree with removing their rights. So remove them and stop the drama. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is a technical matter, if one 'retires' it is different from 'fired' in a business sense if one wants to come back. If a major breach occurred and is taken to the community the prospects of a future RFA or other position of power can be scrutinized. I am concerned as to how a CU found this, though, but transparency is not something that we are privvy to. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• One simple question: What led to the chck to be made? and I want DeltaQuad to please kindly explain how he considered that a check was needed, and that it fell within the boundaries of the CU policy. I understand that this should have never happened, but I'm now amazingly sad because after this unnecessary scandal, we've lost a great asset, and a very productive user. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 5)I honestly don't see the big deal. No damage came from this. And if it did, it could easily be reversed. The password that was set up for Gwickwire was temporary so the real password was never revealed. Yes, there was the potential for damage, but did Gwickwire abuse the trust Riley placed in him? No. According to Riley, as he puts, was simply trying to get Wikipedia to stop sending a flood of emails to his phone, while he was trying to get his phone to work. Since he couldn't do it himself with his phone, he asked Qwickwire to do it for him as his settings were set to receive an email when something on his watchlist had changed and he has over 30k pages on his watchlist. Honestly, wouldn't you be annoyed if you couldn't shutoff that email function?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Could someone from the checkuser team explain what led them to run checks in this case? Was it an e-mail tip or was this part of an SPI or something? I assume they weren't just going fishing, but it would be nice to have some reassurance about that. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • DoRD explained a little above. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think I understand what triggered the CU investigation now. I'm totally satisfied that the checks were done appropriately, i.e. not part of a fishing trip. I believe it had to do with the WP:ACC, as someone points out above. I'm not totally sure why the results needed to be made public though. This reminds me a bit of the situation a few months back when Arbcom announced out of the blue that two accounts were using the same IP. I understand why they investigated, but not why they made the results public. Was community input really needed here? Could permissions have been revoked without an announcement? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The most obvious parallel between that case and this one is that there was obvious wrongdoing involved (more obvious in the other case than in this one, given the long history of faux retirements and the subsequent un-retirement of the master account) and yet a long line of editors queueing up to express outrage at the perpetrator having even been named, let alone acted against. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I too am concerned with due process here. On what grounds was a checkuser done in this case? The concern that Riley should not have let Gwickwire use his account may be valid, but of concern here also is that other people with advanced permissions (i.e. checkusers) are using those permissions commensurate with the regulations regarding them, and not just fishing. How is it possible that a checkuser could catch something like this unless either Gwickwire or Riley had some reason to be checked, or that there was a third account linking the two otherwise. I'm unclear on how this came to be found, and I have serious concerns of a Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? nature. --Jayron32 05:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• There is no expectation of due process on Wikipedia, as we are not a government, but a private website. That's not a criticism, just a statement of fact. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• There is an expectation of privacy per WMF policy. NE Ent 11:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• There is absolutely an expectation that people entrusted by the community with advanced permissions like checkuser use those permissions persuant to the restrictions placed upon them, and that such people are ultimately accountable to the community to be able to justify their use of them. That is absolutely an expectation. We are not a government, we are a community who has entrusted checkusers with sensitive information, and as such, they are expected to use that trust appropriately and be able to justify their use of it when called to question. --Jayron32 14:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Last I checked, the standard of expected behaviors for admins was WP:NOTPERFECT and a "pillar" of this community was WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. " (emphasis original). If editors / admins are to be sanctioned for hypothetical events that could have happened, the reductio ad absurdum implication is that every admin who ever edited outside a Faraday Cage such as the one used for the recent papal elections should be immediately desysoped. NE Ent 11:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Arbcom? Stewards? Jimbo?

• CU aside, it's clear there is a major security risk involved here, I believe some course of action is required here. ArbCom should probably be notified, as well as the WMF Stewards, due to the fact that this is a cross-wiki incident. Jimbo would probably have some valuable opinions to share as well. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Probably not needed. Riley was desysopped on Wikidata per his request, and the only place Riley holds advanced permissions anymore is testwiki and that probably isn't going to be much an issue. We probably shouldn't escalate it. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• The subject of his testwiki access is another matter. Escalation is probably inappropriate in my opinion, as both parties have acknowledged their mistake.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, and my guess is that ArbCom would have been slammed if they dealt with this issue. --Rschen7754 03:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)This entire incident has escalated too much as is. Nothing harmful came of it. If I were Jimbo, I would've treated this the same as adminship, no big deal.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm pretty much a hardliner when it comes to stuff like this, but I'm not sure I'm seeing the problem here. Given the extent of sockpuppetry on this site, I have no objection to CUs doing their job to protect us, but, if I'm understanding what happened, that gwickwire edited Riley Huntley's account using a temporary password, it doesn't seem much different from two people in the same room where one person edits on the other's account, with permission. It doesn't make much difference whose fingers are pressing the keys, the person with the account is responsible for the edit, and it becomes their edit. It may be technically disallowed (although I'm not sure how), but it also seems entirely innocent. No information was shared except a temporary password - I'm not seeing where that implies that sensitive information would potentially be improperly shared. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Is a temporary password even possible? I know nothing of how it worked, but Beyond My Ken raises a good point. What's done is done, no damage seems to have come of it, I'd say let the concerned parties explain the matter if they wish and WP:TROUT or such, now that the resignations have been sent in. While I think I may be in the minority here, editors are people and people make mistakes, let the punishment equal the crime. The resignation and shame of this action seems fair, but lets not lose two people (forever) over this matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• The implication relates to the belief the password did not also allow access to the account creation system on toolserver or admin rights on the data project. I could tell you i changed the password before i give it to you but will you really know if it is actually new? Riley's toolserver password would not necessarily have been the same as his WMF SUL password but it could have been. Whether the password be new or not it was still a WMF SUL password which gave Gwickwire access to an admin account on a different project. Having admitted to doing it once after being caught for that one incident knowing it was inappropriate to have done in the first place the credibility is destroyed for claims that it really was only the one time and so limited in scope. If the password Riley supplied did actually allow Gwickwire access to the account creation system on toolserver then Riley violated the WMF Privacy Policy. All we have is Riley's word on the matter and right now that isn't so trustworthy.
  Notwithstanding all of that the edit Gwickwire made in Riley's name is hardly of such immediate concern it would require such measures. That alone shows some really poor judgement on Riley's part. If you're going to break the rules you really ought to have a really good reason and that isn't. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 04:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Moral of the story: Never, ever ... and I mean eeeeeeever give your password to another person. It happened in 2008 with the best of intentions, but the results were disastrous. — Ched :  ?  05:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

