Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 12.144.158.19 (talk) at 14:50, 24 April 2013 (→‎False Policy claims/interpretation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 [1]. I think the IP could do without posting copyright violations [2] and the personal attacks (see my talk page history, and the history at [[causes of autism). Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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 [3], [4] [5] and [6]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

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

    IP, I guess it's no surprise that you will not accept the repeated attempts to explain to you that content issues will not be resolved at ANI. You have provided the suggested source at the article Talk page and your comment was left standing. Your best course of action at this point would be simply to let the editors at that article review the change suggestion and leave it at that. It is highly recommended that you do not continue the same exhausting WP:IDHT behavior that you've been exhibiting for the past few years. Consider this an opportunity to show that you are willing to make a change in how you're attempting to work with the Wikipedia community. Zad68 20:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It never ceases to amaze me how, after 3 years, you still have not read those SineBot posts on your numerous talk pages and have not learned how to indent. Anyway, this is not the place for content disputes I don't think. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also quite sure that accusing another editor of meat/sock puppetry is a violation of WP:AGF. [7]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is simply a further example of WP:IDHT behavior we've seen from this IP for years now. Zad68 20:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    I left a notification here since there are no specific users I am talking about.--v/r - TP 16:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean October, don't you?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good to me. m.o.p 18:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Although talking in a responsible, familiar and objective tone, or referring to Admins by their 1st name, it should be pointed out that Cailil and Binkersnet have also been heavily involved in these disputes. I hope this decision is made on the merits of the case at hand, and not other concerns or connections. CSDarrow (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How does a "decision... made on the merits of the case at hand" differ in any way from what Cailil has suggested, or from what I have suggested? Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, my first name is not Tom. They've just connected the dots that my name refers to Tom Paris.--v/r - TP 20:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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).[reply]
    • 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 [9] and [10] and persistent WP:OR (one example) violate the article probation. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, per Binksternet, with indef semi-protection, as this article has suffered from off site campaigns several times now; with Slp1's IP exemption as a second choice. While the original probation was for the main article only, Sonicyouth makes a good point. Should we expand to include the topic on related articles? If we semi the main article, the problems may leak over onto other articles more. And Sonicyouth, your point about needing more admins is also well taken. I apologize that circumstances have not allowed me to be as helpful as I'd like lately. KillerChihuahua 11:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Disagree: I think this page will soon be arriving at a steady state as per WP:FIVE Pillars. There will be a number of well argued cases taken to WP:RSN in the next few days. These will address the core issues of the dispute and bring the bickering to end one way or an another. I hate to see the page cast in stone as is for 6 months; this may be to the liking of some but not to others.
    I think it is important to bear in mind that the ultimate purpose of Administrative action is not to stop argument on a talk page, but to foster the production of quality Wikipedia pages. Sometimes we forget that the pages themselves are more important than the trivial dramas of our editing world. CSDarrow (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per discussion here, I've semi-protected the article for 6 months. If any admin feels strongly that the duration should be longer (or shorter), s/he should feel free to change it; I won't be mad. MastCell Talk 21:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent personal attacks and incivility

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

    Rgambord (talk · contribs) has been deleting comments from Talk:Men's rights movement. I and another editor asked him to stop [11][12]. His response was that he deleted my comments because they would have gotten me banned (please see for yourselves if my comment that he deleted would have gotten me banned). He added "Are you dense? (That's a rhetorical question, don't answer it.)" Prior to that he explained on User talk:South19 that he removed his edits because the editor should be shamed of himself and "People like you disgust me" [13].

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

    Sonicyouth is a bit confused here. I removed South19's comment in which he called a man who committed suicide by self-immolation a domestic terrorist, under the provisions of WP:BDP. I did not intentionally remove sonicyouth's comment when merging the three sections, nor did I realise that I had done so until it was brought to my attention. If you review my edit summary, "Merging three identical discussions into one heading; Hopefully I'm not stepping on any toes", clearly it was in good faith. I will strikeout the uncivil portions of my comments. Rgambord (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Due to the rapid commenting, I confused sonicyouth and south19 at times but corrected my comments to address the proper editors. If sonicyouth read it before my correction, that might have contributed to confusion. User_talk:Sonicyouth86#SorryRgambord (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Dense" and "confused". "People like you disgust me" and "you should be ashamed of yourself". A neat collection of personal attacks. Just for reference: A long-time editor was topic banned for a month because he made a joke about red-linked users [14]. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't even know how to respond to this. I have a constitutionally protected right to voice my opinion that South19 should be ashamed of his comments. He called the man a terrorist. Are you missing that part? The part where he publicly called another human being, a man who committed suicide by dousing himself with gasoline and setting himself on fire as a last resort to being stripped of everything he cared about, a terrorist? I think you must have missed that part. There's no room for good faith assumptions there. That was a vile and reprehensible, but I am the bad guy because I "censored" his divisive soapboxing and voiced a personal issue with his behavior on his talk page. I also posted an apology on your talk page which you quickly deleted. Just go ahead and add me to the ever-growing list of editors leaving this failed experiment because I value my time more than to constantly engage in petty squabbles about things like adding the word perceived into sentences where it is already implied and doesn't really belong, and removing the classification of human rights movement, because golly, men's rights just isn't logically a subset of human rights, didn't you get the memo? Wikipedia is the only place I've been where people could fill books on whether to add or remove a SINGLE WORD in an article.Rgambord (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a constitutionally protected right against Government censorship of your opinion. At this time your behavior is disruptive and I am about to topic ban you for a month.--v/r - TP 20:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:LittleBenW edit-warring over diacritics again.

