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

Repeated racism and personal attacks.

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

---

Reading about the reactions to Margaret Thatcher's death, I happened to come upon some very disturbing comments by Quis separabit?, with whom I don't think I've ever interacted. In several edits, the user calls other "scum" [1], calls Afro-Caribbeans "criminal/thugs/gaolbirds" and adds some attacks on the Irish [2], [3]. In another comment, the user expresses his joy over the murder of human rights lawyer Rosemary Nelson[4]. The user obviously has many valuable edits, but repeated racism of this kind is disturbing and violates quite a number of policies.Jeppiz (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• The user is actually User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, who has history here. I can understand that various emotions were running high after Thatch's death, but the Rosemary Nelson diff is completely out of order and I would certainly have issued a block to them had I seen that at the time. I'm actually about to revdelete it now. If any other admin wants to block for that I wouldn't object at all. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I found it downright disgusting, and the openly racist comments about Caribbeans and Irish just as bad. It's among the worst comments I've ever seen on Wikipedia, hence my bringing it here though I'm not involved.Jeppiz (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see any rational way in which those comments represent an acceptable level of discourse. I've blocked the account for 1 week, and would invite feedback about that decision. MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• As I said above, I agree completely. If I'd seen it at the time I'd have probably blocked indef until the user had pledged not to do anything that stupid again. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the block but I think it should be noted that the accusations mentioned are against particular members of their respective classes rather than as slurs against the classes as a whole. There is no implication that all members of each class are such offensive things. The terminology is still unnecessary and insulting by implication. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't actually that worried about those. It was the comment about the murder of someone (which I've revldeleted, and am not going to repeat here). I cannot imagine what a member of her family would have thought about Wikipedia if they'd read that. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• If I'd've got there first I would have indeffed him, but the 1 week block seems fair. If I ever see anything like that again... GiantSnowman 18:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm, I suppose, a major supporter of Robert and have been involved for many years in blocking his accounts, back in the day. I was a major supporter of his unban, too. He's basically a good guy and means well. Having said that, I have to support the week-long block here, as those comments were utterly inappropriate by any interpretation - Alison ^❤ 18:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This week long block seems utterly pointless and 100% punitive, yes the comments were in poor taste, but why do we suddenly care now when no one did 6 days ago when they were made? Since this outburst the user seems to have returned to constructive editing so I oppose this sanction and support just letting it go (with a warning). - filelakeshoe (t / c) 19:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I care about it today because I became aware of it today. While I take your point about the time lapse between the comments and the block, I do think there's some value - some preventative value - in making clear that those kinds of comments are unacceptable, even at 6 days' remove. That said, there is not much science to choosing a block length, and I wouldn't defend 1 week as The Right Answer. The fact that Alison is willing to vouch for someone goes a long way for me, and I'd be fine with shortening the block to 24-48 hours as long as there's general agreement that the comments in question were inappropriate. MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I oppose the block duration, and its much-delayed timing. The OP's linked comments were neither "racism" nor "personal". Stale issues should not trigger blocks. Looking at histories at Talk:Margaret Thatcher and User Talk:You Can Act Like A Man, a lot of edits not by rms125 were revdel'd from the user talk page, but rms125a seems not to have edited Talk:Margaret Thatcher since 9 April. This makes this block less valid due to staleness. The OP duplicated alleged offensive edits. RMS's comments must be read in whole, not in part, to understand them. I see this block as an overreaction by people who don't read for context. rms125a has been civil in all discussions with me. However, as a reminder to be more civil (since I don't think RMS was uncivil), and because a few people were offended (I think too much, really) this block should be for 1 or 2 days maximum, since it's a first incident since 2009. --Lexein (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I originally made the accusation of racism against Rms125, on my TP, but did not report it here as perhaps I should have because, assuming gf, I recognised it as probably being a result of the general heightened emotion of the time. I'm not commenting on the block, but re: the timing, there is no Statute of Limitations here. Basket _Feudalist 11:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the 2009 block of RMS' account was done in error. Having said that, I'm not opposed to a reduction in block duration if that's what's agreed. I'm pretty-sure he's not going to repeat the offense now - Alison ^❤ 19:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to claim that the comments weren't racist then the rest of what you say is simply going to be ignored, as it clearly also makes no sense. GiantSnowman 19:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

As for the timing, I brought it to ANI now because I saw it now. After six days, I might not have brought a "normal" policy violation here, but expressing joy at the murder of another person and referring to "Afro-Caribbean criminal/thugs/gaolbirds" is well beyond what is acceptable.Jeppiz (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You need to note that the Afro-Caribbean comment does not say what you seem to think it says. It's an adjective describing a subset of criminals (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• There were not racist comments...but the horrific comments about the murder were inappropriate and block-worthy...even this far down the road. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• The comments by Mr. Hotmail were strong enough to warrant a block. However, anyone who was celebrating Thatcher's death on-Wiki also deserves a block. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What policy permits a block for someone "celebrating" her death? No one in the UK has been charged with any offence for publicly celebrating her death - yet. Leaky Caldron 21:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Who cares about policy? Sometimes we use common sense. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Not when it comes to removing someone's editing rights we don't. Leaky Caldron 21:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Good job you're not yet an Admin. then. Leaky Caldron 21:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Good block, even a little after the fact. The Nelson comment was beyond the pale. The other comments were block worthy too; it is long established that we avoid expressing personal opinions about individuals, especially if those comments are derogatory (per WP:BLP). This needs to be impressed on him very strongly, and if he does it again I support stronger blocks. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You say that now. Wait until its an overreaction due to context-free reading that results in you being blocked. For a week. With no prior shorter block. RMS125a was also not given notice that he would be blocked if his comments weren't stricken. I strongly feel that what due process exists here at Wikipedia (warn, stronger warning, warning of about to block, then block short, then block long on repeated offense) was shamefully not followed. --Lexein (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that would require me to agree that there is some context to this that makes the comments acceptable under our rules. Are you able to offer that sort of insight? --Errant ^(chat!) 07:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Good block, in my view. Outright racism has no place here. Period. Jusdafax 10:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

True. Having been the victim of "outright racism", I agree. However, the comments linked to show no racism whatsoever. I'm having great trouble with how people are parsing grammar today :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The diffs presented in the first paragraph are quite enough proof to justify the block. One of the diffs had to be stricken completely, it appears. I am not sure what you mean by "parsing." It seems to be clearly racism. Jusdafax 11:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we're reading different diffs. For example, in the opening paragraph, Jeppiz claims that rms "calls Afro-Caribbeans "criminal/thugs/gaolbirds"" which is not borne out by the actual link. The phrase used is "it is mostly the "Afro-Caribbean" criminal/thugs/gaolbirds" - that does not call Afro-Caribbean people criminals/thugs or gaolbirds, it refers to a subset of criminals, thugs and gaolbirds who happen to be Afro-Caribbean. There's not a single speck of racism in that phrase, unless one parses it tremendously contrary to English language usage. Maybe it's a different link you're looking at? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

BW, are you really going down that path? I thought better of you. GiantSnowman 11:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

BW that is the diff I am looking at. And technically, you are right. But the intent seems clear, at least to me. Jusdafax 11:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I usually find your reasoning very clear, even when we disagree, but I'm afraid I don't follow this time. If the user wanted to point out that only "criminal/thugs/gaolbirds" celebrated Thatcher's death, he could have written that. Adding "Afro-Caribbean" was not necessary for any other reason than to single out an ethnic group in a negative sense.Jeppiz (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Bwilikins, it seems your parsing is what is too fine. If as you maintain the subject is, criminal/thugs/gaolbirds and they are identified as Afro-Carribean or Irish, they are being held out for ridicule by race, otherwise why mention their race, especially when it's a sourceless opinion that "those" people are the problem. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

First, I will restate: as someone with an ethnically-diverse background, I loathe any false claim of racism. When one reviews the reign of Thatcher (which is public knowledge) you'll find that two the major themes were a) N.Ireland relationships, and b) a crackdown on crime, which included the arrests of an inordinate number of "Afro-Caribbeans" (yes, including family members of mine, thank you very much). So, with the death of Thatcher, those groups of individuals might indeed be celebrating. RMS at NO time said that either of those groups were a "problem", nor were they ridiculed (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? Celebrateing a death wasn't a problem? When it caused widespread sturm and drang commentary and even riot? Second, your personal feelings are not the issue. The issue is what one objectively looking at that sees. They see a race identifyer attached to a put-down. Finally there was no "they might" but that would hardly make the analysis different. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, his major issue seems to be with the Irish; they are Slugger o'Toolites, Shinners etc, and his signature is (was) the motto of the UDA, a proscribed organisation. FYI. Basket _Feudalist 12:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I get Bwilkins point on how "Afro-Carribean" is used. He may be right, but I think it's actually ambiguous and could mean both a sub-set of Afro-Carribeans or it could mean (given the short-hand/truncated style many of us normally adopt when posting) that the words following Afro-Carribean are used adjectivally for the entire group. I suppose WP:AGF - we should assume the best interpretation. DeCausa (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Putting aside the "Afro-Carribean" comment (though I still say it was racist), the anti-Irish/pro-Ulster issues highlighted by YCALAM are extremely alarming. GiantSnowman 12:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ya know, I'm from the Southern US; people call us "Appalacian Americans" all the time (a derogatory regard in ways), but I don't have time nor inclination to care. Is it insulting? If YOU let it be. There's something called "Freedom of Speech" where I live, and your rights to such end only when it approaches yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. So were "comments" made offensive to some? It appears so. Should we defer our common sense and rights EVERY time someone supposes their feelings are disregarded or hurt? Probably not. Should we "ban" someone for their words when done without malicious universal actions or physical threat? Probably not; again, these are mere words. In many ways the knee-jerk reaction of overly sensitive or zealous persons should not dictate how we see and regard information, both good and bad. Closing your eyes and ears to the unpleasantness of the World does not reduce or erase it's problems, it magnifies the ignorance associated with being uninformed and closed-minded. Opinions, good or bad, are just that. Words are similar. You take the good with the bad. Deal with it, because it is not going away in any of our lifetimes. Just an opinion :) Barada wha? 02:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Psst...there's no such thing as WP:FREESPEECH on a private website such as this. We have behavioural norms that everyone agreed to when they started editing (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's consider other trump cards like WP:IGNORE & WP:NOTCENSORED, where we dispense with the restrictive ideas between "Freedom" and "Speech". This debate more closely fringes on the idea of "Tolerance", because a certain limited number of individuals are dictating a point that, in cases such as an entire ethos of contemporary persons who denote themselves via expression, is restricted by the lack of acceptance and tolerance for ideas based on limited personal means and interpretations. So let's call this "tolerance", because some have none for ideas they cannot consider, or dare not do so. Before you strike a Red Letter on someone for expressing themselves, you need to look carefully at yourself for intolerance, for bias, and for the inability to accept the candor of others. Don't let intolerance dictate your reach and breadth. Don't be swollen with the ignorance that makes negative opinion so easy to jump to. Could we substitute the word "Religion" here for "Speech"? Sure, but the hangman's noose would loom from every branch of differing ideology when someone first says; "That's just ugly to say. Your religious ideas are insidious, derisive, and I don't like them or believe them, so I'm going to ban you". Challenge me that. For you know that "Tolerance" would not be sufficient, and "Freedom" is the word assigned to religion...i.e. "Freedom of Religious expression and belief". So I do not endorse the idea of a limited "Free Speech" here, as nothing said was universally malicious and/or baneful as ascribed above. Indeed, the knee-jerk reactions of the limited few who jump to condemn ideas are the ones we should be concerned with, for their contributions are always as "nay-sayers" for the ideas of others, and have concern only for the mindset of the similar. Anonymous quote; "Open your mind; your arse will follow." Just an opinion :) Thanks for letting me express it! Barada wha? 05:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

When you edit Wikipedia, you agree to the community's code of conduct. Some of it is legalese in the "terms of service", others are "policies" and "guidelines" established by the community. "Freedom of speech/expression/religion/noseblowing" is not covered anywhere in any of those - there are certain things that, if done, fall outside the code of conduct and will result in sanctions, and waving "freedom flags" in those cases doesn't help - it is, in fact, counterproductive. If there's parts of Wikipedia's polices and guidelines you don't agree with, there's three options: one, accept them even though you don't agree with them; two, initiate a discussion to attempt to change them at the relevant policy's or guideline's talk page or through a RFC; or three, stop editing Wikipedia (with a failed "two" resulting in either "one" or "three" being left as options). "Tolerance" of those who who choose the fourth option - "ignore it" - is, in fact, not an option. And, despite the arguments of some, WP:CIVIL isn't just a policy, it's one of the five pillars - to choose to ignore incivility is to strike at the very heart of what Wikipedia is. And it seems I'm developing some sesquipedalian loquaciousness, which means it's time for me to sleep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you are well spoken, and your respect for words and ideas grants you the ability to rationalize despite what must include your personal fortitudes, feelings, and inclinations. I truly appreciate what Wikipedians express here, for there is no greater single group of people willing to put up with the millions and millions of divergent life philosophies than here (granted, some are a tad more in "flex-mode" than others...no biggie). Now in regard to "flag waving", I never chose to highlight a policy, but instead a process that many can relate to and I believe folks should regard when making statement of simple "word choice" disagreement (note the original lack of blue lettering back there and the notation that I could see no universally malicious actions or physical threats to justify a limiting of such word choice), so I must displace the reprisal there for they are not in true appointment of my intentions. However, I did incline a few of the "majors" to read the words, and place well thought commentaries all of us can appreciate when we regard the entirety of this post. Anyone who does not internalize this diverse group of ideas and attempt to gain a greater understanding of these points of view is missing out, I believe, on the good parts of each portion. That I lean one way on expression and others lean another is a matter of consequence, exposure, and upbringing. I, for one, can see the whole in their dimensions. It is my sincere hope that others can as well. Yet I still regard that we shouldn't have banned Quis separabit? so far after the fact...it's like prosecuting outside a respectable statue of limitations. Do you stick your dog's nose in poop 7 days after his accident and expect it to have anything but a negative and confusing impact? I wouldn't! ... Thanks for more great debate :) Barada wha? 04:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Astynax, War of the Triple Alliance

Dear all,
Astynax (talk · contribs) has recently gone on a mission to redirect all links to War of the Triple Alliance to the term Paraguayan War (please see his recent edit history: [5]). A similar situation was previously discussed in the NPOV noticeboard ([6]) on April 12, 2012 (over a year ago).
The main problem with Astynax's edits are not just the fact that he is trying to subtly remove the number of times the term "War of the Triple Alliance" leads to "Paraguayan War", but that he is using edit summaries to hide his misbehavior as "link disambiguation". In the article Chincha Islands War, he tries to impose the made-up word "inbrolied" as well as the term "Paraguayan War".