  Indeed they were.... Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 06:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see how this violates the account sharing rules at all. That implies that the account was shared on a long-term basis, not for a single minor edit with a temporary password. Furthermore, I am also concerned about what started this CU check in the first place. Considering the very minor edit that took place, there should have been absolutely no reason to run a CU in the first place, which implies that constant CU's were being conducted on Riley and/or Gwickwire's accounts, which is a complete violation of CU protocol. If anything, we have a much larger incident here of abuse of CU privileges. Silverseren^C 06:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is all rather silly, but it is the Wikipedia way to create a dramacane over the things no one honestly cares about rather than the things that actually matter. Of course, you are just adding to the silliness with your illogical accusations.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• How else would you explain why there would be a CU over this innocuous edit? An explanation of a "routine CU" is given above. Well, what the heck is that? Silverseren^C 07:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Unless I've misread what's been written above, no one has said that there was a specific CU about this edit, but that, in some way, evidence of the edit came up in the course of other CU business. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• That's true. It is stated above that they came up "incidental to a routine check". Of course, that raises further questions, because there's been no evidence presented that this edit or either of these accounts have been involved with any others. How does one come up "incidental"? Does a CU check bleed over into other accounts when you run it? Are there sockpuppets involved here? The evidence above is presented in a fashion as if to not invoke any questioning, as if to say that, when running a CU, this sort of thing just falls into one's lap. I think the community deserves more information when this has caused two editors to retire from the project. Silverseren^C 07:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's perfectly natural that CUs would not be able to explain in graphic and gruesome detail what led up to the incidental discovery of the edit in question, given the personal and confidential nature of the data they have access to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think anybody's asking for specific details. It's just that most people are under the impression that a justified CU check only brings up IPs and users in a narrow specified range or something like that. Now it sounds like any CU check "routinely" brings up most everybody's data now and then. That could be explained. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe yes, and maybe no. Not being conversant with how CU works (technically), I cannot tell one way or the other from the outside, but I certainly didn't get that impression from what the CUs have been able to tell us so far. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• For those wondering how CU works, when I run a check on an account, the tool gives me all IPs used by the person operating it. I can then check each IP individually (or an entire IP range) and I can see all accounts that have edited from said IP. That's useful when looking for sleepers, for instance. I have not reviewed the CU log, but, from my experience with the tool, I'd say that DQ was checking someone who happened to edit from the same IP (or IP range) as Riley or Gwickwire, saw something suspicious and decided to investigate. It's not that rare to see many unrelated accounts when checking heavily used IPs... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, that was very helpful, and answered some long-standing questions I had not related to this situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• That was indeed helpful, Salvio. I'm pretty sure any of the three involved CUs could have provided such a simple explanation without going into specifics and compromising anybody's privacy or violating policy, and I only wish they had done so. In fact, if they can't give even a reason like that, then FFS they could have said so at least (the reasons can't be disclosed due to privacy blah blah). That would have been much better than the vague passing mention of a "routine" check which has created the mess of confusion and speculation above. Chamal ^T•C 17:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think rather that the "mess of confusion and speculation" was the result of a general lack of AGF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• (ec) My comment was made late at night, and I was tired, so perhaps it could have been more clear. I would have preferred to have had a discussion with the other two CUs, but they were both offline then, so I said what I was comfortable with at the time. I will add, though, that I err on the side of caution where the Privacy policy is concerned. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Length of time is irrelevent. Sharing an account password is sharing an account password. IT security is based on potential harm. In most modern companies, sharing of accounts is prohibited on penalty of disciplinary. For much the same reason as the WMF requires identification - access to restricted personal info. While the WMF is not liable for content by editors, it IS liable for personal info it stores/holds on people who visit the various wiki sites hosted on its servers. It cannot take a 'relaxed' stance on this sort of thing. Having someone who isnt identified with access to 'personal' info is a major security breach. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Acting as an independent admin, I have just revoked Riley's permissions. I have not blocked either him or Gwickwire because both appear to have stopped editing and, so, for the moment, a block is, in my opinion, unnecessary. Unless the community wants to discuss further sanctions, I suggest this thread be closed. If you have concerns regarding how the checkuser tool was used in this instance, you should contact WP:AUSC. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Under what authority was this CU preformed? That is the policy-based reason why a CU was preformed on two editors in good standing? There must be a good reason why their private information was queried. Simply because a bad act was uncovered does not give justification to a warrant-less inquiry. Exclusionary rule, anyone? 134.241.58.251 (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Some answers to your questions are provided in the discussion above. Reading the entire section would be profitable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is analogous to how the Paula Jones case led to the Lewinsky case and the subsequent Impeachment of Bill Clinton. Count Iblis (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Are you attempting humor, or simply being absurd? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

I've brought this thread to the attention of my colleagues on the ArbCom, to the extent that they are not already aware of it. No other comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I take exception to the closure statement, and to the closure of the discussion in general. There was not a complaint of anything. No one said that the checkusers did anything wrong. What there was is a request for the checkusers involved to answer some questions. That isn't complaining, that's asking people to action. As now, not one of the checkusers involved has responded to those multiple requests, indeed, not one has even acknowledged that the request has been made of them even to go so far as to refuse it. So no, not one person complained about anything a checkuser did. I didn't; and neither did anyone else. What we did was ask for some additional information, and this thread was closed without any response to those reasonable questions. So, please either open that section and/or revise the closing statement please. --Jayron32 05:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • User talk:DeltaQuad has a statement. --Rschen7754 05:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing that out. For the record, after reading his statement I am now more than satisfied with DQ's statement on this, and consider my question fully answered. I have no further concerns regarding this issue. --Jayron32 05:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I just want to point out that I did acknowledge that there were questions by responding early on, and once again just before this was archived. Deskana also acknowledged the questions by pointing out my earlier comment. Unfortunately, neither of us could speak for DeltaQuad, so many questions were left unanswered until he was able to make the comments on his talk. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Lightspeedx WP:OWN at Erica Andrews

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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#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 [163] [164] 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 [165], [166], [167], 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

"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)

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)

IP refuses to adhere to consensus at Superpower

The IP refuses to acknowledge the consensus and continues to repeatedly restore content that was agreed upon to delete. How can we enforce the decisions of the consensus without the current edit warring? The IP has a battleground mentality and initial efforts made my me and other editors involved in the consensus to reason with him have gone nowhere. Indeed it is impossible for the discussion to go anywhere as long as the IP refuses to acknowledge consensus. The IP address also jumps (albeit slightly) so a talk-page discussion or placing warning templates wont suffice. I requested semi page protection for a temporary period to prevent the IP restoring unsupported content and possibly (as a result of the PP) forcing the IP to create an account so any discussion could proceed more amicably and warning templates could be placed at the users talk page if he continued his disruptive behavioral pattern. However, PP was declined. Please refer to the consensus here.Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Fully protected for now, but this still needs attention. Any takers? (I was expecting to get to the article on Superpower (ability), else I wouldn't have followed that link at all. ;)).
Antiochus, you will want to read our policy on edit warring in the meantime: WP:EW.
Amalthea 22:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ip user "Antiochus the Great|" has been abusing the superpowers article by inserting information referring on consensus on potential superpowers and claiming he can change the content under superpowers but there is no consensus prior to the unconstructive edits by Antiochus the Great. Antiochus the Great has been on consistent war edits to say there is consensus but there is no consensus on that discussion on superpowers by saying this[168] as prior there has been no open discussion anything on the superpowers talks page since March 13, 2013 copy of history here of showing no consensus [169] and here showing that user talk keeps throwing out this section completely[170], leaving not one word or source from the original context of the proir discussion of this article. Antiochus the Great is blaming me for saying I am refusing to acknowledge consensus and blaming I am continuing to repeat restore content. First there is no consensus, none under Superpowers and second restoring when Ip user Antiochus the Great reverting back his content saying this was discussed but there is no discussion of it under Superpowers. Why didn't Ip user Antiochus the Great start a discussion under Superpowers talk? But to say there is consensus when there is clearly nothing to defend that claim. Third, to say "battleground mentality and initial efforts made my me and other editors involved in the consensus" again where. And to bring up something I was never involved in such as consensus here, I never opened any discussion there nor do I plan to. So there's no claim there.

Personally I am clued and I think Ip user talk is trying to make rules above law when making a consensus and forcing the content without prior knowledge (such as not using the same talk pages from the original articles you wish to change or etc). That's like an example if I could go over "US Marines talks page" for example and had a discussion about the "US Army" and consensus about them under the "Marine's[171] talk's page" instead then a 4 days later I came over and changed everything on the "US Army article"[172] claiming people were talking about it under the "US Marines talks page. That is precisely what is going on here but more so Ip user Antiochus the Great is not clear on his consensus and the content in question is not specifically stating the content is going to be written or consensus on to look like. He has provided no copy & paste history of discussions facts and I think that is really asserting the rules over rules here. I think it is forceful and disruptive to the editors to say nothing to the article editors of the very article you want to change; he hasn't done that where it needs to be said & done. I disagree with that and personally feel their is an nationality discrimination on color and authority by talk on his remarks made on Russian culture but I am not going to start anything on that nature. The article needs peaceful consensus without disruptive edits from talk and should be on superpowers article if there consensus of updating, it should be done in the very place of the article lays, is it's talk's page not another article talk page. Please maybe set a rule over this article to set that Ip user Antiochus the Great to calm down and work this out. He is really taking this matter over the edge and that is not the way the article should be handled.--180.92.187.207 (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is now ridiculous. This is nothing short of trolling by the anon. IP editor. How difficult is it for other Wikipedia editors and indeed admins to see what's going on here? Please read through the relevant sections at Talk:Superpower and Talk:Potential superpower.

The editing of superpower and potential superpower articles go hand-in-hand. Consensus was reached by several editors after a lengthy discussion and analysis of references on the Talk:potential superpower page. It is a particularly academic subject and it seems some are getting confused about the terminology re: super v. great v. emerging powers. And there's also the usual nationalist POV pushing.