    LittleBenW has been topic-banned from edits related to diacritics (broadly construed) since December.[15] He has since been blocked twice for violating this ban.[16][17] 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.[18][19] In ictu oculi also noted similar TBAN violations not long ago.[20] Cheers. Konjakupoet (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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[21] 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)[reply]
    What are you talking about? "Warring"? You are the one who reverted me three times (the other one was a short while ago[22]) 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)[reply]
    <redacted by neutral observer -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)>[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Gotcha. Sorry for that. Konjakupoet (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Thank you for that clear and precise answer. -- PBS (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • Support for the reasons outlined in the section above and for somewhat offensively accusing me of sockpuppetry numerous times.[23][24] (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)[reply]
    Note LittleBen has been canvassing and accusing both me and DV of having some kind of "ultra-nationalist" agenda.[25][26] 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    And here. PBS is another user who should now be considered compromised. Konjakupoet (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Tarc as well.[27] 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)[reply]
    A Quest for Knowledge, too.[28] And Ryulong.[29] (The latter diff also includes more gravedancing.) Konjakupoet (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Pot calling...? -- PBS (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Why can not write a message on User:Konjakupoet2? -- PBS (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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).[reply]
    Re "I'm not an admin" - you should be! ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (Cough). Glasshouse, stone, sauce, gander. – iridescent 2 13:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Bishonen is an admin.[30] Konjakupoet (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Bish is, but Ent ain't -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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).[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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))[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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.[31][32] 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    *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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    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.[33] Konjakupoet (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Threats to out and other issues, namely trying to learn who blocked his email account is a major concern. I change my !vote to support. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Disregard. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • @Apteva: I'm afraid you're confused. Our objective is to build an encyclopedia. The method we use is open-editing. When the methodology conflicts with achieving the objective, the methodology must be adjusted. Doing it any other way makes no sense whatsoever, as we would end up with a project that is gloriously free for anyone to edit, but is full of crap. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I find your lack of good faith disturbing. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Kauffner, you make my point far better than I ever could. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Support. The issue isn't that he thinks diacritics don't belong to an English publication, but how he manifests this with his behaviour. He is already subject to a topic ban which he considers unjust and has happily ignored on more than one occasion, and he continues to treat WP as a battleground. His statements above, the recent latent TB violations not sanctioned and his declaration that he intends to appeal the TB shortly without having demonstrated any sign of contrition are highly disconcerting. Going around accusing editors who oppose him "ultra-nationalists" and raising of an ANI complaint "bullying" are uncivil and unhelpful respectively. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 01:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This may be moot, since LBW has been indeffed for outing, but I'll add my voice to the chorus. Unlike some of the others here, who have been waging a pitched battle against LBW for some time now, I have little to no interaction over this issue, but I generally support LBW's position on diacritics. However, this position appears to be a minority view, and I recognize that community consensus has primacy over my personal views. LBW's editing surrounding this topic has been clearly tendentious and disruptive, and it's obvious that he is either unable or unwilling to abide by the restrictions of the existing topic ban. An indefinite block is the next logical step, with the understanding that indefinite does not mean permanent. Horologium (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kick it to ArbCom While I would definitely support on an indef, I find it pointless to try and impose blocks and/or sanctions here while ArbCom is already trying to work on a solution. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 02:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As the user he "outed", I should point out that whether "outing" actually took place is sort of up-for-grabs. As I already pointed out above, LBW did not directly state my personal information in public. What he did was directly attempt to tie my new WP:CLEANSTART account to a previous account that had been outed. By a user LBW was colluding closely with. LBW, knowing all of this, posted the claim that this account is linked with my old one on about six separate forums (those are the redacted edits). While LBW's actions here make it obvious that he is basically malicious and did intend to cause me harm/out me, it is entirely possible that ArbCom won't accept this as falling within the standard definition of "outing". Therefore, this discussion needs to continue: no point letting him off the hook for all his other violations just because his harassment of me didn't technically qualify as outing. Konjakupoet (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that does technically qualify as outing, actually. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is ArbCom reviewsing the whole kit and kaboodle, or just the current block he's currently under for 'canvassing/outing'? Because 'flagrant topic ban violations' is a whole 'nother kettle of hagfish. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Our review is limited to the alleged outing. T. Canens (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • CLOSE AS NO CONSENSUS - LittleBenW contacted me on my talk page, which some call canvassing but I disagree with that assessment, as anyone is welcome to ask for help and I'm always free to disagree or refuse. That puts me in an awkward position that good judgement tells me I shouldn't close, although I would like to. Obviously, many think he is continually violating his topic ban and he should listen to them and comply with the spirit and letter of the ban. My concern is our ability to be objective at this point when determining a sanction. I've watched and given this a great deal of thought, understanding that many would mistakenly think this is a free pass, when in fact, it is only trying to uphold our ideals. If I were convinced that no one would object to my closing, it would be as follows:
    The entire process has been messy, confusing, with lots of claims made (in good faith I believe) of outing, which ArbCom has decided is not the case, blocks and unblocks for outing and canvassing. At the end of the day, the well has become so poisoned, and many of the !votes now moot, that the entire process is better aborted. I don't think it is possible to reach a fair conclusion at this stage, nor truly determine consensus due to all these circumstances, and if the process can not be objective and unbiased, then I have no choice but to close as No Consensus at this time. I will note that there are a number of people who have issue with LittleBenW's activies here and I think there is likely merit to their concerns, so I would add a warning to LittleBenW that it is sincerely in his best interest to avoid anything that could be interpreted as voilating his topic ban, as he is likely to simply be blocked by a passing by admin the next time he violates the topic ban, without the benefit of a discussion here. I would suggest taking a few days off, collecting your thoughts and treading carefully for a while to prevent any misunderstandings. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Committee has stated LBW's actions were not outing -- and, as the outing allegation is cited multiple times in the reasons for the ban above, I concur with Dennis Brown this should be closed as FUBAR. NE Ent 02:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, I've stricken my !vote from this mess. The weight of the matter taints this discussion anyone who read it was likely influenced by it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose community indef though I would support an admin imdeffing right now and leave it up to any admin to be convinced that an unblock is warranted.   little green rosetta(talk)