1. On my edit summary, I noted that my edit was a copy-edit and WP:COMMONNAME (see ([7])
2. Astynax then reverted my edit, again restoring the term "inbroiled" ([8])
3. Given that his edit was not in Good Faith, I called out its blatant vandalism ([9])
4. Astynax again reverts, reprimanding me for calling his edit vandalism, and returning the word "inbroiled" and term "Paraguayan War" back into the article ([10])

It should also be noted that War of the Triple Alliance links directly to Paraguayan War, so the "link disambiguation" claim of Astynax is false.
Please help.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I also would like to point out that the term "Paraguayan War" was imposed at the "War of the Triple Alliance" article in a controversial move discussion in 2012 (see [11]); to this day, "War of the Triple Alliance" has 261,000 Google Books hits (see [12]) by comparison to the miniscule "Paraguayan War" with 43,600 hits (see [13]). The move discussion even continued after the end of "voting" (see [14]). Since then, the term "War of the Triple Alliance" has been continously hounded down by those supporting the term "Paraguayan War".--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Response: MarshalN20 never discussed or explained his reversion of my edit, either on my or the article's talk. Although my version contained a spelling and grammer error (and I was planning on looking at it again today), MarshalN20 decided on a simple revert instead of correcting and improving the sentence. MarshalN20 is undoubtedly aware that links to redirect pages are discouraged in FA-class articles, as he has reviewed at FAC, and it was not vandalism to change the link to the correct page. MarshalN20 could have piped a different title to the correct page, had he chosen and were it really an issue. As it was, I found the sentence confusing (which "alliance"?) and my attempt to improve it was not vandalism, as MarshalN20 alleged here. As for my "campaign", my edits this morning were simply cleaning up a lot of old links to redirects that I never got around to doing back when the article was moved. Another editor's comment reminded me that it hadn't been done, and it seems that MarshalN20 is taking my misspelling as an opportunity to resurrect an argument for Paraguayan War's article title for which he could not garner editor consensus twice before. • Astynax ^talk 22:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Astynax already knows about the sensibility over the article title of "Paraguayan War" and "War of the Triple Alliance". Astynax participated in the second move discussion and in subsequent discussions related to the matter (see [15]). I find no reason to "explain" to him something he knows. Furthermore, his long list of continuous recent edits (which he calls a "campaign") show his determined attitude that was not going to change with a comment on his talk page. Coming straight to AN/I still seems to me as the friendliest and easiest way to resolve this matter once and for all.

I also did not make a "simple revert" of the material. As shown in the diffs, the original material that Astynax changed ([16]) is considerably different from my edit (see [17]). The fact that Astynax, a constant FA reviewer, did not even bother to notice that he was reverting to the term "inbroiled" also demonstrates that he was reverting for no reason other than to engage in an edit war with me.

The article "Paraguayan War" is neither a Featured Article Candidate (FAC) nor a Featured Article (FA), and War of the Triple Alliance (as shown in the Google Books result of my second statement) is a perfectly acceptable direct link to the article "Paraguayan War".

Lastly, what is at issue here are Astynax's recent edits that clearly aim to harm the wikilinks that use "War of the Triple Alliance" (for no other reason than to make a WP:POINT).

Kind regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Reply: Although I am aware of your displeasure at repeatedly failing to garner editor consensus for an article move at Paraguayan War, I'm unsure what accusation you are leveling at me here or what actual harm you think I have done. Is it the 2 reverts I made to Chincha Islands War? Is it being bold in pointing a particular link in the latter article toward an article's name? Is it because I think it is important that articles progress toward higher levels (whether they are yet candidates for advancement or not)? Is it because of some point you imagine I am attempting to make? Is it because I made a mistake in my edit and didn't catch it before reverting the second time? Are you attempting to argue for an article move to another title here, rather than on the article's talk? • Astynax ^talk 08:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Astynax, before this gets turned into a WP:TLDR, please just read my last few statements if you really do not understand this AN/I report. Reading WP:IDHT might also help. The Point: No need exists to discriminate against "War of the Triple Alliance" and impose over it the term "Paraguayan War", either through direct replacement (such as in Chincha Islands War) or subtle wikilink replacement. Request: Please stop, and please revert your recent actions. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Reply: I have already said that if there was a good reason to point a link to a redirect instead of the article's title, I have no problem with that. So far, your point is lost on me other than I get the vague sense that it has to do with your siezing an opportunity to revisit the debate regarding the move 2 years ago of Paraguayan War in a different venue. If there is a better reason, I am not refusing to get the point. The point, however, isn't clear and you immediately dragged this here instead of making any attempt whatsoever to discuss and clarify your reasoning. • Astynax ^talk 16:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Repeating the same things over-and-over again won't make them facts, Astynax. At this point, I am simply waiting for comments from an administrator. Have a good day.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I should also note that, since this AN/I case was presented, new developments took place in Chincha Islands War:

• User MarnetteD wrote ([18]): "there is no such word as "inbroiled" and the rest of this looks quite WP:POINTy"
• Next, Astynax again imposed the term Paraguayan War ([19])

This user's recent edit history also show that his intent is not to improve the articles, but rather simply to remove (or hinder) the term "War of the Triple Alliance". At Chincha Islands War, he is edit warring to impose his favored term.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

And, of course, following my message Astynax is now trying to pretend he is actually improving the article. By my count, there are 60+ articles that he edited with the mere purpose of hurting the wikilinks to "War of the Triple Alliance". Please see his edit history from (09:14, 17 April 2013) to (17:43, 17 April 2013). His more recent contributions are trying to confuse the situation. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comment

This is one of those bizarre aspects of wikipedia, where an article uses a fringe name that is rarely used in the English language; the Paraguayan War is more well known as the War of the Triple Alliance. It was moved to a name that reflects how the war is referred to in the Portuguese language a couple of years ago, by editors whose predominant language is, Portuguese. Attempts to do a simple thing like correct the name result in some rather silly behaviour by the editors who originally proposed the change and, really, while its irritating, it isn't worth the hassle of trying to fix it.

So we have the situation that most people find their way to the article via the redirect, which last time I looked was nearly always hit first. We also have a situation where there is further rather silly behaviour by the same editors who go around "correcting" the English language wikipedia to reflect how its referred to in the their native tongue. A rather large WP:TROUT needs to be deployed along with a huge helping of WP:CLUE stick.

My proposed solution: Move Paraguayan War to War of the Triple Alliance and WP:TROUT the lot of them. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Support this per WP:UCN, WP:USEENGLISH, and WP:COMMONSENSE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Reply: Wee Curry Monster was, and still seems to be, involved in the very issue he is raising here. Ignoring the valid objections to a move raised during the last move proposal, then shopping this around to another venue after failing to acheive editor consensus for a move is what is truly bizzare. • Astynax ^talk 17:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree with Wee Curry Monster that the article's name should be changed to "War of the Triple Alliance" (and agree it would be a great result from this discussion), the whole point of this AN/I report is for Astynax to stop hindering the term "War of the Triple Alliance" in other articles.

Regarding the title move discussions, the situation is quite convoluted. The first move (from "War of the Triple Alliance" to "Paraguayan War") was done under false premises, with claims that the title "Paraguayan War" was more numerous in Google Books than "War of the Triple Alliance".

The second move request, presented by me, sought to fix the previous mistake by demonstrating that (in fact) Google Books widely supported the term "War of the Triple Alliance". The votes ultimately added in favor of the title "War of the Triple Alliance", but the closing administrator decided to go against the votes.

A careful analysis of the second move request would also demonstrate that the users in favor of the term "Paraguayan War" are (for the most part) Portuguese or Brazilian.

I have no idea what can be decided here at AN/I, but this whole "campaign" against the term "War of the Triple Alliance" (the WP:COMMONNAME) is simply silly.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

My sole involvement was to point out what the common English name was and to be the focus of some particularly silly abuse as a result. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I must admit to reading this thread with a sort of odd bemusement. I've been reading military history for over four decades, and until MarshalN20's first post four days ago, I had never seen this conflict referred to as anything but the War of the Triple Alliance. I can say categorically that I would never know to look for it under another name. Rklear (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Likewise. (My first reaction at seeing "Paraguayan War" was "which one?") - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I was supposed to be notified about this wasn't I? Anyway, it seems to me that bringing in primary sources without looking at how a review has, umm, reviewed them makes us have to look at something as experts. Now, there seems to be a review out, which I was discussin gat the Causes of autism page with this IP. It does seem to be early days for it though [20]. I think the IP could do without posting copyright violations [21] and the personal attacks (see my talk page history, and the history at [[causes of autism). Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Here is a quote from the diff I have posted above 'A quote from page 1332 of the article in question "What cannot be demonstrated in the human subjects is whether these antibodies cause autism. To marshal support in favor of this hypothe- sis, it is necessary to move to experimental animal studies". It is early days in this, according to this one review. I would like to see what others think besides our IP. ' As you have been pushing this theory for so long I was waiting for input from others. I then asked some editors who are more experienced than I am in medical articles to take a look [22], [23] [24] and [25]. Please stop misrepresenting what I was doing, learn how to sign your posts (you have been doing this since 2009) and learn how to indent. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boston Marathon

Possible BLP/suspect photo issues at Boston Marathon bombings

The FBI released photos of the possible suspects from area surveillence cameras but haven't named the two people - only that that they are suspects.