The argument put forward by the anon. IP editor is just silly. The changes made to the potential superpower page have to be reflected on the superpower page. Otherwise the superpower page will not reflect the consensus reached (which was actually a huge step forward, including the expansion of other pages on Wikipedia). I find it quite outrageous that the page has been protected with the version supported by a clearly trolling IP editor, rather than that supported by several long-standing editors. David (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Suspected (but nearly confirmed) sockpuppet of Seanharger

I would like to report 184.21.73.166 because he is a suspected sockpuppet of Seanharger (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seanharger). One piece of evidence is his contribution. His only contribution is at Seanharger's talk page, which he claims for it to be "ridiculous" that I reverted two of his edits. But when I saw the contributions, that comment was his only contribution.

Now, while he has not done any harm yet, Seanharger has already been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry and personal attacks. This IP needs to be blocked indefinitely, especially if CheckUser confirms that it is indeed, a sockpuppet (though already, he is suspected by many users as a sockpuppet of Seanharger). Thanks. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 22:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Remember that checkuser will not, in general, disclose a connection between an IP and a registered account. - David Biddulph (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Mhm. Then is it possible that he is just logging out and then using the IP address, Is there any way to figure it out? Thanks. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 22:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

IPs cannot shouldn't be blocked indefinitely, as per WP:IPBLENGTH.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. The IP was temporarily blocked anyway. Thanks, though. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 23:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hang on a second - we have blocked the wrong person. WorldTraveller - who has a history of hounding behaviour - interprets WP:SOCK in a bizarre manner and aggressively attackes Seanharger about it - won't let him go. Seanharger admitted freely that he was editing while logged out, was not violating any of the abusive aspects as per SOCK. WorldTraveller would not stop harassing him about it. Finally, Seanharger basically says "fuck it ... I can't deal with harassers like you, I'm going to WP:CLEANSTART to get away from you" and suddenly it's him who's blocked for Socking and NPA? See the discussion from User talk:Toddst1, but FFS we have to stop allowing baiting like this - ArbCom has already said baiting is not permitted. I'm prepared to unblock Seanharger and indef-block WorldTraveller. Yeah, Sean should not have called anyone an "asshole", but look at what he was pushed to (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • One way or the other, WorldTraveller won't last long, specially considering their latest contributions, all of them intended at being judged as a good contributor in order to get easier to their adminship aspirations. I'll invite Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) to join this discussion. The messages WorldTraveller left at this admin's talk page speaks for themselves.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• I followed a link to this ANI by accident, but now that I'm here: Jesus wept. Sean pretty much got screwed over here. I've unblocked Sean, unblocked the IP, warned Worldtraveler that if he mentions Sean again he will be blocked, and tried to clarify the situation at the surreal SPI. But surely the damage is already done. Whether or not to indef block Worldtraveller now or not is a discussion I'll leave to others. My instinct says yes, but that's probably caused by the toxic environment of ANI seeping into my soul; a warning is probably more appropriate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have given a week - generously. Let's close this up, and deal with future issues with WorldTraveller should they occur in the future - which hopefully will not be the case. In the meantime, Sean will be somewhat free to recover a little bit from the ordeal, and WT will recognize that such hounding will not end well (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure a block is actually best, here. As I said above, I would have preferred a clear warning. Along the lines of the warning I'd given him a little before your block: that he is to not mention Seanharger again. I think the pendulum swung too far in the the other direction here. Consider unblocking and leaving a clear warning, perhaps more general than mine, instead? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Actually, I just saw the previous block for the User:SirFart ridiculousness, so I no longer oppose a 1 week block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Kwamigami reverts to "better version"

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

---

Hi there, The last couple of days, I've been working on improving the article on Dravidian languages as I've found endless problems there, structurally, contentwise and the writing style. I've been specifically concentrating in cleaning up and enhancing the quality of the history section, since it was (it is) a total mess. I used the most reputed scholars to source everything. For a better view compare the current history section with the reverted one: Current vs Reverted . I did a lot of other improvements, all significant changes had a decent enough edit summary. I feel sabotaged and I hope someone hears me, since I want to continue this epic task. He also didn't react on his talkpage. -- Dravidian  Hero  22:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that your edits introduced quite a bit of controversial material into the article, it might be more appropriate to open a discussion on the article's talk page rather than coming directly here. Also I note that your message was left on Kwami's talk page a whopping three hours ago, and he has not edited anything in the meantime. Looie496 (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

what in your sense is "quite a bit controversial material"? My content is totally undisputed by anyone. Bhadriraju Krishnamurti was one of the most respected Indian linguists, his book The Dravidian languages most authoritive in the field. Please check the validity of your statement again as it shields the person who exactly knows this going by his linguistic track record on wiki. I came here to get neutral and qualified opinions on his deliberate action (rollback). If there was a problem with my content, he could have discussed it before on the talk page without making me look like a piece of crap by rollback everything. In my opinion Kwamigami should be banned for disruptive behaviour without question -- Dravidian  Hero  00:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, and also please bear in mind that "banned" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, vs. "blocked". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"Enhanced interest in Dravidian studies came through the identification of a Dravidian authorship of the Indus Valley Civilization by leading scholars." is undisputed by anyone? I hardly think so. No serious linguist accepts this idea. The Indus script hasn't even been deciphered and in fact, some linguists doubt the script has any linguistic value at all. The many theories on the affinities of the Harappan language are educated guesses at best and rank nationalist propaganda at worst. Contentious claims of this nature indeed should have been reverted after which you can try to defend them on the article talk page if you wish.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 07:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this sentence doesn't look too great. I'm fine with a discussion on that.-- Dravidian  Hero  08:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Er, Dravidian has said 'rollback' twice. Rollback is not meant to be used to revert good faith additions. Was rollback used in this case? As I cant see how any reasonable person would consider those additions vandalism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, rollback has not been used here so there isn't an issue of misusing the tool. In fact, neither Kwamikagami or Dravidianhero have rollback currently. Chamal ^T•C 06:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I thought Kwami was still an admin. Ignore above then. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have Twinkle and it let's me "rollback" or "restore" an older version.-- Dravidian  Hero  09:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

And this is why I hate automated tools. Twinkle rollback as I recall isnt actually dependant on 'rollback'. So it will revert to an earlier version but not using the rollback right if you dont have it. I havnt used it recently so someone with more experience might want to comment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Again he reverted everything after I addressed William Thweatt's concern and opened a talkpage discussion. Could somebody please get him out of that article? -- Dravidian  Hero  09:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like a straight content dispute to me, on which admins cannot rule. You need to discuss it on the article talk page and only make further changes when you have a consensus in support - discussions need to be developed and completed, not just opened. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Themacman4me

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

Copying from WP:AN3

I've copied the following content from WP:AN3. The situation was definitely not a 3RR violation, and it really didn't qualify for an edit-warring block for anyone. However, the allegations are serious enough that it shouldn't simply be let go. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Copied text

== [[User:Inhakito]] and [[User:Johnnytwet]] reported by [[User:Kodosbs]] ==

Page: White Latin American (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Good day, I am aware that wikipedia is a place to post information referenced neutral, what happens in this product is that the numbers of white people in Colombia are continually modified without reason. In the country there are many studies on these estimates made by the Congress of the United States where as I said "estimated" the total percentage of white ancestry in the country, which are referenced in the website of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA )https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/co.html and a study of the Library of Congress of the United States of the 80's, again by an estimated 25% http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+co0050) This last issue is the previous users constantly create and publish relevant in deleting my reference page study again by the Library of Congress of the United States but in the year 2010, in which he cites:

The 2005 census reported that the “nonethnic population,” consisting of whites and mestizos (those of mixed white European and Amerindian ancestry, including almost all of the urban business and political elite), constituted 86 percent of the national population. The 86 percent figure is subdivided into 49 percent mestizo and 37 percent white.