      central scrutinizer              02:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WTF - OK, if the outing part is incorrect, so be it. But why on earth have they been unblocked (and not merely had their block reduced) when no evidence has been presented to disprove either the canvassing, the constant stream of personal attacks, the topic ban violations, the edit warring? Surely those are all majorly blockable offences as well? ArbCom's decision baffles and infuriates me, ESPECIALLY as this ANI thread was opened with no mention of outing initially. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      ArbCom said their only role was to review the outing, nothing else, so there's nothing to blame on them. However, I don't quite agree with the "no consensus" close — most of the supporters of an indef block have said that their opinion is based primarily on the topic ban violations, not the alleged outing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The original block length was three hours, it was then extended to indefinite as a result of allegations of outing. Since we determined that no outing occurred, we reversed this extension. The three-hour block would have expired days ago and, so, I decided to unblock him. Doing something else, in my mind, would have been disrespectful towards the community for they were already discussing the case and could reach a reasonable result by themselves and towards LittleBenW... Or, at least, that's what I thought at the moment. Salvio Let's talk about it! 07:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can only pop in briefly, but as the indef-blocking admin I have to comment. I thank ArbCom for taking this over on request, and I'm happy to accept their findings. What I interpreted as outing (based on information that is not public) appears to have been mistaken, and I offer my apologies to LittleBenW for my misinterpretation of the evidence. As my block appears to have influenced the discussion here, and as some people have made their choice based on the now-overturned suspicion of outing, I don't think a fair outcome based on the original topic-ban issue is possible at this stage. So I Oppose any sanctions on LittleBenW in this instance. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close with 2 clear warnings to LBW: 1) any attempt to link an account with a previous account can be a violation of WP:OUTING if it was a valid WP:CLEANSTART; 2) Any (and I do mean any) violation of his topic ban will lead to an immediate block. From the above, it's clear that the community isn't tolerating and pushing of envelopes or other forms of mucking about (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's quite a bit of discussion about the unblock decision at User talk:LittleBenW#Unblocked on my talk page which may be of interest to people here. To quote myself from my talk page: "I do not know the user's identity and so cannot have "outed" him". (He links to his own former user ID from this ANI discussion; if that is considered to be "outing" then he has outed himself—some would call using multiple unspecified user IDs to attack other users "socking"). "I can accept that an Admin. would in good faith give Konjakupoet the benefit of the doubt, and block me for "possible outing", but I don't think that Konjakupoet's making such bogus claims to prevent me from participating at ANI (and to encourage people to vote to ban me) can in any way be considered to be "acceptable" or "good faith". LittleBen (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my reply to Salvio on my talk page I also say: "The continuing vicious attacks on users who ask that WP rules on properly researching (in reliable sources) and neutrally reporting (NPOV) BLP names and place names indicate that this is an issue that cannot be solved by the community. Organized lynchings at ANI are not the answer, I believe. I think that the best way to solve this issue would be for ArbCom to consider guidelines. May I submit a case on this to ArbCom?" but I have not yet received a reply. Maybe I need to submit a summary of the proposal to ArbCom separately. LittleBen (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • ArbCom does not comment on content issues, only those of conduct. While you could certainly try to press your argument of "organized lynchings", I suspect you'd end up with a pretty big WP:BOOMERANG upside the head if you did. Resolute 14:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad to see the open minds, and respect the concerns as well. LittleBenW was blocked for a time, so he has had some time to think about the situation. I think NE Ent summed it as FUBAR, which is exactly what it is. It is more comparable to a mistrial, not a declaration of innocence. It isn't anyone's "fault", sometimes these things happen even when everyone is acting in the best of faith, as is the case here. If LittleBenW moves forward from here and doesn't violate his topic ban, then he got by with a flesh wound and will have become wiser from it. If he really is unredeemable enough to require an indef block, then he will end up back here again soon enough, and a fresh process can be started at that time. I think it is important that we recognize when the process has gone awry and are willing to back away, making it clear to the rest of the community that fairness is important when deciding the fate of a fellow editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I need to point out that while this proposal is basically done for the moment, all of my concerns and the majority of the arguments for the block made by about 80% of the participants here have yet to be addressed. LBW should have immediately got a block of more than a week for violating his TBAN for the the third time, anyway. He has therefore been let off easy with only just over two days. He has also been making admirable use of his freedom since being unblocked -- going around numerous talk pages and violating WP:AGF by claiming that either Zebedee or myself manufactured a "bogus" claim of outing in order to silence him. I just wanted him to stop spouting BS about how I was "outcast by the Wikipedia community for being disruptive" or something like that. Frankly, I told him before posting here in the first place that if he violated his TBAN by reverting me one more time I would take him here, but then my immediate impetus for bringing this up was not a TBAN violation so much as a personal attack he made against me on Boneyard90's talk page. If he makes one more personal attack against me, I will post the same proposal as above again, and this time with no "iffy" charges. Consensus is overwhelmingly against LBW at the moment. He is walking on thin ice, and he'd better be careful not to slip. (Additionally, since my only interactions with him have ever been over diacritics, his making attacks against me could be interpreted as a TBAN in and of itself.) Watch your back, LBW: one more personal attack and I'm bringing you back here. Konjakupoet (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that you've only been here for 4 days (under your current ID), you might need to watch your own back - there could be a boomerang coming. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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” [35]. The second revert [36] 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    This filling is not about the content dispute, rather it is about the POV pushing including the misrepresentation of sources, the failure to provide sources, and a moralizing ad hominem personal attack by an experienced editor.
    If you and other administrators don't have the time to read the thread, that's a problem that exceeds the scope of this filing. As I said, this is intended as a preventative measure, as I do not intend to waste any more of my time arguing with POV-pushing editors that continually show up on the series of articles related to this topic and attempt to promote a cluster of beliefs they suppose are based on their religion, apparently, which they argue for without presenting RS and try to support with pseudo-historical claims while suppressing the relevant academic sources on the actual history, including studies on genetics.
    I do not find anything productive in the accusations of being manipulative and unethical leveled against me by the editor in question; moreover, the editor could be characterized as being delusional on the basis of his edits and explanations (e.g., "universally accepted history"), and that doesn't even address the condescending moralizing nature of the personal attack. If there is manipulation involved, it can be seen in the various fallacious claims in the explanation the editor left on the Talk page, along with the moralizing tone of the personal attack.
    This is an attempt at dispute resolution related to conduct, not content. The conduct is, of course, related to the content. I'm not necessarily looking for the user to be blocked, as I don't know whether that would solve the problem, which seems to recur. Both the POV pushing and the personal attack are unacceptable policy violations, so I would expect at least warnings to be issued to the editor, particularly with respect to the POV pushing. Maybe there should be a remedial training course set up that would verify such editors are aware of the fact that they have to support their edits with RS.Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 01:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is noteworthy that User:Johndheathcote removed his signature from the Talk page entry [37][38], apparently in an attempt to conceal his identity. For someone that has apparently been on Wikipedia since 2007, such behavior would seem to be beyond bizarre. The content of his Talk page, however, is rather one-dimensional and he has less than 500 edits in approximately 6 years.--Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 06:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Admins, I understand that it must be a mundane task to have to school a non-native speaker of English such as Johndheathcote, who indicates he intends to use the Bible and other primary sources above, but his editing and behavior has become somewhat disruptive, so it is up to you.
    Incidentally, related subject matter has been raised in discussions on the Talk page, etc., and in edit summaries such as this pair [39][40], and the article includes a template addressing the problem. Obviously he will not have been the first to try and use the religious texts to represent history. Is trying to plead ignorance of the template, which has been there for more than two years?
    He has been on Wikipedia since 2007 and claims he is still a beginner, which I suppose is to be taken as a mea culpa that he is not familiar with WP:5. If that is the case, I suggest that you provide such guidance to prevent further disruptive editing by Johndheathcote.--Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 09:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term problems with WP:VERIFY