There is a debate at the article if this are BLP violations (I strongly agree its an issue among other issues with the images); while there is an RFC going on to decide that, editors are trying to include the photos, despite the default action for questionable BLP to leave it out. This has been going back and forth and we may need admin eyes on the article. --MASEM (t) 03:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There are so many eyes on this article that I don't think we have to worry about BLP for now.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Masem beat me to it here. Situation is an ongoing happening. One user dead-set on inserting it has reached 3R and has been warned. Masem is at 3R (R for removal, in this case), and I've placed the formal note on their talk page. (IMO, Masem can fall back on the BLP; the other side cannot.) Another admin is at 2R as we speak. The person who uploaded the photo is at 2R--I think, I could be wrong. Anyway, there is no consensus to include which means that by default we should not include. We have some options here. a. Continue to edit war, and block a couple of editors. b. Protect fully, and piss everyone off (well, not me). c. Let common sense prevail, which should dictate "no inclusion unless the RfC's outcome is to include"--but that may be too much to ask for. Please note that there is an RfC going on still. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • As well as at BLP/N. --MASEM (t) 03:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • A 3RR notice was placed on my talk page by Drmies. 1st, Admin Dennis Brown said yesterday that 3RR does not apply on this page after I asked about multiple violations of the 3RR rule. Second it seems Drmies is upset because I reverted his edits removing the word Suspects as he boldly said the FBI never said Suspect (despite massive evidence to the contrary). Third, I am shocked that an Admin would show such poor judgement as to post some of the things Drmies has posted against me and others on the talk page. I'm just trying to make a better article but a few people prefer to pick and choose which policies they want to enforce and to protect the privacy of terrorists the whole world is searching for. I think I'll go something more productive with my time than watch this BS Legacypac (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • That sounds like a great idea. More detail and diffs on the "suspect" thing on Legacypac's talk page; the shorthand version is "reference did not contain the word"--simple as that. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • WOW Drmies - still sticking to your position eh? You lost to other editors on the Chinese vics name and lost to other editors on Suspects, and you still want to tear me down? Go read your own talk page to see that others called you out for edit warring. Perhaps Drmies should not be an Admin anymore. How do we arrange that? I'm disgusted Legacypac (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
        • We don't yoink mops for being involved in editing disputes - what abuse of the admin tools has Drmies committed? - - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Legacypac, that you apparently see it in terms of winning and losing saddens me. The issue here was never about what should ultimately be included in the article, but about the sources we needed. Wikipedia is not a tabloid journalism mouthpiece, and we do not include information until it is reliably sourced. It is correct to omit claims before they are reliably sourced, and correct to include them once they are - can you really not understand that? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite involved, but I'll throw one comment in here. Drmies and I disagree on this particular content issue, but it was brought here, and to my knowledge Drmies hasn't used admin tools (outside of blocking a troll or two) on the article, which I think is the pinnacle of restraint and good admin judgment. The BLP/consensus issue is the subject of an RfC that's contentious. That can't be solved any better here than it can at RfC. If there is egregious edit warring though someone uninvolved should handle it. Shadowjams (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I 100% do not see this as winning or losing - but I pointed out that Drmies lost 2 edit wars he participated in yet he continues to absurdly claim well referenced facts are not well documented and attack me across multiple discussion pages. I have not and do accuse him of misusing Admin tools. This is about a better article (and that will come in time, so no need to die on that hill) but more importantly a good productive process for all editors where everyone feels welcome and not attacked. Legacypac (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Once again you're talking "winning and losing" - stop. That WP:BATTLE mentality is not appreciated. I'm also not sure where BLP does not apply to the page. BLP always applies, and edit-warring to remove unsourced and/or inappropriate BLP violations is ALWAYS permitted. Edit-warring to re-insert them is not permitted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There's plenty of battleground blame on all sides... this is one of the ugliest talk pages I've seen in a while; that said, Legacypac.... you're just digging yourself a deeper hole. Shadowjams (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And now there's a completely undiscussed full page protection based on about 3-4 edits. Can somebody who's not invested in this page please come weigh in, because this is getting absurd. Shadowjams (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

So it's not about winning or losing, but the other guy lost? Can you actually hear yourself here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved non-admin here: Legacypac, you say you don't care about winning or losing, yet everything you said here suggests that you indeed do. Drmies should be commended for acting completely within Wiki guidelines (both in regular editor terms, and as a sysop), and his explanation makes sense, with Legacypac clearly failing WP:IDHT. FPP makes sense due to the massive edit warring that's going on. That talk page has several instances of Legacypac attacking Drmies - a block is needed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I disagree with Drmies and Masem on the topic of the inclusion of the photographs (which has been mooted now), however I fully support any edit or admin action, whether IAR needs to be invoked or not, done in the interest of BLP compliance. The problem with the arguments from 'other side' is the usual - they believe that they are discussing the issue by pushing it. Edit warring is not the way to reach consensus. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Update - requesting downgrading to semi protection

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

---

AFter the mess last night in Boston, the FBI has officially released names of the suspects including the one they are manhunting for (as they were tied to the MIT/Watertown incidents). I believe that with their names and the incidents last night, any issue about BLP and including the photos of the men are resolved, and thus don't expect edit warring to be occurring over that. There's also a lot of clamor on the talk page to fix other things/add more details to the article as the story develops, so could an admin review and consider downgrading to semi-prot? --MASEM (t) 14:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• This could be a test case for pending changes level 2. --B (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reduced the protection status to semi-protected, per the discussion that went on when the page was fully protected - since the names have been released, the original reason for the full protection is no longer in effect. Duration of the semi-protect is currently 24 hours from now. Using pending changes sounds reasonable to me. Nandesuka (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur, though that might just be maslow's hammer talking. —Rutebega (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't read everything because my wonderful wife just threw two huge steaks on the grill, and I'm admittedly sidetracked, however, I would appreciate that in the future, if someone makes a claim about what I said, that I be notified of the discussion. I didn't say 3RR wasn't in force, I said that on hot topic articles, I tend to be more lenient when someone is obviously trying to enforce clear consensus on the talk page, or otherwise reverting BLP violations. I believe I said that other admin may feel differently, but that is how I operate, and will continue to do so. If you are going to paraphrase me, don't, and link the diff instead, or at least cut and paste the actual statement, please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Would somebody get a grip of the policy-violating admins and arbs a the Boston Marthon bombings page?

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

---

As Bwilkins pointed out "For those who understand full-protection such as this, you'll already know that admins should only now edit it to a) remove policy-violating text/images" or b) implement changes that have been arrived at via WP:CONSENSUS discussions on this talkpage". 80.174.78.102 (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess not. We now have 19 infractions, and rising. Three new since I posted this request over an hour ago. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Care to actually provide evidence of bad edits? I've looked at it, as a non-admin, I see almost all edits are copyedits, or minor tweaks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

For reference, Boston Marathon bombings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(EC) Most of what I see in the article history (at least the last few edits) seems to be coming from the talk page. Do you have a specific edit that concerns you? I'm inclined to revert on general principle, except that A) the edits seem beneficial, b) the edits seem non-controversial (gnoming ref formatting and the like), and c) I'm not gonna edit war on a full-protected high-visibility page. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Ultraexactzz and Lukeno94, the last 50 edits show formatting and copyedits, I can't see where any major changes have taken place since it was fully protected.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's exactly the problem, isn't it? According to the proection policy, Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus; that's not happening in this case, bar one edit that was an edit protection request. I don't have a particular problem with any of the edits, but I am concerned that a number of experienced admins are making copy editing and reference edits that have not been discussed on the talk page. Admins should only be editing through the protection to fix blantant BLP violations. GedUK  14:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The protection policy says fully protected pages "should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus". Minor edits, which have been characterized here as "formatting and copyedits", certainly fall within the exception for uncontroversial edits. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Edgar is quite correct. Also: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it" (emphasis changed from the original). Let's not get too caught up in the bureaucracy here. The article was (perhaps overeagerly) fully protected to guard against BLP violations. That doesn't mean we have to leave the article to stagnate while we write every sentence by committee. NW (Talk) 14:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)X2...I can see your point GedUK. I would argue that those type of edits already have a wikipedia community consensus when it comes to formatting articles for readability and correcting references, provided specific objections aren't raised. A general objection to the act without a specific statement on how the edit moves against the community consensus of proper actions by an editor seems a little legalistic to me.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologize but I am going to let me contempt for our Admin vs. editor culture to slip out for a moment. We may as well close this discussion. Policies rarely apply to admins here and when they do even baltant violated are swept under the rug or justified in some way that woudl dignify the action being taken. because of course an admin is trusted and would never do anything to violate policy. Nothing can be done about admin violations anyway without goign to Arbcom. The only way to do anything about an admin infraction would be to do a full blown Arbitration process and those are long, time consuming and usually non effectual in any kind of positive way (unless you are trying to ban someone from the project). There is nothing useful that is likley to come out of this discussion and certainly no admin is going to stop another admin from doing anything so its just counter productive. Kumioko (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

An arbcom case wouldn't get far—one of the chief culprits is an arbitrator. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, you might want to give "reviewing the complaint on its merits" a shot. Assuming that a concern about admin conduct is valid just because OMFG ADMINS is precisely the same error in logic as the one you complain about (assuming that admins are not in error because they are ADMINS). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2...again...I agree that this discussion should be closed, but not because of a specific contempt against the powers that be, but because no one can identify a single edit which is objectionable except for a legalistic transcendental application of the rules. I think the entire reason for the community and this rule in particular is to prevent a legalistic transcendental application. We are all here to improve the encyclopedia, and every rule is maintained for that purpose. Can you identify an edit made by an administrator that was contra to improving the encyclopedia?Coffeepusher (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And naturally enough, the arb plays the golden get out jail card:IAR. Look at the quote from Bwilkins in the first post, above. That was added to the Full Protection section of the talk page shortly after the page was protected. That explains how the policy is always interpreted, unless of course you're an arb or admin, and just don't fancy adhering to the policy today. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Which edit was the problematic one? I'll revert right now if you can show me an edit that violates policy. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)actually it isn't about "don't fancy adhering to the policy" we are here to improve the encyclopedia FIRST, we establish policies to assist in that regard. IAR isn't a golden ticket, and it is easy to counter IF someone is disrupting the project, all you have to do is give us one single difference where someone wasn't improving the encyclopedia? Coffeepusher (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Administrator-in-dreams comment: All the rules apply to everyone. Where are the examples of rules being broken by administrators?--Launchballer 14:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) The article has now been put back to semi. One of the admins who made an edit through full protection has previously edit warred on the article including edit summaries like this. The point is not whether admins should be tidying up, but that they should not be editing at all unless it is a serious issue (BLP) or there is consensus. IAR should not apply when an admin can lock an article, and others then edit it like this.Martin451 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Look at Bwilkins (administrator) explanation of the rules in the first post in this section. Then look at all of the edits made while the page was protected. Any edit which doesn't adhere to Bwilkins definition is outside of policy. That is all of them except 2. Of course, you'll get a completely different interpretation of the policy now that it has been so blatantly disregarded by several admins and an arb. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)x4 As this is a highly charged article, how about an alternative view of IAR to ignore IAR and request that arbs and admins not do any sort edits? This article has been to ANI twice in less than 2 days. In the interest of reducing drama (reducing drama on ANI? shocking I know), maybe the admin corps could consider this. Blackmane (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I really, really don't see what the hissyfit is about (and I'm not a sysop!) - 99% of the edits during FP were copyedits, restructuring, minor tweaks, or anything that wasn't controversial. No content was really added or removed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• There's a lot of wrong with the editing/talk page on this article in the last 72 hours; this full protection (and the subsequent editing through it) is the most recent. To dismiss these concerns as a "hissyfit" is at best naive. Shadowjams (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to agree with blackmane here. The article is obviously controversial and thus every edit apart from ones that fix clear grammatical errors can be considered controversial as even slight unnecessary/nonvital word changes can alter the entire meaning of sentences and lead to disputed idea being suggested in the article, which all leads to the us vs them mentality as suggested somewhere before. It's best to just remove blatant violations and leave as it is. Why poke the tiger? YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 16:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• The problem I have isn't that the admins made the edits. But that they violated policy by doing so and then casualy dismissed the notion of abuse by throwing IAR in our face. Its another example of choosing when to follow policy when it suits them but then enforcing it only when it suits them. Either the policy's apply or they don't. IAR doesn't really apply here because only admins could edit the article. If IAR applied there would be no need for protecting it in the first place. Admin abuse is rampant but the desire to stop it is dismissed by those same admins by trying to portray those of us trying to stop it as a bunch of untrustworthy morons because once an admin is trusted that trust is for life. Its the Fraternity if Wikipedia. Kumioko (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Admin abuse is rampant". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Well the reason really, really is obvious. And it really, really wasn't a hissyfit. The definition supplied by Bwilkins is the one always used (unless you're an arb or admin fancying a bit of editing). Everyone believes that their own edits are uncontroversial. If you say that admins can edit protected articles as long as they make only uncontroversial edits, then you are giving all admins the go ahead to edit all protected articles at all times. And even if the edits truly are uncontroversial, the article is still being written and shaped by a tiny minority of editors, and that is not what WP is about. Finally, if you let admins edit through protection there is no incentive for them to remove the protection, quite the reverse. None of this is new. It's all well known to the offending admins and arb. They simply chose to ignore it. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Adding that you'll note how few admins have participated in this thread. It was untouched for an hour. Compare that to kind of pile-on you usually see here when the misdeeds of non-admins are under discussion. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm strongly on the side of not touched fully-protected articles. No typo is so severe that it cannot wait until the full-protection is over. Of all the capabilities being an admin gives me, editing fully-protected articles is the one I use the least, as it is the only one that actually can lead to the "two-tier" system that so many editors complain about. If it's fully protected, it shouldn't be edited without talk page consensus. If a piece of phrasing bugs an admin enough that he wants to fix it, he should start a talk page discussion and get consensus that the wording tweak is necessary, not just go ahead and do it.—Kww(talk) 17:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think that the norm for admins editing a locked article is to make non-controversial edits requested by others, not to to just act as a privileged editor who can make non-controversial edits on their own initiative while mere editors can't. So the "were they bad edits?" question is not relevant. North8000 (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree, but please note that I do respect what others on this thread have said and that I understand that this is just one opinion. The reason I disagree is that threads are locked are not because of formatting changes and reference corrections, they are locked due to edit wars or, in this case, because a recent event has caused such a frenzy of activity that no one can judge one edit from the next because there isn't any real clarity on what actually happened in the reliable sources. I think that the mission of wikipedia is such that we should strive to support edits which correct bad references and improve the readability of articles, and this should occur regardless of an articles protection status. The only reason people are upset is because admins broke the letter of the law, but because no one can point to a controversial edit within that period of time I think we can establish a consensus for those edits due to the silence of the opposition.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that there is consensus through silence. Frankly I find it pretty irritating and annoying (but not at all surprising) that when an admin breaks the rules not one wants to get involved and there's nothing but crickets from teh admins in the discussion but if this wasn't an admin breaking the rules I'll be damned if there weren't ten admins out here with sharpened pitchforks and freshly lit torches ready to ban them from the project. Only more proof of the Us and them mentality between admins and editors. Kumioko (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The consensus through silence is referencing the fact that no one has any problem with the content of any of the edits that were made. Which edits specifically hurt the encyclopedia? Which edits needed discussion because there was a difference of opinion? If no specifics are brought up then we have consensus on the content of those edits through the silence of the opposition. Now I don't buy the "us vs them" mentality, and personally think that is bordering on a battleground mentality. You jumped in this conversation highlighting your bias, and have used this thread as a soapbox on that point. But I don't think this is indicative of a larger problem that "admins aren't held to the same standards" but rather that there is a difference of opinion on what kind of edits can be done on a fully protected page, and quite frankly not everyone agrees that a violation was made. If it was such a clear violation then the admins would be held responsible, but it isn't clear.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with you completely that the substance of the edits aren't the problem but the intent is. Admins are supposed to operate with a high degree of trust but when they edit through protection like this it is a breach of the communities trust. Especially when the policy specifically states that these types of edits shouldn't be done without discussion. This thread was started because Admins were abusing the tools they had been given and since then the article has been reduced from full protection to semi protection largely in response to the problem that was identified. That action, at least in part, shows that there is a consensus that the actions performed were not in keeping with the trust the community has granted them. Now as for the comment about "admins aren't held to the same standards". That is absolutely 100% true. Admins are almost never demoted or reprimanded for violating policy and in fact in 99% of cases someone invokes some bullshit reasoning like IAR to protect them knowing that if it would have been done by a non admin they would have been burned at the stake. I'm sorry if my comments seemed like battlground mentality but its still the truth even if they are a bit abrasive and offenive and hurt some feelings. If the admins and arbs want to change the us and them persepctive then the ball is in their court. They are the only ones that have the power to do anything about it. The rest of us are just looked upon as a bunch of ignorant trailor trash that cannot be trusted. Kumioko (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been editing Scientology since 2006, and I can tell you that every single admin who once worked in that area has been either de-sysop-ed or topic banned. I've seen the same thing happen in most of the controversial sections of wikipedia. I think you are seeing what you want to see. What level of punishment should be dealt out, because for the vast majority of users no punishment is ever dealt out. most people get told not to do stuff and they stop, or they get blocked. in this case I personally invoked IAR because IAR applies equally to admins as it does to you or me, if no damage is being done to the encyclopedia we should ignore the rules and work toward our common goal.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think that both sides have valid points. On the one hand, on principle, admins shouldn't be editing locked pages at whim. OTOH, does it really matter if the edits are minor or non-contentious? But perhaps the real problem is that it creates a two-class system where some editors are allowed to make edits that others editors can't. For a project whose motto is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, is that really what we want? That some editors are more equal than others? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