— Colombia: A Country Study, Colombia: A Country Study; pp. 86-87

Besides other study of self-recognize gives a 37% of white population in the country http://www.schwartzman.org.br/simon/coesion_etnia.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kodosbs (talk • contribs) 14:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Where the population is analyzed in terms of 86% is divided into 49% mestizo and 37% white, which makes an allusion to the general census conducted in 2005 in the country conducted by DANE, clearly an allusion to a census and a study of 2010 is more relevant than the above references, the user User:Johnnytwetchange my edits without reference, I first told my talk page in English that was Colombian, who had lived here and it was the correct figure, however on their website claims to be Venezuelan discucion a discucion with another user, similarly the user User:Inhakito constantly reverses the data of 37% to 25% of the old estimated for no reason, he have evidence on their website in both Spanish discucion http://Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:Inhakito Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:Inhakito as its English page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Inhakito constantly vandalizing ethnographic data on all nations as Chile and Colombia where inserts and deletes data without explaining why. I first wrote them as they should be on their website discucion no response from them. What I was unworthy becouse User:Johnnytwet accused me of vandalism usuuario what led me to settle my case determination to be saying here and I must do to continue to make an encyclopedia Wikipedia neutral data as far as possible the most reliable as possible. thank you very much --Kodosbs (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [173]
2. [174]
3. [175]
4. [176]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

End copied text

I've left a note at AN3 mentioning that I'm moving it here, and I'll notify all parties. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Disruption by user:Damonthesis

This editor, whose first edit was on April 28, is an SPA whose sole purpose is to add material to a number of articles in support of the idea that electronic means can be used to interfere with brain function. The articles affected include psychotronics, stalking, psychotronic weapons (currently at AfD), thought identification, and electromagnetic weapon. Essentially all of his edits have been reverted, by about half a dozen editors, but he reverts back regardless. You can find some discussion of the problem at WP:FTN#Psychotronics. He has been warned for edit warring, copyright violation, and personal attacks. I believe the only way to solve this problem is admin intervention. I will notify him that I have filed this report. Looie496 (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I came across this editor in my AfD-trawling; I think I should point out this as well. Also, note my comment on the AfD (if you think the comment was a bit too pointed, let me know) Ansh666 04:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

After attempting to to fix a completely broken wikipedia page, and having another user stalk every single one of my Wikipedia edits, this user, Looie496, followed me, first removing an entire page because I placed an edit, and then reverting another edit which was properly sourced and on topic. There appears to be a group of self proclaimed censors congregating here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard Where they are kind enough to tell you in plain English, that is their goal. I think I've argued for my changes to the Psychotronics page enough, but for one last time, these users have conspired to remove well sourced material from the government of the United States and Russia, in order to leave that page non-reflecting of its true meaning. Again, afterwords, two of the uses on the "Fringe Theories" noticeboard followed me, from page to page, reverting edits to Bible Code (of all things) and Looie496 completely deleted the 7 year old page electromagnetic weapon without reading its Talk page. This user is apparently upset that I reverted his complete deletion of that page, as it had been discussed on its talk page, and the target merge page, and both pages had decided not to perform the merge, which he decided to take it upon himself to do, for no reason at all. This user is defacing wikipedia content, in order to harass me and incite a conflict. None of my edits today have been reverted on any page but Psychotronics, and Frankly, it appears this entire incident is intended to ensure that Psychotronics does not accurately reflect the Russian program's history, and instead continues to be a "fluff" piece, about basically nothing.

His representation of "half a dozen editors" is baseless, there is a group of 3 editors that are championing the use of the term "psychotronic" to refer to a single scientist from the Czech republic in the 1960s. It is a well known Russian program, that has been sufficiently documented in the US and abroad. As he states, I think admin intervention is necessary. It appears you have a group of people with a concerted agenda to suppress well sourced material... for whatever reason.Damonthesis (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Looie496's other issue is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thought_identification where he again refuses to discuss content, and reverts for "bad sources" when the sources are anything but. His actions today have been to revert two good faith edits on Thought_Identification and then delete the entirety of electromagnetic weapons for no reason, then come here and file this complaint. Damonthesis (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Note also the WP:HARASS warning that was issued to the other user, who appears to be gaming the revision system with Looie496, User:GDallimore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs) 04:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Also note Looie496's complete deletion here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_weapon&diff=prev&oldid=552977637 Immediately after I made an edit. He had either reverted something of mine on another page before, or after that. Honestly, I feel like I'm being WP:HARASSed, and it's hurting the community because of vigilante censorship.Damonthesis (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You might want to scroll a bit further down and look at WP:AOHA. While User:GDallimore has received a warning as you pointed out, he has (following advice) stopped interacting with you for now; the other users to my knowledge have not recieved warnings. Ansh666 04:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the correct term is for following my edits around, and deleting the entire page I made a minor revision to is.Damonthesis (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(Involved contributor comment): it is worth noting that Damonthesis, who complains of "vigilante censorship", has repeatedly deleted sourced content in the Psychotronics article: [177][178][179][180]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Or you could see Psychotronic weapons, which includes the content. I moved it because it did not belong associated with the Psychotronics page dealing with a single scientist.Damonthesis (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Psychotronic weapons article was clearly created by Damonthesis as a POV fork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what POV fork means. Please look at the two pages:

Psychotronic weapons

Psychotronics at the time of the "Fork" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs) 05:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(note to Damonthesis: don't forget to sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~) to sign them. Ansh666 05:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC))

It's also worth noting that nearly all the additional information in Psychotronic weapons had been attempted to be merged into Psychotronics using properly sourced material, from the U.S. Army, the U.S. Marine Corps, and a textbook written in conjunction with the NSA. These edits were removed, one by one, as the article returned to its state of having absolutely nothing to do with Psychtronics. Prior to this flurry of destruction this morning, Grumpy and I had a conversation going on the talk page, discussing the meaning of the word. This discussion was ignored, as GDallimore reverted the page without discussion, consensus, or attempt to merge information. That is the reason for the new page, which was, at the time, about a completely different subject. After the AfD, all parties attempted to merge information.. though I think they are in fact different subjects. The Soviet Psychotronics program has no place being "sandwiched" inside a parapsychology article about a scientist from 1960. It is an ongoing research program, that is documented not only in the sources I mentioned, but in numerous news sources in Russia, as well as MSM in the US.05:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs)

Note that contrary to what Damonthesis claims, the article at that time of the fork was not "dealing with a single scientist". I have yet to see a single source that asserts that 'psychotronic weapons' are anything but an application of 'psychotronics' - though having said that, it is hard to say exactly what 'psychotronics' actually is, other than technobabble. Unless and until it is properly defined (as I asked on the article talk page, see Talk:Psychotronics#What exactly is this article supposed to be about?), there can be no justification whatsoever for forking the article on the whim of a single contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have provided defining articles from the Army, Marines, NSA, and top Russian officials. I'm not sure where the confusion is now. I think the state of the articles above speaks for itself. Damonthesis (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

<outdent> Damonthesis's thesis is that mind control devices are real. I encountered him at Stalking, where he was busy (initially as an IP) trying to argue that victims of so-called "group stalking" who think they are victims of mind control (and some of whom actually line their hats with tinfoil to prevent this) really are victims of mind control. He was abusing a Washington Post article on victims of such delusions to state that it was real, since the article ran off onto a tangent that speculated about mind control devices, and was adding chunks of material on psychotronic weapons to the stalking article. He has since moved into the actual articles on such devices, which, since they are firmly in fringe territory, I've pretty much ignored, but I noted that he filed a retaliatory report at AN3 against GDallimore (talk · contribs), who had nominated Psychotronic weapons for AfD. He has repeatedly argued that criticism of his use of sources and editing agenda is a personal attack and that he's being harassed, when in fact he's just being disagreed with. Some counseling on constructive interaction with other editors, the role of consensus on Wikipedia, appropriate ways to deal with fringe and hypothetical material, and appropriate use of sourcing may be in order. Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

My argument had nothing to do with them "really being victims of mind control." If you read my edits on that page, the only thign I was asking you to do was follow WP:RS and include the opinion in the article that the victims delusional status was questionable, and that there was ample evidence for the weapons to exist. Your article makes it appear that the weapons themselves do not exist, which is clearly refuted by numerous military publications. Further, you cite only half of the medical opinion in both articles you sourced, saying that "support groups" worsen the problem--when in fact both articles note that its possible that they could, but no study has been done, and it is generally believed that support groups can be helpful. Your rendition of the Washington Post articles and NYTimes articles leaves out the majority viewpoint of the articles, which has been pointed out to you over, and over again. Despite that fact, you continually insist to only represent the minority viewpoint on wikipedia, and have locked down the page and ceased discussion. The articles speak for themselves, and the interpretation on Stalking is not consistent with the source material.Damonthesis (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that DMacks semi-protected stalking after one such addition by Damonthesis' IP: I've taken no action other than to revert once and to attempt engagement on the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize to you.. it appeared from my vantage that you semi-protected it, since no other admins were involved. The discussion there hasn't been very productive though, and it still appears to me that WP:RS is not being followed, as the secondary viewpoints of the sourced articles are not represented in Stalking at all. Please see Psychotronic weapons for a comparative section, which I believe to be unbiased, and more informative/useful. Damonthesis (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Acroterion, Damonthesis is convinced that mind control weapons actually exist *, and our articles are "biased" until he can "correct" them. The problem is, he consistently misinterprets sources, either mistakenly or deliberately. For example, the lead of the POV fork he created up until recently had Wikipedia definitively stating that mind control weapons exist and are "used" [181]. Another editor rightfully questioned the language implying that such weapons exist and are operational [182]. Damonthesis responded that "it's in the citation" [183]. I pointed out to him what's actually in the citation: the source only speculates that such weapons are being researched, it doesn't say they exist [184]. Damonthesis reluctantly modified it to say weapons were "reportedly" used [185].