    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.[41][42][43]

    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:

    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.[44][45] 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 [46][47][48] (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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Deny and deflect. On personal attacks: here are three since August (two this year).[49][50][51] 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)[reply]


    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    ... 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)[reply]

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

    Attacks and threats made by Bearman998

    Nothing to see here ... literally and figuratively (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Recommend this be closed before the WP:BOOMERANG arrives. Blackmane (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Kuyi123w

    Kuyi123w indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This editor, registered on Mar 28, but clearly familiar with the inner workings of Wikipedia, was recently blocked [52] 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 [53] - 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)". [54] (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)[reply]

    I agree with Andy. Although I don't see many attempts to actually talk to the editor, the history is dreadful. The editor's deleted contribution history is miles long. Even some of the pages created that were not deleted were redirected. The only time the editor has ever "talked" is when they contest a speedy deletion ([55]) or when they moved a talk page ([56]), which isn't really talking. User:Jac16888, who blocked the editor, tried to get the user to respond but to no avail ([57]).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I haven't got much experience with this editor but even my limited observations are in line with Andy's. This editor seems to be adding all kinds of junk to the encyclopedia, a real hodgepodge of marginal and sometimes harmful edits (e.g. substituting a generic "school" portal for Michigan at the University of Michigan, here), and despite repeated suggestions, comments and warnings by other editors, fails to give any indication that they perceive any problem at all. They just - keep going, and with determination. And - more than 1400 edits (live and deleted) and just 10 to any Talk page. They seem just as determined not to discuss these issues - JohnInDC (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Further questionable editing: this paragraph [58] is a direct Google Translate version of the source cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I intend to take a look at this later today, but in the absence of any comments against, with no input from the editor, and with a continuing pattern of disruption, I will probably indef the user. Although I know little about the Italian Wikipedia, some of the editor's habits here may be in line with customs there, e.g., portal bars on every page, but I could be wrong as I haven't looked at enough articles at the Italian Wikipedia, just the ones that the editor has essentially transferred here (that appears to be part of their agenda).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with an indef block, Kuyi123w is (intentionally or not) causing a good deal of disruption and either unwilling to listen to, or unable to understand, the numerous attempts made to reach out to them - WP:CIR--Jac16888 Talk 17:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indeffed the user. Even since my message from earlier (just above), Kuyi123w has continued the same editing pattern (at quite a clip). The disruption is too extensive. @JohnInDC, if you want to clean up the latest mess the editor left behind (thanks for cleaning up earlier messes), that would be most appreciated (you're not required to, of course).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The Invisible War

    There appears to be some disruptive editing on The Invisible War. User:Alicia1811 has been deleting well-sourced information and replacing it with non-sourced information. The user appears to have an agenda of discrediting the film. I have posted a notice on the user's talk page, as well as on Talk:The Invisible War but have heard no reply. I have reverted, but the user reverts back without adding any new discussion to the talk page. Recent Diffs: [59] [60] [61]. This user has been taking similar actions over the past few months, including repeatedly deleting information about the film and posting new information without citations [62], deleting flags [63], and moving the "Criticism" section to the top of the page [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] Peanutbuttertoast (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The user's attempts to delete sourced content with the cop-out edit summary "false information", their inability to understand WP:UNDUE when moving the criticism section, and the fact that they have referred you to the talk page despite the fact they've never once edited the talk page make me think this user is trying to push a PoV on this article. We should enforce WP:BRD and discuss with the user more thoroughly just how they are disrupting Wikipedia while dissuading them from edit warring. – Richard BB 11:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Alicia is definitley pushing a POV as her only edits have been to this article (and one to another article that linked back to this one). She's got the "B" and the "R" down fine in BRD, but really needs to work on the "D" part. If she doesn't learn that part soon, especially after seeing the notification about this discussion on her talk page, then we'll have to look into another resolution. I suggest possibly locking the article next. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cblambert

    From what I can gather there is no administrative action required here. One may hat this as well. Drmies (talk)

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

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

    Called user an "abusive SOB" [[73]]

    Assumes bad faith after my opinion given for his request. He has used this technique in other article talk pages by garbling his English and retorting with techo nonsense that isn't related. Sometimes he removes the signature lines from his edits during these retorts. [[74]][[75]]

    Makes the ABF more clear [[76]]

    Labels my edits as "vandalism", inserting his diagram again without discussion[[77]]after reverted changes[[78]]

    Miscellaneous more insults and attacks [[79]]

    Attempts to hide comments by re-arranging comments to top of talk page and collapsing[[80]]

    After my revert and warning he rearranges and collapses comments again saying "discussion is closed"[[81]]

    Now he attempts to archive all discussion on page[82]]

    After restoring he archives talk page agin[[83]]

    After another restoration he archives the talk page again advising to continue discussion on archive page. I understand archives are not to be touched[[84]]

    Another editwar edit archiving despite warning in history summary [[85]]

    Frequently uses references to writer's names with links that don't function to support his edits[[86]]

    Has injected this nonsense prose one more time, not supported by his supplied references, in two articles despite many editors reverting it and attempting to correct it with reverts and discussions on talk pages (that he attempted to archive). Note: only his major edits after another's editor's edits are shown. Many good faith edits were done by User:Cblambert on this same paragraph. Then apparently he doesn't understand the concept.[[87]][[88]][[89]][[90]][[91]][[92]][[93]] [[94]][[95]]