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

BLP violations in history

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

---

▪◦▪On a side note these edits here & here should be deleted from the page history as they are clearly wrong, the missing brown students were incorrectly identified as the Assailants. [26] ≡SiREX≡^Talk 14:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I moved this out of the scrum above. Unless someone objects, I've identified the four diffs with these names and will delete them shortly, unless someone beats me to it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Check me to make sure I did not screw something up. I just got the four edits clustered at 08:49 UTC. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Just checked - looks good. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

thank you.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 15:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Who's kidding who?

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

---

The simple facts of the matter here are that almost everyone who has been editing the Boston bombings article with any regularity has probably violated several policies: with WP:3RR being the most obvious. Right from the start, WP:NOTNEWS went out of the window, and WP:OMGLETSPRETENDWEARECNNFOXTHEBBCANDPRAVDA took over. If we are going to carry on covering breaking news stories in this way (and nobody seems to have the means to prevent it), we need to accept that (a) rules need to be broken to ensure that such articles don't degenerate into a heap of trivia, conspiracy theories, and WP:OR based on something misread from Twitter, and (b) those breaking the rules will get it wrong sometime. This is the price we pay for ignoring our own explicit and stated purpose - to provide an encyclopaedia, rather than an outlet for breaking news. Under such circumstances, the only legitimate reason for holding anyone (admin or not) to account for any action would be that it wasn't done with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. Unless someone can provide evidence to that effect, I suggest this discussion be closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Andy, Wikipedia shouldn't pretend to be CNN or the NY Post — it needs to insist upon being better than them. Generally, "breaking news" coverage of matters of clearly historical importance is pretty good here. Rather than obsessing about the things that WP does well, time would be better spent on things that it does poorly. My opinion. Carrite (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Striking: I need to read more, blabber less... Carrite (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The only reason it showed up here is because the Marathon bombing article has had a peculiar tone on the talk page from the very beginning. To put it quickly, I've seen WP:NOTNEWS (traditionally understood as an article notability guideline) elevated to exalted status to exclude what is on the front page of every newspaper on at least three occasions while our reliable source and verifiability policies have taken a back seat. This is not some policy debate; our policies are fine. This is a question of a new unspoken but certainly implied policy that everything needs to be published for 6-12 hours before it can be added to the article, sometimes more. We've even had examples of "wait 24 hours" "consensus" by a small handful of editors inside of 1 hour worth of debate after the "waiting on" information was published on the front page of the NYT, Boston Globe, CNN, etc.

And don't be mistaken, I'm not new to current event articles, nor am I naive about how the news cycle works. This is not about some borderline question or publishing fringe sources. I've been right there to say no to all of those. This is about not publishing basic facts that are widespread and well known, not with some leading language, but with simple "this is what X reported" language.

I don't think if this pattern hadn't been so prevalent over the last 3-4 days nobody would have entertained an ANI discussion like this. The full protection, which was to enforce keeping out the names of the suspects despite their widespread publication, which was then violated by a few admins, even if only technically, is part of that pattern. Shadowjams (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is policy, not a guideline. It explicitly states that "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information" - and given the multiple misreportings we've seen, caution rather than haste seems entirely appropriate. As for the issue of if and when suspects are named in such cases, if we stuck by policy and didn't pretend to be a 'breaking news' media source, the issue wouldn't arise, or at least, we could deal with such issues in a more considered manner. If we are to cover 'breaking news', we should amend policy accordingly to say so - and then make the appropriate revisions to the many other policies this would necessarily entail. Holding a few individuals responsible for what has been a monumental collective decision to pretend policy doesn't exist is simply untenable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I for one would support abolishment of ITN, were it proposed - that's what WikiNews is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

We're through the looking glass people! I think most rational people who have experience with Wikinews and ITN would support the immediate abolishment, disbanding, and shuttering of the joke site known as "Wikinews" and the merging and superseding of all of its failed features into ITN on Wikipedia. We can and do a far better job of everything they tried to do. Time to end the relationship, permanently. Viriditas (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that emotional times, like the present news cycle, are the worst possible to propose and debate big-ticket changes to longstanding Wikipedia news features. In any case, Ani is hardly the correct place to do so. Jusdafax 06:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; just sayin', though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Update the policy to reflect the accepted definition, as outlined by Bwilkins

I've made a request for the policy to be updated per the accepted and long-standing definition as outlined by Bwilkins 80.174.78.102 (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall defining anything - I think I described what would be standard practice, paraphrasing current policy while I did so. However, you're very much permitted to recommend changes (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Do you support the rewording? 80.174.78.102 (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Boston Marathon Bombings and 2013

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

---

There seems to be a consensus at Talk:2013#2013_Boston_Marathon_bombings to include the Boston Marathon Bombings article on the 2013 article. Certain editors, however, refuse to accept that saying the bombing is only a national event. This ought to be looked at. Hot Stop (Talk) 23:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, the fact that you use "editors" (plural) to describe the opposite point of view should make you realize that you don't have that consensus you are claiming.--McSly (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

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

BBB76: disruptive editing in articles about TV megafamilies

User:BBB76 has an interest in articles about reality television shows about mega-families. This user's edit-warring to exclude an English word that s/he doesn't understand; the user's apparent imperviousness to concerns of WP:MOS and WP:COPYVIO; and general issues of attitude (causing me to lose patience) lead me to bring their story to this page. I'm tired of engaging with this person over ridiculous trivia. Note: Their talk page is festooned with warnings, not all of which make a lot of sense to me.

Here is the behavior that I've found disruptive:

• At United Bates of America, the user is committed to warring to remove the sourced (and relatively anodyne) statement (which was in the article before they ever edited) that all 19 children in the family were singleton births. The user has objected to the word "singleton" (which was not previously in their vocabulary) and suggests that this point should not be in the article text because it should be "obvious" from studying the table listing the 19(!) birthdates. Diffs: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. (BTW, the fact of singleton births gets remarked upon since large families often include multiple births, and the other 19-kid family on reality TV includes two sets of twins.) Further, the user has attacked me on my talk page for using big words such as "singleton" and "prose": [36], [37], [38], [39].
• At 19 Kids and Counting, there has been a war over verb tense. WP:MOS section on TV shows calls for use of present tense, but this user insists on past tense and has warred to keep past tense. Here are this user's diffs: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]
• At List of 19 Kids and Counting episodes, the user has insisted on repeatedly inserting episode descriptions that copy or closely paraphrase this source, meanwhile citing extremely unstable bare URLs as sources and deleting somewhat more stable citations: diff, [45], diff. --Orlady (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

These articles are admittedly pretty trivial (I got involved with United Bates of America only because the family lives in my local area), but they have huge page-view counts. Am I the only one who finds this user's behavior disruptive? --Orlady (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• I see plenty of disruption, a lack of manners, and some other things here, though none of them immediately blockable. I've seconded your copyvio note, and I think that further edit-warring should be met with a block--but it takes two to tango, and this constant back-and-forthing on UBA came from both sides. If they revert that "singleton" thing again, they should be blocked. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for a sensible set of actions. With all the warnings the user received, I think s/he may have stopped taking user communications seriously. --Orlady (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Heated discussion at WP:COIN

After what I thought was a conflict of interest on an article I created (which was eventually confirmed), I avoided an edit war with another user by starting a thread at WP:COIN to discuss the issue. At first, the user in question disagreed with what I said and pretty much kept on accusing me of trying to own the article. But now, the user is getting really heated about the situation and even threatening to have me blocked (a strange threat to be coming from a new user). I wonder if an admin can help sort things out. (The whole situation is in detail at COIN under the preceding link.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm no admin but I'll give it a shot. If anything the user should be blocked per WP:USERNAME for right now being of unconfirmed identity until OTRS has it. Stewiedv as in Stewie DeVille, the husband of the subject. It is a clear COI. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

As I stated in the above-referenced COIN discussion, I welcome admin assistance with this matter. While I have admitted my identity, and am open to any assistance and unbiased feedback on my edits and participation, I believe that Erpert is abusing the COI system, as well as other polices including WP:OWN, to cover inaccuracies in his article, excuse his actions (including but not limited to removal of non-controversial edits allowed under COI) and is attempting to discourage me from contributing. Please note, I have not edited the article in question, nor any other documents, since the issue was first submitted to COIN. Stewiedv (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri, I have submitted my information as you suggested in the COIN thread. Thanks again. Stewiedv (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It would seem to me that as long as this is being thrashed out at COIN, it doesn't need to be here, at least not until someone believes that COIN has reached a dead end. As an aside, I don't believe I've ever seen a COI editor who writes like Stewiedv. More like a seasoned Wikipedian. I'm not sure what to make of that but just thought I'd toss it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Bbb23. I will take your comment about my writing as a compliment. While I am new to Wikipedia, I do have a writing background. Plus, it helps to be a quick learner when someone is policy shopping against you. Stewiedv (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Article Probation Modification - Men's rights movement

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

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

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

• I think this is a good idea, but suggest that IP edits should be excluded, as is the case of the Israel/Palestine and Troubles IRR restrictions[46]. As we know from past experience, external websites are sometimes used to recruit editors to this topic, and I can see a IRR being easily gamed otherwise.--Slp1 (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. 1RR excluding IP edits. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support indefinite semi-protection and an additional 1RR for six months. I hope that more uninvolved admins can keep an eye on the article. It would help if more admins chimed in to determine if comments like [47] and [48] and persistent WP:OR (one example) violate the article probation. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Huldra makes personal attacks in Norwegian