* He interprets a law prohibiting malicious use of electronic devices such as lasers, tasers, unshielded microwave transmitters, etc. as proof that mind control "weapons" exist.

- LuckyLouie (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The source, from the United States Marine Corps, specifically says they exist and explains how they are used. The wording used in the article is nearly identical to the Marine Corps rendition, in addition there is support in a myriad of other Military and government publications to show that the program is 50 years old, and continually researched today. This is not accurately reflected still, despite the fact that you have merged much of the information from my "fork," your article still revolves around the psuedoscientific work of one scientist, rather than the Soviet military as a whole, and now makes it look as if the government is reacting to his long dead project. Damonthesis (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Which source is that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the third time you have asked for it, and the third time it has been provided to you. If you look [here] at the history, I pointed out the URL, and then the specific section it was in. Again, it is in "Russian Views on Psychotronic War" from the Army publication "Parameters" http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/Articles/98spring/thomas.htm

Damonthesis (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That source is not "from the United States Marine Corps". It is written by "Lieutenant Colonel Timothy L. Thomas (USA Ret.)...an analyst at the Foreign Military Studies Office". Nowhere does it state that psychotronics weapons actually exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's published by Parameters ("The U.S. Army's Senior Professional Journal"), and distributed at army.mil. Lt. Col. Thomas is a high ranking Army officer. The article states:

Russian Views on "Psychotronic War"

The term "psycho-terrorism" was coined by Russian writer N. Anisimov of the Moscow Anti-Psychotronic Center. According to Anisimov, psychotronic weapons are those that act to "take away a part of the information which is stored in a man's brain. It is sent to a computer, which reworks it to the level needed for those who need to control the man, and the modified information is then reinserted into the brain." These weapons are used against the mind to induce hallucinations, sickness, mutations in human cells, "zombification," or even death. Included in the arsenal are VHF generators, X-rays, ultrasound, and radio waves. Russian army Major I. Chernishev, writing in the military journal Orienteer in February 1997, asserted that "psy" weapons are under development all over the globe. Specific types of weapons noted by Chernishev (not all of which have prototypes) were:

There is confirmation from US researchers that this type of study is going on. Dr. Janet Morris, coauthor of The Warrior's Edge, reportedly went to the Moscow Institute of Psychocorrelations in 1991. There she was shown a technique pioneered by the Russian Department of Psycho-Correction at Moscow Medical Academy in which researchers electronically analyze the human mind in order to influence it. They input subliminal command messages, using key words transmitted in "white noise" or music. Using an infra-sound, very low frequency transmission, the acoustic psycho-correction message is transmitted via bone conduction.[13]

While many US scientists undoubtedly question this research, it receives strong support in Moscow. The point to underscore is that individuals in Russia (and other countries as well) believe these means can be used to attack or steal from the data-processing unit of the human body.

Damonthesis (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Where does it say the weapons exist? A military analyst reporting the claims made by a Russian writer isn't authoritative proof that those claims are valid. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a U.S. Military analyst reporting on a Russian Army Officer and a Russian writers claims about a Russian development program. The page reflects the statements made by the analyst, and the article doesn't even say the "weapons exist." It says they are "used on the mind." If there's a problem with semantics, it can be edited, but the phraseology is taken directly from the source. What assuredly does exist is the program itself, as well as multiple decades of reporting on it. This has been confirmed, again, by U.S. researchers who have witnessed them in action. Damonthesis (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the text, they saw some Russians doing a research experiment that involved subliminal audio suggestion via bone conduction. Why do you interpret this to mean they witnessed psychotronic weapons "in action"? This is a good example of abusing a source, and is why a majority of your edits to articles have been reverted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC) I'm disengaging. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Administrative action needed

Counseling (suggested by Acroterion above) will not suffice here. This editor has been edit-warring on a range of articles and being disruptive in a variety of other ways. We currently have articles that are full of junk because I am not willing to engage in an edit war (thought identification, electromagnetic weapon). The absolute minimum that is needed is a stern warning that any further editing against consensus will lead to a block. I really feel that a block is already more than justified, though. Looie496 (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Calling my edits junk is OK? They are well sourced factual and relevant. Your actions, in deleting an entire page on a whim, despite talk conversations about merging them, is a bit more of a problem, I think. Damonthesis (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there anyone experienced in mentoring editors who charge on here to support fringe theories? That's about the only alternative I can see. I'm inclined to believe that unless Damonthesis's behaviour improves by a truly dramatic degree within the next couple of days that an indef is the best way to end the disruption here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a topic ban on a range of articles broadly related to mind control, psychotronics, etc. is appropriate? That would end the disruption, give the editor a mandatory break from his crusade, and provide the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of relevant Wikipedia policies by perhaps working on noncontroversial articles on unrelated topics. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You cannot call a viewpoint that is supported by military sources, news articles in Russia and the USA, as well as a textbook endorsed by the NSA a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. This is the established viewpoint, and this group has repeatedly attempted to suppress sources which refer to it as such, instead opting to utilize sources which are much older, and refer to an unscientific and un-investigated invention of one person, rather than the truth--that "psychotronics" refers to a long running Russian military development program. Damonthesis (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I would be willing to try mentoring Damonthesis. I have some experience with Wikipedia dispute resolution, and my knowledge of electromagnetic theory might come in handy. I would suggest a one-week block to stop the disruptive behavior, and that during the block he and I have a talk on his talk page about what behavior is expected of him if he wishes to continue editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What we are looking at is the "collective opinion" of 3 editors and an admin that since they do not believe something is possible, any source that disproves that opinion must be WP:FRINGE. These are not fringe sources, we are talking about congressional legislation, military analysis, and intelligence textbooks. The program is very real, and very well documented; despite fringe coverage which definitely does exist. Regardless, the sources here are factual, accurate, and authoritative, and its irresponsible to be fighting their inclusion because of the contrary opinion of an editor. Historical accuracy should be paramount, point in fact, the Soviet Psychotronic_weapons program was created as a parallel program to MK ULTRA at nearly the same time.. the only difference being that the psychotronics program was never shut down, as is well supported by U.S. Military literature throughout the 90's 00's and with recent comments by the Russians themselves in 2011 and 2012. This is being presented as "my opinion" or "my agenda," when in fact I am presenting well sourced facts, and those accusing me of pushing a POV are delivering only their uninformed and un-sourced opinions in response. Damonthesis (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, because The Men Who Stare at Goats was a documentary ... ? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Really? You liken sourcing Military publications and analysis to a fiction movie? Damonthesis (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Damonthesis, you can be completely right about what the article content of a page and still be end up indefinitely blocked because of your user conduct. Likewise, you can be completely wrong about article content, but if your user conduct meets our behavioral standards you can be a productive editor. You need to choose; are you willing to follow the same rules as everyone else or do you prefer to have your editing privileges revoked? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to follow the rules, the edits I made should have at least been looked at, but were summarily dismissed. I attempted to go to another page to provide a better "look" at the differences, and was followed there, having my edits deleted by the same users. I filed a complaint about that, and was subsequently attacked repeatedly. To date, it appears nobody has taken the care to look at the merit of the edits, or the discussion that created this problem. Damonthesis (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Based on the report at WP:ANEW, I've blocked Damonthesis for one week (good number, Guy) for edit warring, canvassing, and personal attacks. Other editors were also edit warring, but I chose not to block them because the source of the disruption was Damonthesis. Nonetheless, those editors are advised to be more careful next time. Another admin may have reacted differently. If Guy wants to attempt to discuss mentorship with Damonthesis during the block, that would be much appreciated. I do not believe that the block is too long, but, obviously, the discussion here might result in greater sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Based on Damonthesis' user page, WP:OWB #72 seems to apply... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Wedlock

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

---

I nominated an ariticle for deletion [186]. My nomination was quickly declined, no problem there. Declining editor quickly protected the article claiming "Seems to attract unwanted attention from vandals" My call for deletion was valid. I have a long term contribution to Wikipedia. I have started a lot of articles that remain here at Wikipedia. I am not a vandal. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