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

    Re: This user seems to attempt to taunt me on several electrical articles.
    Cblambert: This is patently not true.Cblambert (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: He makes ad hominem remarks when edits are reverted and editwars continually reverting to his text or his diagrams despite satisfactory diagrams, from others, already in the articles.
    Cblambert: This is not true. This is normal dispute.Cblambert (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: He will not stop despite talk page discussions, where he ignores lack of consensus.
    cblambert: Accuser does not use 5 pillars approach well. Nobody else has editor this problem.Cblambert (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: I edited the article Transformer and shortly he returned, after about ten days of no editing, to revert almost every edit injected by myself and other editors involved.
    cblambert: This copy-editing was done in good faith.Cblambert (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: When I moved to another article Dot Convention he followed, changed the name of the article, removed much of my work, place diagrams created by himself that conflict with the original diagram done by a senior editor, years ago.
    cblambert: The diagram is still in dispute.Cblambert (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: In the new article talk page he indicates he doesn't understand the technology, after many reverts of other editors text concerning the same subject matter, in various articles.
    cblambert: This is a valid question, which is still being disputed because the diagram is still wrong and dispute in good faith.Cblambert (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: His latest trick is to move talk page text, where he used insulting ad hominem comments, to the top of the talk page, hide them with closure and collapse edits and then archive them, despite being current topics active in edit. His latest trick is to move talk page text, where he used insulting ad hominem comments, to the top of the talk page, hide them with closure and collapse edits and then archive them, despite being current topics active in edit.
    cblambert: See Talk section in question, which was closed because of abusive language. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transformer/Archive_8&action=edit&section=1
    Re: This user seems to attempt to taunt me on several electrical articles.
    Cblambert: This is patently not true.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: He makes ad hominem remarks when edits are reverted and editwars continually reverting to his text or his diagrams despite satisfactory diagrams, from others, already in the articles.
    Cblambert: This is not true. This is normal dispute.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: He will not stop despite talk page discussions, where he ignores lack of consensus.
    cblambert: Accuser does not use 5 pillars approach well. No other editor has this problem. This was an extensive discussion to build consensus in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transformer/Archive_8#Turn_ratio & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transformer/Archive_8#Improvement_of_explanation_for_the_non-expert. Note in particular in former section(Turn ratio) accuser assertion that ':Ratios are never referred to as "n". This is incorrect mathematically and original research by you and is not welcome in WP article.', which was very well known to be untrue and was indeed in Talk substantiated beyond any doubt whatsoever. Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: I edited the article Transformer and shortly he returned, after about ten days of no editing, to revert almost every edit injected by myself and other editors involved.
    cblambert: This copy-editing was done in good faith.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: When I moved to another article Dot Convention he followed, changed the name of the article, removed much of my work, place diagrams created by himself that conflict with the original diagram done by a senior editor, years ago.
    cblambert: The diagram is still in dispute. In connection with changed name of the article, accuser complimented me on the change. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polarity_(Mutual_inductance)&action=edit&section=7Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: In the new article talk page he indicates he doesn't understand the technology, after many reverts of other editors text concerning the same subject matter, in various articles.
    cblambert: This is a valid question, which is still being disputed because the diagram is still wrong and dispute in good faith.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: His latest trick is to move talk page text, where he used insulting ad hominem comments, to the top of the talk page, hide them with closure and collapse edits and then archive them, despite being current topics active in edit. His latest trick is to move talk page text, where he used insulting ad hominem comments, to the top of the talk page, hide them with closure and collapse edits and then archive them, despite being current topics active in edit.
    cblambert: See Talk section in question, which was closed because of abusive language.
    Re: Called user an "abusive SOB" [[96]]
    cblambert: User in question has been abusive to me and many, many other for years, and was particularly abusive in exchange in question. User in question has not commented about this.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: Assumes bad faith after my opinion given for his request.
    cblambert: See abusive language in exchange in 'Close gaps to get to 'Equivalent circuit' with Heyland factor?' section above.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: Labels my edits as "vandalism", etc.
    cblambert: I admit doing this two, exactly same number of times as accuser.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: Miscellaneous more insults and attacks
    cblambert: No insults made. Never. I have always been respectful to accuser. See abusive language in exchange in 'Close gaps to get to 'Equivalent circuit' with Heyland factor?' section above.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Attempts to hide comments by re-arranging comments to top of talk page and collapsing[[97]]
    cblambert: What is he talking about. There is no hiding in Wikipedia. I wanted to make a clear point that this kind self-serving escalation was coming to an end with 'Discussion closed' in collapsible section heading.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: After my revert and warning he rearranges and collapses comments again saying "discussion is closed"
    cblambert: Yes. I wanted to make a clear point that this kind self-serving escalation was coming to an end with 'Discussion closed' in collapsible section heading.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: Now he attempts to archive all discussion on page
    cblambert: The discussion was not health for anybody. Good way to de-escalate. Needed archiving.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: After another restoration he archives the talk page again advising to continue discussion on archive page. I understand archives are not to be touched
    cblambert: The discussion was not health for anybody. Good way to de-escalate. Needed archiving. I archived using Wikipedia Help.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: Frequently uses references to writer's names with links that don't function to support his edits
    cblambert: This is simply untrue. Very seldom does this happen. Have a look.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: Has injected this nonsense prose one more time, not supported by his supplied references, in two articles despite many editors reverting it and attempting to correct it with reverts and discussions on talk pages (that he attempted to archive). Note: only his major edits after another's editor's edits are shown. Many good faith edits were done by User:Cblambert on this same paragraph. Then apparently he doesn't understand the concept.
    cblambert: Record will show there is no nonsense prose with meticulously supported reference. See for example Variable-frequency drive, Charles Proteus Steinmetz, Electric motor and of course Transformer. 'The apparently he doesn't understand the concept.' is patently false.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: Now what? I understood that archiving is requested and current discussions newer than a week old should be retained.
    cblambert: Accuser can refer to Archive to continue the discussion.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, you aren't supposed to continue discussions in archives. You're supposed to continue the discussion by either raising the point back on the main talk page or de-archiving the old thread(s) via copy-paste. FallingGravity (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I admidetdly am not an expert on archive. All the sections had in my view been answered or closed. Accuser appeared to be intent on milking the issue indefinitely, which could only be defused in my view by archiving.Cblambert (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: Changed attitude by accuser since archiving and ANI Notice posting has been radically improved in terms of consistency with Wikipedia pillars and unusual deference, but the ass-covering is re-double immensely.
    I've cleared up the responses here because of the atrocious indenting. Cblambert, learn to indent properly. Your responses are hard enough to make out as it is. Also, you do not need to sign at the end of every response. Just sign at the end. Blackmane (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Further comment: I'd like to see the justification of unilaterally moving 100kb worth of talk page discussion to an archive manually. Also, collapsing article talk page discussion to shut it down is looked upon poorly especially if you and another editor are having a content dispute. I'll leave the other behavourial stuff to the admins to deal with. Blackmane (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've cleared up the responses here because of the atrocious indenting. Cblambert, learn to indent properly.
    I don't know what you cleared.
    Justification is that Accuser was being abusive. Collapsible discussion what because the discussion had nothing to do with my innocent comment. Read the discussion. You will see.
    Archiving was the next step in accuser's abusive escalation. Read the discussion. You will see.
    I agree to leave the other behavourial stuff to admins to deal with.
    Many thanks.Cblambert (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]