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

---

I was bold and edited "Labour Party (Norway)" to "Workers' Party (Norway)" on several pages. I was reverted, and User:Huldra posted some incivil comments on both the article's talk page and also on my own talk page. I replied in a civil manner, before Huldra made another comment, this time in Norwegian. The comment can be translated like this: "Oh my god. Don't tell me about how "Arbeiderpartiet" might be translated. You know just as well as me what the official translation is, and we'll stick to that one. This is massive disruption and if you don't stop and clean up your mess I will get you banned. I don't bother wasting more time on this. Learn the rules! Then you can edit! Read WP:OR! Sincerly [...]" LiquidWater 20:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That is his/her translation. (Btw, it is about original as his/her translation of "Arbeiderpartiet"). My translation is on the talk-page of LiquidWater.[49]. LiquidWater has unilaterally this evening tried to change the name of the governing "Arbeiderpartiet" of Norway from "Labour Party" to "Workers party". Note that the government of Norway use "Labour Party" (see eg [50]). Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD. There exists no such thing as "unilateralism" on Wikipedia. LiquidWater 21:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

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

• Belated comment: I looked at LiquidWater's talk page after seeing this topic, and as a native English and Swedish speaker with a more than passable knowledge of Norwegian I must honestly say that Huldra's comment IMHO can not be classified as a "personal attack". A frustrated/irritated comment, yes, but personal attack, no. Thomas.W (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

  Agreeing with Thomas W. "Sukk" means "sigh", the best response to this. I don't see incivility, although Norwegians are very polite. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think "Learn the rules, then you can edit" was the 'attack' in question. I have to agree it's fairly borderline - I personally would call it uncivil, but not a PA - just. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a small note: my "så vil jeg be om å få deg banned" was translated by LiquidWater as: "I will get you banned", when it actually means "then I will ask to have you banned". "Tiny" difference. Also lost in all this is the political "overtones", wrt this "innocent" name-change request, something most people in Norway would be acutely aware of, post 22 July 2011. (Some touched on here here: Talk:Labour_Party_(Norway)#Requested_move.) As I noted on my talk-page: "There is not much sense in worrying about problems with the syntax ...if one is totally clueless about the semantics. But that is Wikipedia, I guess". Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

User:LittleBenW edit-warring over diacritics again.

LittleBenW has been topic-banned from edits related to diacritics (broadly construed) since December.[51] He has since been blocked twice for violating this ban.[52][53] 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.[54][55] In ictu oculi also noted similar TBAN violations not long ago.[56] 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[57] 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[58]) 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)

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.[59][60] (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.[61][62] 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.[63] 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.[64] And Ryulong.[65] (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.[66] 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.[67][68] 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)
• 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.[69] 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)

• 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 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[70], 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)

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)

• 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)

User:Superastig

User:Superastig, despite repeated warnings, continues to insert erroneous and non-cited info in articles. Read his talk page at User talk:Superastig to see what I mean. Also check his talk page's history as he has been deleting postings criticising his erroneous postings. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A few comments. First, if you're going to accuse an editor of a pattern of misconduct, you must provide diffs in support of your claims. Second, generally a user has a right to remove warnings from their talk page. Finally, you should have notified the editor of this report; I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Bbb23. Here are the last two. The first is the false edit MGM Records article at [71] which he stated incorrectly that Warner Music Group owned the rights to the pre-1986 MGM soundtracks. WMG's Rhino Entertainment had the license which has since expired. The digital download license is held by Hallmark Records as shown at [72]. Time Warner's Turner Entertainment unit owns the rights to the pre-1986 MGM soundtracks. The other glaring error is in Superastig's edit in the Parlophone article at [73] that EMI Records was sold to Warner Music Group which is clearly wrong. EMI Records is now a unit of Universal Music Group which made it part of the Virgin EMI label group. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that these diffs show a pattern of misconduct, but let's just take the first one (MGM). There's an assertion in the article, which he changed and I guess you changed back. The source in the article doesn't support the asssertion. Why not? Now, I'm not saying you're wrong, just how can such claims be evaluated? This is a textbook example of why material needs to be sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This 1997 source from Billboard at [[74]] shows that at that time, Rhino had the rights to the pre-1986 MGM soundtracks which the article states are owned by Time Warner's Turner Entertainment unit. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Socialhistorian2013

User:Socialhistorian2013, has been making Serena Williams longer and longer instead of making it shorter, which was agreed upon by tennis contributors. He has been deleting my comments to his page rather than having a conversation. Dencod16 (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Uninvolved non-admin observation: It actually looks more like a net 0, I can see big additions of things, and big removals of them as I look through the edit history. Looks like there's been a fair bit of edit-warring from several parties in the last month. Also, the fact they've deleted your comments means you should stay off their talk page, not immediately readding the comment. One major problem is that there's been absolutely no discussion since November on the talk page of this article - from ANY person. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI does not deal with content disputes. WP:DRN is where you want to go if things get rough. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Socialhistorian2013 is a relatively new account (editing since 3/31/13). It appears to be a WP:SPA, focused on Williams, although the editor branches out into a few other areas. The account came to my attention recently because the editor accused another editor of socking (a fairly frivolous allegation, actually), and I chastised them for it. Whoever Socialhistorian is, they are not inexperienced. I don't know what they did on Wikipedia before creating the account.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Eh? I just commented on a page where the pattern of editing looked suspicious. No need to try and cause trouble for a newbie. Anyway Dencord no need to throw the toys out of the pram. We are trying to improve the pages right not butcher it and lie and make up rules. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you're a newbie; your account is a newbie. I didn't "cause trouble"; your edit summary did. I'd steer clear of words like "lie".--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I apologize for that crass comment, but lets be honest blue wasn't helping himself at that moment having done other revisions on that page in the style of another user. But as I say crass comment from me so I'm sorry. But is this from Dencord on my talkpage appropriate? He called me a moron. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, they shouldn't have called you a moron. If it makes you any happier, I don't think you're a moron. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your thought :P Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The Light Blue looks like they exclusively edit on tennis articles where you seem to have stirred up some friction, so most likely followed you over to the snooker article. I don't think it is Armbrust since The Light Blue has done most of their editing while Armbrust wasn't even blocked. Betty Logan (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh great I've got myself a stalker LOL! Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Question: Do "tennis contributors" (whoever they are) get to WP:OWN articles about tennis players now? RNealK (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. Although I do get that impression from Dencod when he writes "quote boxes should not be included on a page" and "it's not been deleted but moved to another page". Is imo Owning and as far as I can see as he keeps referring to WP tennis about quotes and it is not a view held by them. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Admin action to delete a case of 'outing' required.

I have just deleted a post from another users talk space which 'outs' a fellow Wikipedia editor ([75]). I have posted a warning on the said contributors talk page warning him that outing is forbidden so no further action should be required here. However, admin action is required to delete the post from the Revision history of the above user talk page. I B Wright (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Already oversighted. For future reference, high-traffic pages such as ANI are not the place to report outing - contact the oversight mailing list directly (as it says at the top of the page). Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec)In the ANI page header, and in the gigantic edit notice you saw when you posted this here, you should have seen that you should never post privacy-related requests to noticeboards. The edit, however, has been taken care of by an oversighter. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's more likely the editor did not see either the ANI page header nor the edit notice -- because there's way too much crap on both which makes them invisible per usability research. NE Ent 20:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Bug in undeleting 2 pages with many edits

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Bug in undeleting 2 pages with many edits. Graham87 10:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

user:Dippoldtheoptician

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

---

Can someone uninvolved please warn user:Dippoldtheoptician for trying to fiddle AFD? Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted the user's change at the AfD (and put it on my watchlist). I've warned them on their talk page. They seem to have serious anger issues. I've also notified them of this discussion, which you should have done.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This is over the top. In my opinion, changing the vote of another editor should result in an immediate block until the user signifies that he understands what he did wrong and promises not to do it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I have speedy deleted the article (it was already speedy deleted before by another admin) and closed the AfD. The editor has been warned. That's enough for now.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think the user needs a block, they've ALREADY recreated the article. This is exactly why we called for a SALT: because it was damn obvious this SPA would recreate the article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Done (for 24h) and salted by Boing! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Wade (Survivor contestant) and AfD socks fest

With no reference to the article's merit, this AfD is a sockpuppet fest. Almost everyone, including the nominator, is a SPA account. The "discussion" looks silly and increasingly ridiculous. I was moving to request a page protection, but given the nature of the discussion at this point I would prefer a speedy close and eventually a new nomination in a few days by a "clean" editor. It is not the only AfD discussion with these problems, as, looking at edit histories of the socks, it appears that a sockmaster is attacking a bunch of articles related to Survivor (eg, this AfD looks quite pointy). Furthermore, all these socks are smearing on so many AfD discussions that it could be wise stop them. Please take a look. --Cavarrone (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I have added semi-protection until the end of the AfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with voting to delete on an AFD. That is what AFD is for. If you want to keep it you vote keep and if you feel the article should be deleted you vote delete. SurvivorFanHH (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection does not work so well if a sockpuppet is allowed to remove all the SPA tags: [76]. Cavarrone (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

There's plenty wrong with an apparently coordinated sock/meatpuppet campaign to stuff the ballot box, which is absolutely what this looks like. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

 Checkuser needed – It's more massive disruption by banned user Don't Feed the Zords (talk · contribs); the only thing that can be done is to shut down or delete all AfDs, block all sockpuppet accounts involved, and, if necessary, apply further restrictions. --MuZemike 03:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The tags on at least one blocked account says BuickCenturyDriver (talk · contribs), but looking at that SPI it seems these two sockpuppeteers are tangled up like a bag of snakes... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Or like a rat king. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

BF101 sock, once again

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

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

Personal attack / insult by user:Mouh2jijel

Hello,

I would like to report a personal attack / insult by user:Mouh2jijel on User talk:Dzlinker, calling me "grosse petasse", that means "fat b*tch" in French.

I ask for an immediate block of this user!

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have notified them of this AN/I discussion...which you have failed to do. I have also provided a warning for personal attacks, which is the appropriate action here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing harassment of User:Alan Liefting by User:CBM

There has been a lengthy and ongoing discussion on User:Alan Liefting's talk page about the appropriateness of User:CBM's repeated blocks. Alan is under a community sanction from creating categories outside Mainspace. He has done a few edits that were needed and everyone agrees were helpful and useful. No other admins seemed to be bothered with the few edits that Alan was doing except CBM. CBM has done few other edits except for the repeated blocks of Alan. The last several blocks in a row were all done by CBM giving the appearance that he is stalking Alan's edits and is involved.

The problem that I have with this situation isn't that Alan was blocked. My problem is that CBM is clearly invovled at this point, refuses to admit so and has adamantly refused that there is any problem with an Admin following an editor around until they can find something to block them for.

What I am recommending is for CBM to disengage with Alan. Let another admin handle his case from this point on. If Alan does something worthy of a block then fine, but at this point CBM's continued involvement gives the perception if not the reality that he is following Alan around looking for a reason to block him. Kumioko (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The sanction is for "any category-related edits outside of mainspace", not just creating categories. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED is very clear that an admin does not become "involved" with a situation by virtue of taking administrative action. It says "This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." Indeed, an admin with experience in an issue is often in a better position to evaluate the circumstances of an edit restriction and take action without needless discussion to bring others up to speed - particularly in the case of completely objective violations such as these. The goal of an edit restriction is to stop the forbidden edits without requiring further community discussion.

The background situation here is that Alan Liefting has an edit restriction due to long-term complaints about his category-related edits and numerous previous warnings [77]. The restriction is completely objective: "Alan Liefting may not make any category-related edits outside of mainspace until and unless this topic ban is lifted." Since the restriction was established, Alan Liefting has violated it on numerous occasions. As described at [78], he appealed the restriction twice, and the appeals were not successful. He specifically agreed to follow the restriction as part of one unblock [79], but then went back to violating it. I have issued several blocks following the usual increasing sequence of block lengths, in hopes that he would change his editing to follow the restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, this is the second time this has been discussed; see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive248#Alan_Liefting_and_long_blocks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• I will also point out that he violated the restriction in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Theo's Little Bot 8.—Kww(talk) 15:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I see three issues here:

• Alan has probably transgressed his topic ban (I deliberately haven't looked). Blocking or other action is justified. I have no problem with this, if there's no other way to have Alan respect the topic ban (A topic ban I called for). Bit of a failure for WP all-round though if that's the only technique available.
• CBM has been the blocking admin for most of Alan's block log. This looks suspicious, even if it isn't. There are many admins. This is not a rapid-response issue. These blocks would appear more credible if they were coming from more than one admin.
• A 3 month block is disproportionate punishment to the offence.