My semi-protection wasn't intended to imply that you're a vandal, and I apologize if you took it that way. I protected the article after looking at its history, and noticing an unusual amount of blocked editors and unconfirmed accounts in that history. Assuming those were what you were referring to when you nominated the page for deletion, I semi-protected the article. As to speedy deletion, the article clearly does not meet any speedy deletion criteria. There is no unambiguously promotional content, and the topic appears to be notable. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)While Amatulic has the right to decline a speedy (and I agree with that decline - your concerns would be better-off raised in an AFD) - protecting a page indefinitely out-of-policy is concerning. I've unprotected the page. m.o.p 14:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Amatulic - blocked editors and uncomfirmed accounts (which I can barely find any of in the history unless I go back months at a time) are not a reason to indefinitely protect an article as low-traffic as this one. Please try to use protection more sparingly. m.o.p 14:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Duffbeer - Why did you see fit to nominate an article for speedy deletion that was clearly well-sourced and, for the most part, objectively written?--WaltCip (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Master of Puppets has unprotected the page now. I have to agree with his decision as the article hasn't had a severe problem with vandalism in the recent past. Duffbeerforme, the protection wouldn't have affected you anyway as it was only semi-protected. On a side note, the GA review seems to be incomplete although the article has been listed as a GA. Chamal ^T•C 14:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not "clearly well-sourced". duffbeerforme (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The article's merits (or lack of) should be discussed at WP:AFD if you see fit, Duffbeerforme. That's not a discussion for ANI. m.o.p 15:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Aircorn added the GA. [187] I believe the GA should be removed and delisted as the placement was not by the reviewer and the GA did not meet standards. I will not do it personally, I do not have time to answer questions about 'why' as I will be offline shortly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The article's merits should be discussed elsewere. This ANI was not about the content of that article, It was about the declining of a speedy and the accusations that went with that. Amatulić has addressed that concern. Time to move on and close this. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

AfD Closure Requested

Please can an admin take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clean, Clean? Notability has been established, and the nomination has been withdrawn, but the nominator has made a bit of a (good-faith) hash of it. I'd perform a NAC myself, but there is one delete !vote outstanding, so I thought I'd bring it here for a 'proper' closure instead. Not really urgent! Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 14:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Can't be closed as "withdrawn" unless you can convince the other delete !voter to remove their vote. As such, NAC would definitely be wrong, as would any other form of closure at this point (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. I guess we just sit tight then. Cheers! — sparklism ^hey! 19:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Reporting self

Note : I have moved this discussion from AN to ANI as I started the discussion in the wrong location

I have been accused of making personal attacks multiple times regarding discussions on the Gun Control article. One of the complaints was formally made as part of a 3RR accusation against me which resulted as "not a violation" (as regards to 3rr, PA was not addressed), and another was recently made that the accuser has declined to post here. The topic is controversial, and tempers are high. WP:CIVIL is lacking all around (myself included), but I do not think it goes to the level of a personal attack, and I believe the accusers are attempting to win content disputes by making bureaucratic threats.

The editors in question are also attempting to systematically disqualify all sources they disagree with by calling them unreliable and self published, in spite of being published in multiple 3rd party sources, and being cited repeatedly (including by SCOTUS).

While calls for civility are justified and appropriate, I would like to put a stopper in this bureaucratic wikilawyering so that we can focus on the actual content dispute.

FACTS AND EVIDENCE

• Diff of most recent accusation [188]
• Accusation made at 3rr Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Gaijin42_reported_by_User:SPECIFICO_.28Result:_No_violation.29

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• More diffs.. User:Gaijin42 reported by User:SPECIFICO (Result: Blocked) [189] SPECIFICO talk 16:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

A previous episode occurred at the same talk page yesterday in which Gaijin42 said that his opponents' arguments were "beyond the pale, and reeks of holocaust denialism and trolling".[190] — goethean 15:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

MAYONNAISE

That would be incident #2 that I already mentioned. The statement I was replying to was in regards to SPECIFICO's repeated unhelpful analgoy that nazi uses of gun control has as much relationship to the general concept of gun control as Hitler's use of Mayo does to the Mayo article. I called that trolling, and I stand by the statement.

• Why would I care about Hitler's gun policies? Again, it's no more significant than his preference for mayo rather than the more conventional mustard on his sausage
• If that were true, how would it be relevant to an article on gun control? Does the article on Mayonnaise discuss Nazi use of Mayonnaise?
• Using mayonnaise is an action -- like regulating gun usage
• Do you seriously deny that der Fuhrer spread Mayonnaise on his Blutwurst?
• (identical comment, again) Do you seriously deny that der Fuhrer spread Mayonnaise on his Blutwurst
• It's mayonnaise again, in spades
• Mayonnaise is complicated stuff.

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

In response to Gaijin42's discussion of the content issue, the section in question is highly problematic in regards to NPOV. It was under an "Arguments" header until one editor overhauled the article, placing it in a "History" section. Now we have a group of editors contentiously arguing that the material is not an argument, but is a neutral presentation of history. — goethean 15:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

So, because editors took concerns into account, and improved the article per critical suggestion, is a sign that we are acting inappropriately. gotcha. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Moving a section from "Arguments" to "History" is not improving the article. It is taking what were known to be contentious arguments and calling them history. It is inserting ideology into a article, and acting like it is not ideology. — goethean 18:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting note: First, this would normally belong on WP:ANI. However, since two of you are simply going to discuss it between you, why didn't you do that first on someone's talkpage? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It has been extensively discussed on user talk pages, and article talk pages, and continues to escalate. Hence my post here. I myself was attempting to clarify what I believe to be a slanted presentation of the facts (and I will assume AGF and that Goethean is doing the same on this report per his own perspective.) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Should the discussion be moved to ANI? That was an error on my part if so. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if you're only interested in a content discussion, this should be at neither AN nor ANI, as neither board addresses content disputes. Take it to 3O or DRN, depending on the complexity and number of disputants. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for having this derail. I was trying to give context to the statement which was described as a PA. I would like resolution on if my statements constitute a PA or not. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin, it is not appropriate for you to recite a list of phrases and fragments for the purpose of characterizing them as evidence in whatever complaint you are making here. You wrote on my talk page that you were about to report yourself. I don't know what that means in the context of WP. Anyway if you wish to cite evidence please follow procedure here to help other editors and admins understand your view by providing links to diffs, adding whatever comments or context you think would be helpful. Also if this is a complaint against yourself, what is the accusation, please describe the remedy you propose, and why is such remedy not available to you acting alone, of your own will? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly - General rule: if you (and others) think you might have acted like a WP:GIANTDICK then you probably were at least acting like a WP:DICK, so self-censure is easier than community/admin-imposed censure. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

While I admit minor incivility and possible dickishness, and resolve to improve, specific accusations that can lead to banning and blocking have been made against me, and I would like that issue put to rest. Either my statements constitute a PA or they do not, and I would like an answer to that question. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Not going to happen. Try reading WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:WIAPA. ANI is not a place for test cases (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you want done here Gaijin? A declaratory judgment? Shadowjams (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I'm looking over that discussion and while it seems reminiscent of many similar contentious wiki arguments, I don't think there's anything (from what I saw) rising to the level of a personal attack that would require any action at ANI (unless you've got incredibly delicate sensibilities). Shadowjams (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thats essentially what I am looking for. The accusations were interfering with content dispute resolution, and I wanted to be able to formally put them aside. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• If someone called me a holocaust denier in real life, I would likely punch them in the nose. But since this is Wikipedia, I guess it's OK? Incivility isn't about using bad words, it's about casual slander like this. I don't know, or care, about any other portion of this dispute, but since you claim to be looking for outside feedback, Gaijin42, I'll say that calling someone a holocaust denier is a dick move, on many levels. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  Gaijin needs to temper his language (if you read that exchange though it's clearly more a poor choice of words than an accusation; you characterizing it as "call[ing] me a holocaust denier" is unfair at best). But if you regard those as fighting words you need to think about some anger management techniques. Shadowjams (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Gaijin, at the risk of repeating myself, if you want the best feedback from others, it is important to furnish a complete set of facts and circumstances to those on whom you're relying for review and advice. Your brief, excerpted phrases and omission of the additional 3RR incident above do not give readers a full set of information on which to comment. The choice is yours, but I suggest you add diffs and links to excerpts with enough context to be most useful to those who may comment here. You may also wish to consider WP's established editor review process. To determine whether this is of interest to you, there is information at WP:ER. SPECIFICO talk 21:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