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

    -------------------------
    When I got into Wikipedia, following retirement a few ago, I decided to concentrate in a few key areas that looked to me to need major clean-up as follows:
    • First, of key VFD article along with associated vector control (motor) and Direct torque control articles. Eventually, I play a central role in successfully turning VFD into a GA. The article is now stabilized with very very few editing changes being done for the past several months.
    • More recently, of the key Electrical motor article including in terms of associated Electric motor template, AC motor, History of the electric motor, Torque and speed of a DC motor and Circle diagram. Though not in as good a shape as VFD, Electrical motor also seems to have stabilized with very very few editing changes being done for the past few months.
    • More recently, of the miscellaneous small electrical articles Thevenin's theorem, Norton's theorem and Charles Proteus Steinmetz, which were and remain very stable in terms of editing changes.
    • Sporadically during that period, of the most prestigious Transformer article and associated Dot convention (incidently Accuser was not evolved when I first started dabbling with Dot convention) on which I have devoted an extraordinary amount of effort, without however achieved an equivalent degreee of stability in editing changes. Transformer is still very much a work progress but despite a lot of effort on my part and my other editors, it is unclear if the article will stabilize to the same degree as VFD and Electrical motor articles have. This is especially interesting because, on the one hand, Electrical motor and Transformer articles have a lot in common in terms of basic principles, and, on the other hand, the approaches between the two articles could not more difference. Also, in my view, the quality of the Transformer article is clearly superior than that of the Electric motor article.
    Possible explanation for conflict between Accuser and me
    --------------------------------------------------------
    I surmise that this conflict stems to a great extent due to the different backgrounds. My own engineering and management background is in heavy industry, which has built in me a strong affinity for understand basic principles to underlie these major clean-up article efforts.
    I'm not sure but my sense is that Accuser's background is more on the practical side and he recently mentioned his experience is in manucturing and government (measurement).
    In any case, whereas I am keenly interested in key Transformer article principles such as magnetism, Accuser appears to have a high affinity for practical, hands-on aspects.
    For whatever reason, finding common ground has proven somewhat elusive.Cblambert (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sweet mother of TL;DR, is this for real? Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 12:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've de-archived talk:transformer and deleted /Archive 8. This was plainly inappropriate talk page ownership, where Cblambert attempted to close ongoing discussion against the will of other participants. As to the substance of the debate, the basic gist is that Cblambert has, over the last several months, significantly reworked transformer to be closer to what would be expected of an academic textbook, and in the process reduced its accessibility by promoting the theory material above the more general contents. All well and good if you're an electrical engineering undergraduate, but that's not the case for the vast majority of potential viewers. Talk page discussion mostly consisted of people talking past each other until Cblambert decided to simply close the whole thing down. This needs more eyes both from subject experts and from editors with a knack for brilliant prose. I don't think there's particular evidence of any vendetta here on Cblambert's behalf, merely a bit of a tendency to substitute repeating himself and carrying on for actually engaging with criticism. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was edit conflicted with CBlambert's inappropriate removal of Basalisk's comment. In reply to your comment, Cblambert, I fixed the indenting of your initial response which was kept completely in line with the IP user's first posting making it very difficult to read. Indenting is done by adding in a colon, if you're not familiar with it. Blackmane (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few points:
    1. ANI is not the place to have a content dispute
    2. It appears that both parties are trying to improve the project
    3. Archives should never be edited: that's even what the writing around them says
    4. A participant in a discussion should NEVER archive said discussion in order to stop it from continuing
    5. We have WP:DR processes for a reason. This includes WP:RFC's and WP:3O - USE THEM
    6. Do not ever WP:OWN an article
    7. Remember that WP:CONSENSUS rules
    Now, everyone go back to the article talkpage with these basic rules in mind (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re:the basic gist is that Cblambert has, over the last several months, significantly reworked transformer to be closer to what would be expected of an academic textbook
    Thank you. It should be very clear excerpt higfhlighted here is plain false. There was a lot of effort but their was no attempt to get closer to to what would be expected of an academic textbook. The emphasis is on truth not academic realism. Just like in variable-frequency drive, one of only three electric engineering WP Good Articles. Again thank you for what must surely be a difficult role WP Administrators have to deal with.Cblambert (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also. There was no editing on my part of archive, all editing having been done in the active Talk pages. Thank you again.Cblambert (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You've missed the point. It's not tat you edited an archived discussion, but that you inappropriately created an archive of the entire talk page and also inappropriately collapsed a discussion you and another editor were having on the pretext of "abusive comments". Beyond that, it would be wise to follow Bwilkins' advice. Blackmane (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Complainers note: Cblambert also moved the text, in question, with your ad hominem attacks out of order, to the top of the talk page[[98]] combined with the improper "closing", "collapsing" and "archiving" adds up to what appears to be a clear case of an attempt to hide the history of your comments. A simple apology would have sufficed, for me. (say you were drunk. LOL). If you actually see an abusive comment from me, please list it and point it out. As my text explained, you have used this confusion before to avoid consensus collaboration if the content isn't going your way. I still feel your injection of nonsense technical formulae in articles is very negative to WP project. Since you refuse to discuss this without arising distractive issues, we are here. Many attempts from myself, User:Wtshymanski and others have failed. You have done some good work but you display too much article ownership witnessed by your bragging elsewhere about how Transformer is a perfect example and model of a great article. As I understand it, and have seen mentioned to you previously, in reverts of your flooding articles with math formulae, we already have engineering texts for high tech people and this style is not wanted in WP to that level. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cblambert I would like to point out this article to you Y-Δ transform. Note the comments at the top of the article warning readers this is about complex mathematical stuff? Perhaps there is a place for engineering textbook level edits, like I feel you want to do. I cannot create articles as an IP, but as an anonymous named editor you can, I believe. This way a long involved article like Transformerscould have the simpler prose explanations with a link to the complex math stuff for people that want the nitty-gritty. I attempted to explain this to you on the talk page but you did the same response I complained about here, and went on the defensive with an attack and distraction about something I didn't say. Again you can do some good stuff and you certainly not a lazy editor, like lot of us, but I think it doesn't belong in certain places. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Content removal at Raymond Gravel

    In the past 2 days, this article has had sourced content removed 6 times by 2 accounts and an IP address (all belonging to the article's subject, I'm guessing). This guy is apparently trying to cover up some unflattering info about him (see [99]), a vandalized version of the page is current, I'm not going to touch it so as to not violate the 3 rv rule. I'll let an admin decide where to take this from here --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Darkness walks (talk · contribs · logs) seems to have serious issues with WP:OWN. I tried to fix the openings of a couple of articles (Tachi). I removed some oddly-formatted references that didn't seem necessary to begin with ("A tachi is a type of Japanese sword."), an out-of-place Commons link, and changed the sentence to the past-tense so as not to imply that samurai still exist.[100] I was soon reverted in a rather abrupt manner.[101] I'm not sure what "referenced text" I removed that was so important, but...

    I have asked him to engage me on the talk pages and tell me what his problem with my edits is, but have received no response.[102] Now I am just waiting for him to revert me again at some stage in the future.