Andy Dingley (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason for the 3 month block. of course, is the recidivism by Alan Liefting. The first blocks were much shorter. It is standard practice is to use escalating block lengths in this way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I see your point and Andy's. Consider this: Joe from Rando (ha, you thought I'd say Randy) is extremely poor and has sick hungry children at home. He steals a loaf of bread for which he received probation. Two weeks later he steals again for which he receives community service. Again, later, he steals and receives a night of prison and steals again and gets a week. Subsequent thefts, because although Joe works hard as a [insert extremely poorly paid job here], he has like 10 kids and his wife left him for some rich ass and they're in the Bahamas. After Joe gets out after a week of prison, he steals bread again. Always non-violent, no other infractions other than stealing a loaf of bread. This time Joe gets a month and a strong admonishment. (Poor Joe's kids, who is taking care of them while he is in prison). Using this escalating punishment idea, at what point does Joe's serial theft top out at? Can Joe receive three, six, or even a year in prison for stealing? Could Joe get life for stealing? Or how about death? (By the way, thanks for wasting your time by reading my imaginative narrative) Although we use escalating 'preemptive preventative deterrent measures' (i.e. a happy way of saying punishment for which I am fine with but the draconianophobes will cry about), at what point do we say "You know, the punishment is disproportionate to the offense." In law, we find minimum and maximum sentences. But very rarely are those things spelled out in community probations. You usually find "Alan can't do shit with categories or he'llz gets the hamma baby!" but what we really need is "If Alan touches those cats again, he'll get anywhere from beat with a stick to 3 months block at an admin's discretion."--v/r - TP 16:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

All very well until you realise than Alan doesn't have sick hungry children at home, and even if he did, it has nothing to do with volunteering to work in a collegiate online encyclopedia. Alan repeatedly and unashamedly violates the community sanctions placed on him. What's the point in community sanctions if they're not upheld? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Not saying they shouldn't be upheld. I'm saying we need to be realistic about the range of discretion given individual sysops. CBM did nothing wrong, but at what point do we top off in progressive discipline or do we continue into indefinite despite how minor the actual infraction.--v/r - TP 17:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well that's more a site-wide issue, it's potentially setting a precedent that we'd need to follow in future if we remove the current level of discretion applied. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's Carl that's being harassed here, by those who continually follow Alan Liefting's page (some editors seem to do nothing but edit that talk page....) and chase Carl for making legitimate blocks. In doing so, such editors legitimise Alan Liefting's attempts to circumvent the community sanctions placed on (and subsequently reiterated to) him at various AN/I discussions. We've already removed the "involved" issue as WP:INVOLVED is abundantly clear on it. In fact, one finds it hard to believe that editors keep banging the "involved" drum in spite of the fact INVOLVED caters for precisely this situation. If we insist on "uninvolved" admins being involved here, we'd need to rewrite INVOLVED, define what "involved" means (is it one block, two blocks, three blocks? Does it count against named editors, IPs, etc?) and find some suitable candidates who are prepared to go over the entire history of Alan Liefting's transgressions (to provide suitable context), deliberate vandalism, etc. Any volunteers? (It's also worth noting that Alan Liefting has been blocked by four separate admins in less than a year.... ) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. This should be closed as baseless - an admin who repeatedly blocks someone for policy/topic-ban violations isn't "stalking" them and certainly isn't "involved", they're simply familiar with the situation and know what to look for. If Alan, or anyone else, does something worthy of a block, then he should be blocked - by whichever admin finds the violation first, and if that happens to be CBM, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Here's a better idea than telling CBM to stop blocking Alan: telling Alan to stop doing things that get him blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. My first thought was that 3 months is excessive but that's where escalating blocks need to end up. The ban is clear and there is no need for Alan Liefting to go around violating that ban, even if everyone agrees that they are needed, helpful and useful. Not much point in a ban if it is only selectively enforced. --regentspark (comment) 16:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

So really what I'm hearing here is that no matter how much an admin follows an editor around that they cannot be held accountable? You all know as well as I that the wording "broadly construed" is nothing but a tool to allow an admin unlimited discretion to block a user that they don't like. You say that Carl is being harassed but you don't care that the only edits CBM seems to be doing with any ferquency is blocking Alan. He logs in, does a couple edits, blocks Alan and then leaaves. If Alan's actions are that problematic I can assure you that there are more than enough admins that will take action. There literally wandering around looking for stuff. So there is no need for the same admin to block one user 4, 5 or 6 times in a row. Someone above said this justifies to Alan that he can keep violating his sanction. What this also does is show editors that admins are above the rules and policy doesn't apply to them. That is much more of a problem than Alan's useful edits and unwritten and unverbialized invocation of WP:Bold and WP:IAR which it seems only apply to admins and not editors. Let alone those under sanction. Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, let's look at this in a straightforward way. Either CBM is acting in bad faith when blocking Alan Liefting or he isn't. If he is, then sticking to the ban should adequately take care of the situation. If CBM blocks for reasons other than the ban, then his actions can be reviewed. If, on the other hand, he is acting in good faith and merely implementing the ban then there is nothing anyone can do. Asking for sanctions against an admin who is merely implementing consensus is unfair and unreasonable. --regentspark (comment) 16:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"Accountable" for what? Enforcing the community-agree topic ban? (And no, "wandering admins" will have no idea of the background of Alan's regular transgression of his topic ban, nor his vandalism, so that's why admins who know what he does usually intercept him) Easiest thing to do would have been to advocate removal of the topic ban and provide masses of evidence as to why Alan should now be trusted despite such a lengthy block log (even before Carl's correct escalation sequence). That way, Alan's repeated transgressions stop being.... transgressions and we can all move on. If Alan's doing such a sterling job, it shouldn't be too hard to convince the community that his topic ban should be removed, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Accountable for harassment unless that policy doesn't apply to admins. I have to admit that I didn't really have any faith that this submission would be taken for the serious matter it is and that some would come and justify CBM's actions. But I wanted it known that there are a number of editors who think CBM is out of line and abusing his admin tools by following Alan around and acting as the Lone Ranger. Now I have done that so it makes sense at this point for this to be closed since its another glaring example of the Admin vs. editor mentality that is rampant in Wikipedia. Its sad, its disgraceful and you all should be ashamed that you let it continue but we are powerless and you are the ones who have been "trusted" with the tools to do something about it. If none of you have the morale courage to do the right thing in the face of obvious harassment by an administrator then I really do have little hope for the long term success of the project and I do not feel even remotely bad about calling attention to it. And no I don not at this point think that CBM's actions are in good faith. I'm sorry to say that but that's how I feel. Kumioko (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"harassment", how? Enforcing the community ban is what Carl has done. Where are all these editors "who think CBM is out of line" and "abusing his admin tools"? Perhaps you should seek his desysop? (It looks like as many think Carl's done the right thing as those who don't). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I almost got that done a couple months ago. The discussion was leaning towards removal, but didn't achieve consensus per lack of participation and because Alan decided he wanted the discussion to end without getting the topic ban removed. (it also resulted in him being unblocked). Ryan Vesey 17:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Try again maybe? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Several of them commented on Alan's talk page and even Andy above thinks its a negative perception at least. As I already said its strange if not innapropriate for an admin to seemingly login only to check to see if one editor violated their topic ban and then seemingly logoff again doing very few other edits or uses of his admin tools. Is CBM Alan's personal parole officer? I think not. And even I am not calling for his Desysop yet but I think that once an admin has repeatedly done something like this then they need to get some more eyes on the case. believe me if he is causing serious problem people will be lining up to stop him. If you have to go digging to find a reason to block a user then its not a problem! As I stated on Alan's talk page is a lot like 3RR in spirit. At a certain point we need more than one person looking at a case if we don't want it to be viewed as innapropriate. Kumioko (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well get these people here, drop them a line. No major problem with that. There's nothing inappropriate about Carl's actions. Other editors have done nothing in the past week than edit Alan's talk page. Carl is enforcing the community sanctions which is appropriate for an admin to do. Repeat: Carl has done nothing wrong, so go seek his desysop, it's pointless though. (By the way, Kumioko, have you counted the number of people who have commented here, at Alan's talk page, and in the archives about Alan's blocks and Carl's admin? It's "more than one person" for sure).... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