nazism sidebar disruption

user:DIREKTOR instead of disussing threatened me on the nazism sidebar talkpage that he is going to "request admin action" and he keeps edit warring by introducing new changes without consensus, i have also notified him Peterzor (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I see a discussion on that talkpage that has not yet formed wP:CONSENSUS to change it yet, and may not based on policy ... yet I see you making changes as if such consensus exists. What would you like us to do...block you? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

no, what do you mean? he is making the NEW CHANGES and claims am against consensus, you can block user:direktor or atleast warn him or something... something must be done because when he comes back to wikipedia i feel he would start with the wild accusations and successfully convince the admins here, so why should i recieve a punisment because he keeps edit warring, please note that i did not want this to go to ani i was forced because he was threatening me Peterzor (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Any editor has the same authority to issue a valid warning to any other editor (note the word warning, not threat). I have reviewed a handful of recent edits to the talkpage, and I've made a pretty clear statement as to your way forward. Indeed, WP:BRD applies to both of you. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you read anything i wrote here? in about some hours he probably will make a new thread here and will claim that i "was edit warring, "vandalism" etc, and you still did not answer my question why should i be punished by the same group adminastrators just becuase he did not agree with me (take in account everything i wrote here) Peterzor (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has punished you for anything - and I can't see how anyone can take any action regarding something that hasn't happened yet, and which only you seem to think is about to happen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User talk:MrFalala - persistent violation of WP:SOAP

Please see Talk:Scottish independence referendum, 2014, Talk:The Blitz, [191], etc. Extremely tedious presentation of his opinions as "facts" without sourcing or relevance to the articles. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Plus Michael Collins (Irish leader) ([192], [193]), Irish War of Independence ([194], [195], [196], [197]) and Partition of Ireland ([198]) The Banner talk 18:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:johncheverly

A contributor, User:johncheverly, has recently embarked on what can only be described as a crusade to 'right a great wrong' regarding Jimmy Savile and the widely-reported allegations regarding sexual abuse by Savile (which johncheverly seems to consider unjust), and has taken to misusing multiple unconnected Wikipedia talk pages in the process. Essentially the same material has been posted not only at Talk:Jimmy Savile and at Talk:Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, where it might at least be seen as relevant, but also at Talk:England, Talk:Sexual offences in the United Kingdom, Talk:English criminal law, Talk:Rights of Englishmen and Talk:Hearsay in English law. At Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Neutrality v. Bias in Jimmy Savile articles. johncheverly stated that he "would like a licensed criminal solicitor or barrister in the UK to weigh in on claims made in the article". I pointed out to him that "Wikipedia does not employ solicitors or barristers to check article content". In return, johncheverly presented what he sees as 'evidence' towards Savile's innocence- at which point, since this was clearly outside the remit of the page (or any talk page for that matter) I pointed out the WP:NOTFORUM policy: to no avail - johncheverly continued in the same vein, and seems intent on abusing multiple Wikipedia talk pages as a platform for expounding his "FACTS" [199], rather than for their intended purpose. Given that in the process of expounding said facts johncheverly has chosen amongst other things to call radio/TV presenter Paul Gambaccini a "motherfucker" and "a has-been that never made it", [200] and given that he has made it entirely clear that he is unwilling to comply with Wikipedia policy, I would suggest that the only reasonable course would be to block johncheverly from editing until such time as he agrees to use Wikipedia talk pages only for their intended purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If I may be permitted to respond. Does anyone think that someone who DELIBERATELY chooses a name like Andy the Grump is dealing in good faith??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

To the contrary, I am accusing Mr Grump of Harassment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment because he, for some reason, does not wish me to raise salient issues of bias and incomplete information regarding the Savile Affair.

Definition of "grump" a habitually grumpy or complaining person taken from the Wiktionary http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grump — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

However, unlike Mr Grump, I will deal in facts and not ad hominem attacks and his obviously profound psychological issues.

Here is the essence of my criticisms about the Sir Jimmy Savile OBE Affair:

I definitely think there needs to be some quotes from Sir Jimmy Savile OBE's mistress Sue Hymns that "There's absolutely nothing there. People make those things up."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yghttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2069358/Jimmy-Saviles-secret-lover-Sue-Hymns-talks-VERY-unconventional-life-together.html

Also, his neice, Amanda McKenna, also has refuted the scandalous stories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yg

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-saviles-family-reveal-their-outrage-870828

And she tells how she was hurt over the years by false rumours about her uncle. BBC’s Newsnight even began an investigation into ­unfounded allegations ­relating to under-aged girls.

She says: “Uncle Jimmy ­always said, ‘People were looking for the big secret about me but the big secret is that there isn’t one’.”

Any mentions of his posthumous AUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY??? Why not???

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/features/leader/9806293.The_real_Jimmy/

Also, of the over 40 people that claim they were "molested" by Savile in the West Yorkshire region of England, NONE ever reported the incident to the West Yorkshire Police, and there is no evidence of any criminal behavior by Savile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xrp6cHjets

Paul Gambiccini's Claims??? Why are they even included in this article??? Listen to all 11:30 minutes of this interview:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DutNY63LqO0 Complete bullshit there. This motherfucker has no concrete information. It's all a bunch of hot air by a has-been that never made it. (Where I come from in the USofA, the only thing worse than a ratfink, is a ratfink that can only offer up INSINUENDO.)

Talk about payoffs, don't you think you ought to add info from this article???http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/savile-to-cost-bbc-insurers-millions-8590981.html

Show me the fucking money=30 million pounds worth.

Also, what's the statute of limitations on the charges against Max Clifford, Freddie Starr, Rolf Harris, Jim Davidson, etcetera??? These guys are in their late 60's, early 70s now.

Is there anyone on Wikipedia that can give some kind of context of the English Legal system??? Were the laws the same in the 1960s and 1970s as they are today???

These are the things that are nagging me and that I come to Wikipedia for wanting to read FACTUAL ANSWERS ON.

Also, relating to the Savile Affair, I have issues that pertinent issues have been left off the articles of David Icke:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Icke Despite insisting there is an international paedophile network since at least 1999 when his conspiracy theory book _The Biggest Secret_ was published, you mention nothing about it in the David Icke article. Why not??? Is David Icke correct that there is a vast paedophile network operating in the UK and that it reaches well up into the police, Parliament, and the Royal Family??? Icke has a "Child Abuse" Archive on his website dating back to 2002. If you take the time to review the the David Icke Channel on YouTube, Icke has posted numerous videos relating to this PN, including this video of a radio interview with English barrister and former intelligence officer Michael Shrimpton in which Mr Shrimpton states that both the late Sir Jimmy Savile OBE and former English Prime Minister Ted Heath molested and murdered children: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNelt33QP_8&list=UUAhmDfQ1LfOYECmNNWgXJ7Q&index=4 The question persists: with his long interest in a paedophile network, why isn't a "Child Molestion" section included on Icke's article???j

The Metropolitan Police Service: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Metropolitan_Police_Service If you believe the wild accusations, rumors and speculations surrounding the late Savile and paedophilia, wouldn't this be a bigger systemic failure of the police than even the botched "Jack the Ripper" investigation??? According to published media reports in the UK Savile was ALLEGED to have sexually molested and raped 450-1350 children over a 50 year period. Is the English Conspiracy theorist David Icke correct that there is a vast paedophile network operating in the UK and that it reaches well up into the police, Parliament, and the Royal Family??? How does the Metropolitan Police Service explain its own appalling deficiencies if the reports are indeed correct??? Is there any kind of special investigation into the operating procedures of the MPS being conducted by the Home Office and/or a Commons Special Select Committee??? If so, when will the report be published??? These are the kinds of answers I am looking for when I come to Wikipedia to research an issue. Thanks

And, The West Yorkshire Police: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:West_Yorkshire_Police According to published media reports in the UK Savile was ALLEGED to have sexually molested and raped 450-1350 children over a 50 year period. Yet the West Yorkshire Police Service has claimed it never received any reports about Savile, who was born and lived in Leeds throughout his life, except about a missing pair of Savile's eyeglasses a few months before the entertainer's death. Is the English Conspiracy theorist David Icke correct that there is a vast paedophile network operating in the UK and that it reaches well up into the police, Parliament, and the Royal Family??? How does the West Yorkshire Police Service explain its own appalling deficiencies if the reports are indeed correct??? Is there any kind of special investigation into the operating procedures of the WYPS being conducted by the Home Office and/or a Commons Special Select Committee??? If so, when will the report be published??? These are the kinds of answers I am looking for when I come to Wikipedia to research an issue. Thanks.