    I had similar experiences in a couple of other articles.[103][104] I also posted two RMs for poorly-titled articles in this area,[105][106] and was again opposed on both counts.[107][108] I just want to change the spellings of the titles to the standard spellings as per WP:MOSJ and WP:Romanization, but Darkness walks insists that his citing of one or two sources of questionable reliability that misspell the words in the same way Wikipedia articles currently means the articles can't be moved. When the RMs started to turn against him, he started resorting to personal attacks.[109]

    He is currently under investigation. Darkness walks is also taking the SPI very personally, despite me and the other accuser reminding him that it is not personal. He has in fact made it personal by attacking me instead of making a rational defence.[110]

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

    Maybe you should first tell us what ID you previously edited under. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recently I opposed the deletion of article called Jigai, [111], I also reverted some inappropriate edits on other articles where an editor removed references to "jigai" while the debate on the validity of the article was still taking place here [112] and here [113]. I believe Konjakupoet under another name was very involved in this matter and he now is trying to get some type of revenge by harassing me. He is going about this by editing Japanese articles in a way that will purposely get me to react to his edits and then he claims that his feelings are hurt by my actions. Since Konjakupoet has no history to speak of under his NEW name I am adding a few quotes from him.

    (By the way, you can choose to believe that I, like you, am a block-evading sock of an indefinitely blocked user, but that won't matter as long as my edits under this username are constructive. The fact is that another user posted personal information about me against my will, and I was forced to go in for a WP:CLEANSTART. I have actually been editting Japanese history articles since 2005.) Konjakupoet (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC) [114]

    For 8 years until February 2013, I edited under a different account. A disruptive user posted my personal information and started harassing me at work. I'm a fluent Japanese-speaker. Until recently I primarily edited on ja.wikipedia (I'm not telling you my username because your constant personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith have made me somewhat distrustful of you). I have also occasionally edited en.wikipedia anonymously.[115]

    • Here are are Konjakupoet's contributions [116]. In a short period of time he has merged and and renamed articles with out any discussion, he has deleted text that had valid reverences and has deleted references, he leaves comments and personal attacks that seem the indicate a complete distain for Wikipedia's standard rules of conduct. If any ones editing practices should be discussed it should be User:Konjakupoet.Darkness walks (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No comment on the issues raised here, but for those watching at home I've blocked Darkness walks as a sockpuppet, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Samuraiantiqueworld. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User Ljuboni

    Hello,

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

    His favorite articles are:

    I ask for help with this user since this is a single-purpose account(WP:SPA). Especially with the consult of WP:ARBMAC regarding this kind of problems when editing Balkan related articles of which this user is informed [129]. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    False Policy claims/interpretation

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

    WP:DYNAMITE isn't policy. It isn't a guideline. It is the opinion of the people who wrote it, nothing more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking into this further, I can't see any evidence that anyone is claiming that WP:DYNAMITE is policy anyway - instead I see a WP:BOLD edit, followed by a discussion in an ongoing RFC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Then is the basis for overturning a stable article formed from a long effort and community consensus without merit?12.144.158.19 (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument that "a stable article formed from a long effort and community consensus" cannot be changed -- even radically changed -- is without merit. Consensus can change, and it is fairly common for a stable article to have serious problems. Or for someone to think it has serious problems when it does not. The right thing for you to do is to participate in the RfC that is discussing this, work with the other editors to arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS, and for whichever of you has the consensus against you to accept that fact and to move on. At this time there is nothing here that requires administrator attention, but I would caution you to avoid a WP:EDITWAR. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dozens of editors spent years writing it - and no one found serious fault with it. The editor in question helped write it and made no attempt to change it in any real way until he popped up and threw it all out. It now has the magical "consensus" to keep the previous community written version out suddenly? The RFC appears over, a week after it started or so - and the elimination of all that the community worked on is gone. There was no effort at all (good faith or otherwise) to identify any issues until he eliminated everything without so much as a tagging of areas he felt needed to be addressed. And now I'm being warned away from an edit war? It's not like I'm going to delete an entire established article.....12.144.158.19 (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Which edits did you make to that article? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Mostly polishing, I was actually (years ago) opposed to the recentism of the popular usage during the economic collapse. Now I believe that paragraph on variations (introduced by others) makes a significant contribution to our understanding of the term and its evolution from academia and analysts to the op-ed pages. I did introduce the limitations on usage by Barclay's and the FT. 12.144.158.19 (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Dozens of editors spent years writing it - and no one found serious fault with it" argument should be made in the RfC, not at ANI. If your arguments are sound, then the consensus will go your way. ANI deals with user behavior, not with article content disputes. As for "all that the community worked on is gone", no, it is still in the history and can be easily restored if you get consensus to do so. Nothing you have described calls for administrator intervention. --Guy Macon (talk)
    So, it's the opinion of the Administrator's that deletion of entire articles is appropriate if one does it quickly and Games the system? There are two editor's who were previously involved in the article who opposed the unjustified and capricious deletion of content. I am surprised to see this lack of concern here, one would think that long standing consensus would have defenders. 12.144.158.19 (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    There are 4 major sections, and about 10 sentences - and 33 references in the article. I've restored them in an effort to have any disputes identified, as per policy it does require at the very least someone articulating a content issue of some sort, somewhere in the article.12.144.158.19 (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Page moves

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

    I'm going to leave them a final warning. For the record, I'm not sure if this malicious or plain incompetence. Generally speaking, a warning shouldn't be the first message left for a new user. Before I leave Laranunu the warning, I'm going to leave a welcome message with links to the policies we're trying to enforce. AniMate 03:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as per WP:IGNORANCE (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Alan Liefting again; new proposal