@Kumioko: Perhaps you should seek a footnote on WP:INVOLVED that says to the effect of "Although not involved by this definition, an administrator who is repeatedly performing administrator actions on a particular users are strong recommended, though not required, to defer action to other uninvolved sysops in most cases." That seems to be the meat of what you're saying.--v/r - TP 17:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This would also need to be fed to all current and prospective admins to know that, at some arbitrary point in enforcing a community-sanctioned block, they would become to expect harassment from other "uninvolved" editors. The "arbitrary point" should have a clear definition since this proposal advocates removing the ability of an admin's ability to ascertain that he or she is still acting objectively. And one would imagine that if an admin acting without objectivity, they should no longer be admins and should have their bit removed by community consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well the idea is balancing the reality of objectivity with the perception of subjectivity. Essentially: "You are not prohibited from acting and you cannot be punished if you really were uninvolved, but expect some backlash and a probably ANI inquery."--v/r - TP 17:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, all very well but Alan has had a lengthy block log before this scenario arose, and Alan is adept at deflecting blame onto "irrational-thinking" people, trying to make the rest of us think he's "rational-thinking" and those of use who disagree are the opposite. Alan's community ban was across a tiny sliver of what an editor can edit on Wikipedia, yet he's broken those terms four times in a row, usually within days of being unblocked. He's been to AN/I and back. Sometimes, the drugs don't work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing Alan's defense here. I fully support CBM. I'm thinking of a broader scope that might be useful in this case. As the primary patroller here, perhaps Carl can write up some kind of disposition that would bring the rest of us up to speed. Maybe that could even become the S.O.P. for these deep rooted issues.--v/r - TP 17:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support involving other admins: CBM can choose to not continue to block Alan. There are plenty of admins that can do this work. CBM has been invited on multiple occasions to allow other admins to conduct this work. He has chosen not to do so. Whether or not there is a vendetta on CBM's part, whether or not CBM is hounding Alan or not, the simple reality is that to a number of concerned editors this is the appearance that is being carried. It is very simple to sidestep this issue and allow for the same functional result (that of blocking Alan); just have other admins become involved. Furthermore, should Alan eventually be banned from the project, having a single administrator be the person doing all of this will dramatically weaken the case against Alan. It's simply the sensible thing to do. Is CBM technically correct? Sure. Does that make his actions proper? No. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no "hounding", just an enforcement of community sanctions, as you are very well aware. This has been discussed many times and multiple locations, no other admins have the background in Alan Liefting's abuse of Wikipedia. Carl has done the right thing. Hammersoft and others have simply harassed Carl while side-stepping the fact that Carl has done nothing wrong but while Alan has repeatedly broken the terms of his sanction, and had multiple blocks from multiple admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • You previously offered advice that if I thought CBM's tools should be removed, I should start a thread to that effect. I offer you the same advice; if you believe I have harassed CBM, then please start a thread to that effect. Raising issue with CBM's conduct does not constitute harassment. But, you are certainly welcome to plead your case. As WP:ADMINACCT notes, "Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions" Within the bounds of that policy, I do question CBM's actions. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
      • No-one said you weren't allowed to question admin's actions, but your recent edit history shows that all you do here is harangue Carl. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
        • If you feel that way, you are welcome to start a thread to that effect. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
          • I don't need to. I'm happy with the status quo. Other than your periodic arrival in Wikipedia to defend Alan's latest transgression and harass Carl. But that's your prerogative. It's not elegant or sensible, but it's how you operate. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Continuing to attack me is inappropriate. I appreciate that you modified the above statement away from the blatantly false statement you made earlier, but the intent remains effectively the same. My position remains the same; if you feel I have done something wrong, then you are free to start a thread about it. However, continuing to attack me here on this thread is counter productive. That said, I of course can not stop you from doing so again. In fact, I'll make this easy for you. If I have behaved even half as badly as you have described, then a block is certainly in order. I remove you from the burden of being involved in respect to you taking admin actions against me. With that out of the way, you are welcome to block me for flagrant transgressions against our policies with regards to CBM. If you do not block me, then I presume the accusations are false, in which case this divergence of the thread is at an end. If you do block me, then I can not contribute to this thread so once again this divergence of the thread is at an end. Either way, it ends here, now. I am confident you will do the right thing. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
              • Your edit history tells its own story, I'll leave it to others to check that out. I'll also assume good faith and note that you frequently return to defend Alan's latest transgressions, very noble. I'm confident you'll do the right thing eventually here and stop harassing Carl and stop defending an editor who has disrupted Wikipedia so many times that he has been blocked by four different editors in the last 11 months. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
                • Either my transgressions are worthy of a block or your accusations are false. There is no middle ground. Take your pick. Since it seems you are adamant that I am grossly in error, I expect you will block me shortly. If not, please drop the continued assault against me. I don't expect you to admit it is wrong, but the very least you can do is either drop it or block me. Your choice. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
                  • Neither. Your transgressions are those of a very angry and frustrated person who wants their own way. I can deal with that, quite simply. You need to calm down and stop monitoring Alan's page (which, from your edit history, seems pretty much your thing here). You need to understand that your commitment to Alan is very noble indeed, extremely chummy, but won't help when it comes to those of us who have to deal with his constant transgressions of the community-sanctioned ban. I'm sure you'll eventually do the right thing and get back to content building. You've got your thread here at AN/I now, and unfortunately you're just spoiling your opportunity to be heard by bringing out the same old non-arguments about Carl doing the right thing. I imagine most people haven't got a clue what you're complaining about! Still, your chance is here and your chance is now. We wait, with baited breath.......... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
                    • And now you accuse me of being 'very angry', a person who 'wants [my] own way', that I need to 'calm down', and that I need to stop monitoring Alan's page (ironic, given you are the #1 poster there other than Alan himself). I would also like to clarify that I did not start this thread and it isn't 'my' thread. I encourage you to block me or drop this false line of accusations. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
                      • No, once again you're not reading properly. I characterised your transgressions as being those of a very angry person. It may just be that your personality is very calm but you write in a manner of a very angry person (at least as far as I can read). I won't block you, that's daft, and I won't drop the line of perfectly accurate statements I've made. Either way, thanks for at long last bringing this to some kind of central forum, very admirable, and thanks for contributing. I'm sure now the community will have a chance to see exactly what they're dealing with! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
                        • No, it's rather far from daft. You've made quite a swath of accusations against me personally. As I've noted, if even half of it is true I am deserving of a block. You maintain these statement are accurate. I again note that I remove you from the burden of being subject to any 'involved' restrictions with respect to your admin actions towards me. Please, if what you are saying is accurate then a block is in order. Since you insist it is accurate, you should block me. As to your other point, as I noted above, I did not bring this issue to this forum. I posted to it some hours after it had already started. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment from uninvolved admin - The motive of those arguing in support of Alan here is clear - this is the latest in a long line of attempts to draw Carl into ugly dramaboard discussions and therefore somehow tag him as "involved" and bar him from taking further administrative actions against Alan. We must not allow this to happen. Carl is doing his job; the community has decided unambiguously what we are to do with Alan, and Carl is simply executing this decision. I find it strange that some of the editors calling for Carl to stop blocking Alan here are also the habitual proclaimers of the argument that admins are supposed to serve the community, the current admin corps has lost touch with the community it was elected to serve, admins have put themselves at odds with the wishes of the community etc. etc. The community has decided what it wants in this situation; how else is Carl supposed to act? He is simply carrying out the wishes of the community. In addition, the substance of this particular topic ban has been confirmed by ArbCom on more than one occasion. Far from acting inappropriately, Carl is doing an excellent job of keeping a close eye on an editor who has already demonstrated he is abundantly willing to shun what the community wants and violate his topic ban whenever it inconveniences him. It's true that other admins could do this job but it would take them longer, being less familiar with Alan's editing problems than Carl. I can't help but think that this is what the real motive of this thread is. This needs to close, and end, now. Or we have to re-write WP:INVOLVED and dissolve the Arbitration Committee. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • One of the most common argument from Alan's supporters is that "admins protect admins", so I'd be inclined to keep this open as long as possible to allow full contributions from the community. However, maybe we should ask Arbcom to get comment......... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Let me just comment that I am not an Alan supporter. I am a supporter of admins being held to the same or higher standard as editors, not exempt from the same policies they are policing. I think the topic ban on Alan had some merit but since then he hasn't been doing the same problematic edits. He seems to me to be taking great care in fact to ensure that those edits he does do are valid and not contentious (outside his topic ban). I also have a real problem when one editor like Alan is held to one standard and blocked at the first indications "broadly construed" and at the sole discretion of the admin, of a violation when others are ignored. Even worse when admins do the same thing or worse and nothing is done or there admonished (oh dear not admonishment, anything but that...wait what is that?) because they are admins being sheltered because no one wants to set a precedance of admins being burned for doing admin functions. An admin shouldn't have to fear being desysopped if they are doing the right thing. But if they aren't or the perception is that they are, then they shouldn't be immune from criticism and they should be dealt with accordingly. I have already stated that CBM may be doing the right thing, but the perception is that he is simply harassing Alan. Not only because he is the only one repeatedly blocking him but also because he does few other edits or actions. If he was doing hundreds of edits or routinely using his tools it would be less of a problem but that is not the case. Kumioko (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, I have absolutely no dog in this affair and all I can see is a series of actions by CBM that are consistent with his role as an administrator. That's not to say that his motives are pure, but rather that there is no basis for any speculation about his motives whatsoever. Reading through some of the discussion on Alan Liefting's talk page, I do see that the blocks are, um, unnecessary in the sense that there was no harm to the project from AL's activities. So what we have here is, perhaps, enforcement of the letter of the law rather than its spirit. I say perhaps because I'm limited only by what I see and obviously I don't see the whole picture. Regardless, implementing the law to the letter is not actionable. The easiest way to sort this out is to remove the ban itself. (See below). --regentspark (comment) 18:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• • • • (edit conflict)The argument that there is a "perception [of] harassing" because an admin is enforcing community sanctions is a massive failure of good faith. Enforcing sanctions does not make an administrator WP:INVOLVED, full stop; this isn't "admins protecting admins", this is following policy and applying common sense. Also, I do have a question: ...why exactly is Kumioko bringing this up? If Alan is feeling harassed, shouldn't that be something for Alan to address himself, if he desired? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
        • There is no perception of harassing because an admin is enforcing community sanctions. I don't think anyone is stating that. There is a perception of harassment because CBM is the only admin who has blocked Alan for violating his topic ban. All six blocks are by CBM. There is no case that can be made that CBM's actions in this case are just happenstance. He is deliberately monitoring Alan. Whether we call that harassment or not is open for debate, but it is clear that it can readily appear that way. CBM avoiding this does two things (1) removes that suspicion and (2) increases the strength of any further cases against Alan on this issue. In effect, while CBM is technically correct in enacting the blocks, he is functionally harming the case against Alan. At some point, the sheer number of blocks by CBM against Alan, when NO one else is blocking him, becomes blatantly vindictive. This is all avoidable by the sheer expediency of requesting other administrators to step in. CBM has been invited more than once to do so, yet refuses. He has warned that his next block of Alan will be for a year. It is time for another administrator to step in. No harm will come to the project because CBM steps away from this issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
          • "blatantly vindicative"? No. AGF. Carl is carrying out the request of the community when Alan has contravened his ban. No harm will come to the project because Hammersoft stops waiting in the sidelines for a cause to follow, and then harass Carl endlessly for doing what the community voted for him to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
          • I was going to say "I find your lack of good faith disturbing". Then I read the below. By comparison your comment is an absolute paragon of good faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
            • @TRM: Allow me to clarify. I said "At some point...[it] becomes blatantly vindictive". I did not say this point is now. I think we can all agree that 200 blocks against a user by a single admin with no other admins blocking them becomes vindictive. I think we can all agree 1 block is not vindictive. Somewhere inbetween comes the "at some point". We do not need to reach that point; it's easily avoidable. Just have another admin handle this issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course there's nothing wrong with Carl's actions. He's an admin and it's a content builder he's dealing to. Only the content builders are whinging, which they do anyway, so why listen? Maybe Alan's offending edits were entirely reasonable, but he's a content builder and content builders are not to buck a community decision (admin-speak for a rule made up by a small group of admins). A sense of perspective is needed here. An unruly mob of content builders are orchestrating a cruel attempt to deny Carl the pleasures of unbridled power. There is nothing wrong with lying in ambush to catch a content builder and treble or quadruple his previous block. It's what our best admins do. It is irrelevant to point out that admins who busy themselves with these traps contribute little content. How can Carl concentrate on the pleasures of ambush if he's also expected to build content? Content building is hard work. Anyway, building content is an undignified activity on Wikipedia, not something a good administrator should stoop to. Wikipedia needs less content building and more administration to the remaining content builders. Maybe elsewhere someone who behaves like Alan would have his blocks capped at a sane level, such as one month. But this is Wikipedia, the brave new Wikipedia where Sandstein is starting his rule, implementing an increasingly rigid, uncompromising and authoritarian regime. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, what a load of puffery that is. If you disagree with the community consensus on Alan's ongoing disruption, do something about it, don't harp on about some kind of hidden agenda. "Infamy, infamy... they've all got it in for me!" (P.S. I assume you're excluding me as a "content builder"? Please justify that.... And if you think modifying categories ad infinitum constitutes "content building", I'd be interested to hear that argument too....!) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You're the last person to be talking about puffery. Alan does a measure of content building as well. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Your link makes no sense. But good try. Alan does a "measure" of content building, of course he does, don't we all? But your tirade was so one-eyed it made mine (both of them) water. Admins build content too. Unless you can prove otherwise! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

If the link makes no sense to you then you must be oblivious to your own puffery. Yes of course some admins contribute content, and there, there... I'm sure you've made good contributions too. I slipped up and forgot that some Americans seem to have have trouble with irony. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Americans? Donde? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Epipelagic, that's seriously in bad faith, could easily be considered uncivil, and could even be construed as a personal attack upon certain admins. And as an admin who also works extensively on content I'm frankly disgusted at the slings and arrows flung at admins by people who harp on and on about "admins don't make content and look down on ones who do". There is indeed admin abuse rampant on Wikipedia, and it's the admins who are being abused. (Also, we do not "cap" blocks at any level, otherwise it's a blank cheque - "you've had your block, now go out there and violate all the policies you want, you've got a get out of blocking free card".) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

What I actually said was "It is irrelevant to point out that admins who busy themselves with these traps contribute little content." I didn't think I was referring to you. Do you busy yourself with these traps? I note your implied threats. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

What makes this so much better is Epipelagic's assumption that I'm American. Brilliant! Do not pass go, do not collect 200 pounds....!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Really? You're not? Are you quite sure? --Epipelagic (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Me no Americano dude! You need some ed-u-kay-shun...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I never! --Epipelagic (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well indeed, and I suppose a handful of FAs and FLs doesn't count as content-building in your mind. Nor the content-building of the other admins who have contributed to this discussion. Your whole "anti-admin/non-content-building" argument is without foundation, and frankly, a little bit embarrassing for you. But I'm sure you'll be just fine with that, facts don't seem to be a necessary part of this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, facts don't seem to be a necessary part of this discussion --Epipelagic (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, facts don't seem to be a necessary part of your discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

So "content builder" is now an insult? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I see no problems whatsoever in CBM's actions. I am saddened by Alan's blocklog and by his inability to participate in Wikipedia on the basis of it being a community. But the rent-a-mob baiting of CBM and those who have supported his enforcement of the sanctions at Alan's talk page leaves a really sour taste in the mouth. --Dweller (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm saddened too. But since this is a volunteer run site and people tend to edit what they are interested in, in this case categorization of articles, it seems hard to understand why someone would have an easy time of following a sanction. It should not be at all surprising that 99% of all editors who get sanctioned end up being blocked for violating it. Why is that I suppose? Could it be that people are less likely edit something that does not interest them? I would think so. As I said before, the sanction had some merit but its overly broad. His sanction dealt with a specific type of edit, readin gthe sanction is plain to see what, but yet we established a huge net and said he can't edit categories outside namespace, knowing that leaves a massive window. Does this include talk pages? Would adding WikiProject banners count? It seems they would but weren't a problem and shouldn't be covered. Yet his sanction would include them. You can be mad as you want that we are questioning the natural order of things but if you want to point fingers at someone then you need to also include those who wrote a sanction so broad that it covers nearly everything. Alan has taken great care to ensure his edits were useful so at this point we should invoke IAR and BOLD and call it a day. There is absolutely no benefit to the project with this block, there is absolutely no prevention, only punishment and CBM is absolutely 100% involved. There is no other way to view it. He is the only one taking action, its one of the few actions he even bothers with in the infrequent occassions he graces us with his presence. Kumioko (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you personally disagree with a sanction that has been decided on and then confirmed by the community is interesting but immaterial. As is whether each and any edit made in breach of a sanction was constructive or not. CBM is enforcing community sanctions and has done nothing wrong. Calling his blocks "harassment" is the only wrong here. --Dweller (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I repeat my question from above: why are you raising this issue, Kumioko, instead of letting Alan speak up for himself if he feels CBM is not acting in an impartial manner? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Extended comment to follow NE Ent 21:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well for a couple reasons. I am less concerned about his sanction, that is for him to fight. What I am trying to discuss is CBM's unhealthy and unhelpful harassment of the user. That is the problem I am trying to get dealt with here more than the topic ban itself. With that said, he's blocked for the next three months. So how would he possibly discuss the issue with us here? He can't. Even if he could he probably feels as I do that its unlikely that anyone would take the allegations seriously. Kumioko (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, your unfounded and over-the-top repeated accusation of CBM's "harassment" is itself harassment. A bunch of uninvolved editors have told you that CBM did nothing wrong. Even if you disagree with them, please drop the aggressive hyperbole. --Dweller (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It's simple. Alan posts on his talk page, or here after the block expires, "I don't believe CBM is capable of being impartial with regard to enforcing my topic ban, I would like for another admin to handle it instead of him". The community says, "ok". No drama, no fuss, a polite request by the subject of the sanctions won't ruffle anyone's feathers. Somebody else coming in and accusing CBM of hounding/wikistalking/vendettaing? That's pot-stirring at best. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Dweller, I am going to make this as clear as I can. My comments are not harassment. If an admin is allowed to follow another editor around, sanction or not, looking for a reason to block them and does so no less than 6 times in the same number of months, that is harassment, plain and simple. There really is no other way of looking at it other than justifying it as admins aren't subject to harassment and hounding policies. If that's the case then fine (although that would be indeed troubling). If my desire to discuss those questionable actions causes you to think I am harassing CBM then that's also fine, I can live with that. But I view what CBM to do as wrong, I have brought that up here expecting that admins would support his harassment and I was right. I never expected him to admin fault and I didn't expect other admins to say he was wrong. I would have been truly surprised if I was wrong. But it seems I am not. As for Hyperbole, if CBM blocked him 2 or 3 times that could be argued as not harassment, but 6 times? Come on, you cannot actually expect me to believe or buy that is not harassment. There are over 650 admins in Wikipedia and you are telling me that 1 admin who rarely edits is the only admin qualified and versed in the case enough to do it? Please I am not that stupid so your assuming I am is only an insult to you, not me and is also insulting to the rest of the admins and community to say that they aren't smart enough to perform the block if they think something was wrong. You say he did nothing wrong and its not harassment and you don't agree with me. Ok that's fine, we'll have to agree to disagree but how many blocks would it take before it was harassment if not 6? 10? 20? 100? And again my questioning an admin on his actions isn't drama potstirring, its due diligence. Kumioko (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