Once again, as an EDITOR, I approach articles as a USER. I have have some legitimate issues on bias and unanswered questions about the whole Savile Affair.

Thanks for your kind attention to these important issues.johncheverly 17:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

And with that humongous violation of WP:NOTFORUM, I rest my case... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• If memory serves me right, the last time that John was here, I blocked him for WP:DE, then Drmies had to take away his talk page access for soapboxing/insults, then Yunshui unblocked a few months later [201]. This looks like more of the same, but as I've previously blocked, I will let someone else decide how to proceed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr Brown, just because I was blocked before, does it mean that the issues I have raised and documented are not valid and should be considered in the editing process??? Please remember The Five Pillars of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars Specifically, Neutral Point of view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view , Free Content that anyone can edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_free_content , and Co-operation and Civility between editors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility. Instead of trying to tear me down, perhaps the whole project would be better served if Mr Grump would degrumpify himself and take a broader view of the editing process.johncheverly 17:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not just a dispute between you and Andy the Grump. I have also tried to dissuade you, at the Talk Pages for two of those articles, from your current course of action. Also, obviously, to no avail. We are not here to argue about any posthumous injustices which may or may not have been meted out to Jimmy Savile. We are here to produce one or more encyclopedia articles about him. That's all. I have to agree 100% with all that Andy says above. I'd suggest that your crusading vitriol belongs elsewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Me too. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• My reference to your previous bad behavior is relevant in that it establishes that this isn't a singular event, but rather a pattern of behavior. My concern as an admin isn't the content as admin don't decide content, thankfully. I do care about behavior in that it affects other editors, and editor retention in general. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to Censorship---

2.11 Wikipedia is not censored [edit] Policy shortcuts: WP:CENSOR WP:CENSORED WP:UNCENSORED WP:NOTCENSORED

See also: Wikipedia:Offensive material, Help:Options to hide an image, Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, MediaWiki:Bad image list, and Censorship of Wikipedia

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.

Because anyone can edit an article and most changes made are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may appear before it can be removed. Content which is obviously inappropriate (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clearvandalism) is usually removed quickly. Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Virginia where Wikipedia's main servers are hosted, will also be removed.

However, some articles may include images, text or links, which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content.

Wikipedia will not remove content because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• The attacks on a subject of a Wikipedia article (Paul Gambaccini) are unacceptable even if they took place on talk pages and/or ANI. To prevent further breaches of WP:BLP, I have blocked Johncheverly for 48 hours. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that the editor has previously had three indef blocks within the last six months, without a noticeable improvement in their behaviour, I'm mildly surprised at the expectation that a mere 48h block will lead to a change for the better this time round. But, we'll see. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think 48 hours will stem the current tide of shenanigans. But the larger issue - that of the righteous crusade embarked upon by Johnceverly - would seem to warrant a longer block or other sanctions. If topic banned from this area (Savile, England, etc), is there anything else that johncheverly edits? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The thing about johncheverly is that he found any pages loosely affiliated with Savile and spammed their talk pages. So while it is a good idea to ban him from those pages it's quite likely that he will find another talk page to soapbox the same issue on.LM2000 (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic bans relate to the topic, not the location. If we topic ban johncheverly, it doesn't matter where he posts. Personally, I'd think it best to not only topic ban him, but make any unblock conditional on an explicit agreement from him to strictly abide by policy regarding the appropriate use of talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. Geeze louise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:HARASSment by user User:GDallimore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GDallimore#Possible_WP:HARASS_Violation

He also followed my edits around reverting them for being "factually incorrect" when in fact they were nothing of the sort.

After receiving a WP:HARASS warning for this, this user continues to send harassing and badgering messages to me, in retaliation for filing this complaint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Damonthesis&diff=553067989&oldid=553025994 Damonthesis (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Posting obnoxious messages: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Damonthesis&diff=prev&oldid=553067989

After deleting that comment. this user has posted, again. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Damonthesis&diff=prev&oldid=553070258

This user has repeatedly reverted my good faith edits, which have added proper sources and corrected previously existing material, completely removing entire sections which existed before I edited them, because of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Directed-energy_weapon&diff=553069948&oldid=552982142

Damonthesis (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User warned. I'm leaving this topic open in case GDallimore would like to comment. m.o.p 18:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that warning was particularly appropriate. Damonthesis is the most disruptive editor I've encountered for quite some time, and it would be nice for administrators to be supportive of editors who have to deal with things like this rather than making things difficult for us. Fortunately he is now blocked for a week (see section above), but even so the blocking admin felt it necessary to give a chiding to editors who have been struggling to protect our articles. Looie496 (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Indef this guy

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

---

Keted6 has resumed edit-warring immediately after being unblocked on the same article. We need a quick indef. Thanks. Pass a Method talk 18:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor blocked indefinitely. m.o.p 18:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

ProudIrishAspie

Mass page moves: Greek transliteration

GreekAlex is mass-moving pages on Greek food to impose a specific transliteration of the Greek names: Special:Contributions/GreekAlex. He seems to have stopped for now, and I left him a note on his talk page, but since his very first edit was today and he started moving pages shortly after his tenth edits in what might well be a controversial way, this might bear watching. Huon (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

He must be warned and if he does not stop he should be blocked without delay. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I reverted all his page-moves and his terrible transliterations. If he persists he must be blocked. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do something about vandalism-only account

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

---

I undid a couple of edits by Placejuror and put a warning notice on their page (not the first) about non-constructive edits and they reverted one of the edits leaving a juvenile message on my talk page. I note that they've been up to other tricks today as their talk page shows. Intervention by an admin might be useful. asnac (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

In the future, please take matters like this to WP:AIV. m.o.p 19:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Gareth Griffith-Jones and User:MarnetteD and User:Glacialfox

The first user has reverted me twice for something I haven't done, dismissing my contributions are "unimportant." I moved parts of the article to other parts, that's all I did. Anyone can see that if they check. However, this user cannot even when I have explained that I added nothing new. The user has then simply reverted my attempt to engage with them. Now someone else has come along and done the same. Apparently my contributions are not "clean." I'm quite tired of this approach when dealing with IP editors. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The second user has dismissed my attempt to engage with them as "trolling" which is ridiculous. Is no one around here capable of thinking for one moment that they might be wrong? --86.40.205.105 (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

A third user has now deleted my attempt to engage with others here because they said it "didn't appear constructive to me" which is absurd. Is this the way all editors are treated? I trust these editors will be dealt with appropriately. I do not have all night to be wasting here. Luckily all this is available in the page's history. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, I would kind of like to know what's going on. This is how we'd treat a vandal or a troll; this editor doesn't appear to be either. Glacialfox is, I assume, just Huggling too fast, but I'd like to hear from Gareth and MarnetteD (all three of whom I've notified, 86.40, which you should really do yourself when reporting people here). Is there a history here that isn't readily apparent? If not, I'd be very annoyed if someone did this to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You're forgetting that my every attempt to engage with them (including this section) has been deleted. You hardly expected me to try again. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well nobody's going to do anything if they don't even know they've been reported here, and if you don't do it, then I have to. Gareth has already deleted my note, but now I know he knows he's being discussed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)In regards to your first two complaints - you may have better luck if you don't throw templates at other editors. If you feel you haven't received an adequate explanation as to why your edits were undone, feel free to ask the users on their talk page in a calm, reasonable manner. Giving them a template does not inspire cooperation. That being said, I can't see any reason for said reversions.

As for Glacialfox, I'm assuming that was just a product of over-zealous reversion. I doubt there's any malicious intent there. m.o.p 20:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that what templates are for? I gave them one each, no more. Then I came here. Imagine if I'd spent hours carefully writing something to all of them. They'd have deleted that too because apparently I'm a troll and a vandal and so on. I despair. I was going to write a few stubs for some much-needed novels in this time but I can't be bothered now. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah I apologize, I remember reverting that page because someone edited some other stuff into one of the things but I don't remember editing that, I'm still getting used to Huggle after using Igloo for some long and I'll be more careful. Glacialfox (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam. See? The first user just deleted again. The manners of these people. It would put anyone right off editing. I hope this isn't happening regularly but I fear it does. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

An IP editing my Wikipedia? Are you even human? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I have a large brain relative to body size, with a particularly well developed neocortex, prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes, making me capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and culture through social learning. Something many others around here appear to be without. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)