So, uncontroversial topic ban enforcment being fought against in the third person by a drama-only account. It's not obvious why people are taking this seriously. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify which Drama only account you are referring too? Kumioko (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Looked in a mirror lately? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove Alan Leifting's ban on category creation outside mainspace

Alan Leifting appears to be violating the ban, but doing so in a useful sort of way. In which case, rather than blocking him for doing so, perhaps we should remove the ban itself. --regentspark (comment) 18:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Regardless of whether the edits were benefical or not, they're still in violation of a community-imposed sanction - and to lift the ban because "they're not causing harm,e ven though they're in violation" would be rewarding bad behavior and would make a mockery of the sanctions process. If people want to have sanctions lifted, the way to do it is to obey the sanctions and then, after a certain amount of time has passed, request that the sanction be lifted "on the terms of good behavior", as it were - not to flout them and have somebody say "oh, they're actually good edits even if they're made in the wrong". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support with condition - I think there were merits to the ban in the first place. I think as long as he is taking care to ensure these edits aren't contentious such as he has been it would be fine. I would be happy if we could clarify that there are some category edits outside mainspace he can do that aren't of the sort he was doing before that got him into tgrouble. Kumioko (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

  The problem is that the ban then becomes unenforceable. Admins can't be expected to evaluate whether a particular violation is useful or not. --regentspark (comment) 19:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"Admins can't be expected to evaluate whether a particular violation is useful or not."

• Can't they do it or would it just be more inconvenient for them? What can't admins be expected to evaluate next? This is a really ridiculous claim. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose until we've actually discussed the ban and how best to deal with further transgressions. Alan makes thousands of edits a day when not blocked (by one of many different admins, not just Carl). His topic-block edits will almost certainly go unnoticed, and it's unclear if Alan is making these edits deliberately or accidentally. But after four consecutive blocks for the same issue, I'm inclined to believe he knows what he's doing. Hopefully those who took part in the last few discussions over Alan's behaviour have been notified about this? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The way to reward people who repeatedly break community sanctions is not to lift the community sanctions. Alan's problem has been and remains that he cannot see past what he thinks is The Right Thing To Do, while the rest of the editors work on consensus-based editing. His continual breaching of the sanction proves that he does not get it. Sadly. --Dweller (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose It dismays me that we keep hopelessly entangling CBM's actions with Alan's actions whenever one or the other's actions are raised. CBM's actions with respect to Alan are an issue in and of themselves. While Alan's actions with regards to the topic ban strike me as being Ghandi-esque, there is no way that peaceful non-cooperation (read; actions that violate the ban but do not harm the project) can ever prevail on Wikipedia. If we supported such actions by overturning Alan's topic ban via this vehicle, all editors would be empowered to violate their topic bans via "peaceful non-cooperation". That way leads to chaos. Alan's topic ban will never be repealed until he complies for quite some length of time with all elements of the topic ban. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • You've yet to actually demonstrate in policy or principle what Carl has done wrong, so it's probably about time you stopped with the wilful inaccurate characterisation of an admin doing what the community asked of him. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • And now I am by your account guilty of wilfull inaccurate characterizations. TRM, please block me or drop it. Please. You are not helping the discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, correct. But perhaps you're just tired. Like me, of all this nonsense. Good night, God speed, and I sincerely hope you get something you like out of all this! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - As a non-admin, seeing someone have their sanctions lifted for violating them, and because a rent-a-mob pack are hell bent on protecting them (and disparaging absolutely anyone that disagrees with them), would absolutely smash my confidence in any system here to pieces. To be honest, having been blocked several times for violating the TBAN, it's a surprise they haven't been indeffed... maybe that's because Carl knew just what a reaction that would bring? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Hammersoft's very practical reasoning, with the caveat that I see no issue with CBM's actions as he appears to be doing exactly what an admin is supposed to do: enforcing community consensus. Saedon (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)21:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. When you were banned because you were causing problems in a certain realm, and when you break it by doing the same thing as before, you shouldn't be rewarded by being unbanned. Ban-enforcement blocks are like 3RR blocks — they're bright-line situations that would equally be imposed by any uninvolved admin; it's a far cry from blocks for disruption, for vandalism, etc. Nyttend (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• It remains beyond my grasp why intelligent and well-meaning editors respond positively to such refuge in audacity. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• No specific comment on this request, but one fallout from this is requests to other users to take actions that the block prevents AL from taking on his own. At some point, the overall impact of the block and the editors actions since then and the effect on the encyclopedia need to be considered. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I suppressed some edits here. Nothing nefarious, just someone forgot to log in - Alison ^❤ 22:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comment — I noticed the revdel and was wondering what had happened. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I like Alan, and think he's generally a productive editor, but I see no reason why his inability or unwillingness to abide by a valid community ban should be a justification for overturning the ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

He had initially removed only the Parfitt text and placed it under a criticism section that he’d created under “Other traditions” [80]. The second revert [81] had the edit summary: (Removing text as it is an inappropriate introduction to the article. Please see talk section for my explanation.)

Talk:Ten_Lost_Tribes#Replaced_criticism_on_in_opening_statement_to_separate_deserving_section

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

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

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

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

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

Long term problems with WP:VERIFY

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

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

I am posting here following an administrator's suggestion. I am seeking a block for User:Vjmlhds for prolonged disruptive editing. Let me be clear: this is user has a long term problem following WP:VERIFY – he habitually adds, removes, or modifies content without providing reliable sources to verify his claims. I myself have been editing for just over two years, and all that time I have struggled to resolve this issue in a civil and constructive way. I have tried to engage this editor with discussions on talk pages, including both his and my own, but he frequently breaks up these discussions, or deflects or denies (or outright ignores) key points. WP:TRUE is often the only justification given for his edits. He also resorts to personal attacks, referring to me as: "a real pest", "article c***blocker", "bet you reminded the teacher to give out homework", "buddy boy", "minutiae guy", "pain in the @ss", "wiki hall monitor", "wiki-police", etc. This view is not mine alone. Despite editing with regularity for more than five years, Vjmlhds often uses a declared lack of familiarity with "wiki-ese" as an excuse to edit however he chooses and blames others for not fixing his edits.[82][83][84]

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

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

This is not the first time Vjmlhds has had a problem with editing policies. He has been blocked three times (twice last fall) for edit warring, and he continues to violate these same policies despite repeated warnings.[85][86] I was very clear with Vjmlhds: continue this disruptive editing, and I will seek a block for long term disruption. Yesterday he failed to provide a source at least three times in three different articles [87][88][89] (incidentally, I normally would not revert these type of edits as they extend to topics beyond my normal focus, but I felt compelled to intervene). If you have any further questions regarding this issue, please do not hesitate to ask here for diffs, etc. Thanks. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 15:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Deny and deflect. On personal attacks: here are three since August (two this year).[90][91][92] On Banner: could not find a single source online or in print which at the time referred to him as "President" (otherwise I would have used it and left "President" in the Banner article); even if there was reference to Banner as president, it was in error (as Banner himself states), and that *still* does not address the fact Vjmlhds did not add a source. On "personal issues": I mostly focus on Northeast Ohio media articles, and I treat Vjmlhds exactly like I treat all other editors of NEO media content. Ordinarily I don't edit pages like The Brady Bunch or Leave It to Beaver, but I do focus on related media, and I felt compelled to intervene in those cases given Vjmlhds' ongoing and willful neglect of WP:VERIFY. There are countless examples where I have *not* involved myself in Vjmlhds' edits. And I am only requesting this block following an administrator's suggestion. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 16:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

obvious socks

Trolls gonna troll. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Someone please block 'em--Slimyrasp2 (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nemont Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gratans You are more likely to get a response at WP:SPI if you show the evidence that makes you think it is "obvious" that these are sockpuppets. --Orlady (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Asishillickal

User:Asishillickal / User:Asishjose could use some guidance. 92.40.182.182 (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

He's received some ... any editor can give him additional guidance beyond that. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

IP attacks on User:Pks1142

Can an admin protect this user's page, he's been subject to attacks by ip addresses see [93]. Please take the appropriate action with the IPs.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

User page has been semi-protected by Ultraexactzz. Doesn't look like there's a problem with the talk page. Chamal ^T•C 16:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The IPs are blocked as well, 48 hours. The Semi is set for three weeks, so hopefully they'll go play somewhere else in the interim. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Attacks and threats made by Bearman998

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User talk:Dave Bowman - Discovery Won

Ok, so I happened to have recently commented on a user's talkpage and so still had it on my watchlist when this user gave them an "award" [94]. In this award he refers to Wikipedians as retards and wretched geeks, and says that all Americans are buffoons. So, I gave him the standard warning for personal attacks.I checked in today and there is a whole long conversation on his talk page where he apparently thinks he is talking to me when he is in fact talking with User:The359. That distinction doesn't seem to bother him as he goes on to repeatedly attaclk me and the the American people (we're all retarded as it turns out) and to drag in unrelated incidents that he is taking out of context that have no bearing on my warning to him. He still does not seem to realize that the warning I left him is the only edit I have made so far to his talk page, although of course I will be notifying him of this discussion momentarily. I don't know what his problem is but he seems exceptionally angry and hateful toward me, WP, and Americans, which suggests he is going to have trouble being part of the community here if he can't behave like a civilized person, even if he is from a country "made of retards, by retards, and for retards".

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

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

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

Having a bit of car trouble so my departure seems to have been delayed. Just noticed this charming edit sumarry [95] which is also a personal attack. I believe I am not really WP:INVOLVED as my only contact with him so far was the attack warning and the notification of this thread but since he is already decrying my conspiracy against him it would probably be best if some other admin handled this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Wilkinsons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Kuyi123w

This editor, registered on Mar 28, but clearly familiar with the inner workings of Wikipedia, was recently blocked [96] for poor editing, and a total failure to communicate. It is readily apparent to me that this pattern has continued after the block elapsed. To give but a few examples, Kuyi123w had copy-pasted the text "n September 2005, Lovebird’s Larry Page and Lucy Southworth take pleasure in a getaway in Hawaii on a non-public jet" into the Lucy Southworth article [97] - not only a copyvio, but obviously inappropriate tabloid language - and note that the bio in question has been recreated by Kuyi123w after a recent AfD decision that it didn't meet notability guidelines - I asked Kuyi123w for an explanation, but needless to say, none has been forthcoming. Or another example, Kuyi123w has taken to adding the place of birth in to the lede of articles - replacing the word 'born' with the placename. Not only does this not comply with the MoS, but it appears that Kuyi123w isn't even aware of what they are doing: in the case of Ralf Fährmann, the text " (born 27 September 1988 in Karl-Marx-Stadt)" was replaced by "(Chemnitz 27 September 1988 in Karl-Marx-Stadt)". [98] (note that Karl-Marx-Stadt redirects to Chemnitz). Much further evidence of Kuyi123w's lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is about can be found at User talk:Kuyi123w, where such delights as a section entitled "Speedy deletion nomination of List of advertising spaces web available" can be found. Without wishing to prejudge the issue, I can't help feeling that what we have here falls firmly within the bounds of WP:COMPETENCE territory, and that blocking the editor sooner rather than later would be in the best interests of everyone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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