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

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

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

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

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

    I think it's a good idea in theory but I'm concerned about the precedent it would set. If we make such an exception for Alan what's to stop constant requests from other topic-banned users that we enforce their bans with an edit filter as well? Additionally, my understanding is that the topic ban is on category edits outside of mainspace - is this really something that can be violated inadvertently on a regular basis? Sædontalk 00:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm unclear on why Alan can't just, you know, go ahead and adhere to his ban. He's been "reminded" many ways, many times. If he needs continual reminders, he could do something like edit his js (css? i don't speak code) to color the background orange on pages covered by the ban, or to display a big "ARE YOU EDITING A CATEGORY?" message above the edit box. Or he could just write himself a note at the top of his talk page, and read it every day. All of those things would indicate that he was at least trying to follow the community's wishes, and none of them would put the undue burden on page processing this proposal would - as I understand it, every edit made to the encyclopedia has to shuttle through the set of all edit filters before being saved, which means to save Alan having to think for two seconds, we'd be burdening literally every other edit made to en.wp. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the important thing to remember here is that Alan isn't a vandal or sock puppet. He irritated a few users with his passionate editing of categories. He is an efficient, skilled editor and is a useful contributor to the project. This filter will not only be to prevent him from editing but to try and negate the perception that he is being harassed by certain admins looking for a reason to block him. So this edit filter IMO serves several purposes while allowing a veteran editor to continue to contribute to the project. We can't ban everyone! We need to also remember that his "violations" were actually improving things and the only reason he is being blocked is because he violated a sanction, not because he is doing any harm. Kumioko (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your thoughts, while noble, don't actually address the issue of why he can't just follow his topic ban. If he followed it, no admin would be able to sneak up under cover of darkness and harassingly ninja-block him for breaking it, and we wouldn't need to hack together software solutions to prevent him from "irritating" people. I'm just utterly confused about why we're proposing highly-complex software solutions to a problem most easily solved by a) Alan paying attention to what he's doing, or, failing that, b) Alan making the effort to (skillfully!) remind himself what he's doing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't want to digress to far off topic and rehash this again but I look at it like this. We are all volunteers and we edit what interests us and many of us, Alan included have been here for a long time and know a lot. So with that said when we see an edit that needs to be made in an area we are interested in its extremely difficult not to just go ahead and do it. I did some when I locked out my account as an IP and got accused of socking which is why I created an account again. Alan is much the same I think. He seems to be trying to follow his sanction but then sees some edits that need to be done and just does them, thereby getting blocked. As I mentioned before if these edits are not useful then we should immediately revert them. If however they were useful and he was blocked as enforcement of his sanction then the block is punitive and is preventing needed edits from being done. Its obvious to me that Alan isn't a bad guy and wants to help and edit. Its also evident to me at this point he is incapable of preventing himself from doing these edits and CBM is incapable of not blocking him. So really we only have 2 decisions IMO, accept that we will end up blocking a useful contributor who does by far more good than harm indefinitely or we do something like this edit filter to get him contributing again I am powerless to do anything other than speak in his defense. You all are the ones with the power to block him, to unblock him, to create the edit filter or lift the sanction so its really up to you all what to do here. Kumioko (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand correctly, every single edit made to the entire English Wikipedia is tested against every single edit filter. Does Alan Liefting's inability to self-police his own edits really justify this overhead? And are we going to create edit filters for every editor who can't abide by community-imposed restrictions?
    One of the purposes (whether explicit or implicit) of this type of restriction is to determine whether or not an editor is capable of understanding and assimilating the community's concerns—bluntly, every time someone isn't just blocked outright, the community is giving them a second chance at the end of a length of WP:ROPE. Creating the edit filter says three things:
    1. We, as a project, cannot do without this particular editor's contributions.
    2. We, as a project, don't believe that this editor can abide by and respect the community's wishes without a hard technical barrier.
    3. We, as a project, are willing to devote real, finite technical resources to keeping this editor unblocked.
    I'm not persuaded that we want to say all of those things. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose technological solution for sociological issue. Not good. Admins should simply have good judgement, not required to be filter "techies." NE Ent 01:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • [edit conflict with Ten and Ent] Nice idea, but I don't like it for technical reasons; note that I'd strongly support it if it didn't have the technical problems. A single-user filter can occasionally be good, such as the one King of Hearts has created for blocked users to enable them to edit only the pages where their unblock discussions are being held, but he only needs one such filter because it's temporary, and he can modify it each time he applies it to a different user. This kind of filter will need to be created anew for every editor to which we apply it. Filters, by their nature, are run against every edit made by every editor, whether or not logged in. Each one impairs performance by a tiny amount, and if we have single-user filters, either we're going to employ them disproportionately (why should one or a few users have filters for themselves when other people with similar bans have no filters?), or we're going to be using enough that they impair performance by more than a tiny amount. Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fluffernutter's first post above has it right: if a technical restriction is to applied, it really has to be applied from Alan's user space. It's his own responsibility to adhere to his restriction, not the community's to adapt to whatever behavior led to it. If he desires such assistance, Alan can request one of our JS wizard's help once his block runs its course.  davidiad { t } 02:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - While a good idea, I have to agree in principle with Ent - it doesn't help the user if there's a technological crutch that's the only thing keeping him from violating sanctions. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per NE Ent. Also suggest anyone bringing up this general subject again before the end of the month be given 100 lashes with a wet noodle, with a heaping helping of trout on the side. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – Some admins seem to prefer a framework where they can moralise and punish, rather than a boring one where they facilitate content building. Although Alan's restriction was precise, the admin system often advocates blurred restrictions which keep content builders off balance and under the thumb of admins. This inexactitude is then plastered over with a facade of juridicial rigour. We see this operating particularly in the current ArbCom decisions, where the fashion seems to be to apply vague edit restrictions to an editor, and then wait until they make an edit distantly related to the restriction. The editor is then blocked on the grounds that "broadly construed" they violated the restriction. I think this is cruel.
    A generic filter which does things like blocking the ability to edit articles belonging to certain categories would address many of these restrictions. All an admin imposing a restriction would have to do is list the restricted categories. The user name of the editor under restriction could then be added to a comma delimited list containing all the editors under filtered restrictions. At the web level, the processor has only to search this list for a match with the current editor's username. It would apply only to registered users, and with modern processors would take a matter of microseconds for all the filtered editors under restriction. The notion that there is any significant processing overhead is garbage. If a match is found, the processor would branch to the list of prohibited categories for that user, and see whether the article belongs to one of them. What could be more simple?
    The other approach would be to make available an optional JS app which users under restriction could download and set with their restricted categories. This ugly game of admins lying in ambush, waiting till an editor unwittingly stumbles into a restricted area could then be done away with. But that's not what some admins want, is it?
    I don't know why people are "voting". The proposer explicitly said "Please, no !votes until there is adequate discussion and the details are worked out." As for your lashes of noodles and lots of trout, Beyond My Ken, thank you very much, appreciated. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think such an idea would be well... feasible. And as history shows edit filters are easy to bypass with knowledge of them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well can you enlarge on that, with specifics? Certainly a user under restriction who went out of his way to bypass or sabotage a filter would be a candidate for heavy sanction. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I rather not as it is not the productive area of discussion. Filters are easily dodged, just like indefinite blocks by a determined person. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean by sock puppetry? Yes, that's a separate area. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting commentary. While NE seems to basically be accurate that would amount to a "technological solution for sociological issue", you point to a related "sociological issue" related to the admin culture here.
    There would also seem to be a related issue regarding the burden on administrators, however. If such a technological measure could be implemented to reduce that burden, then admins might have more time to do the boring work of facilitating content creation instead of exercising authority.--Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 05:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, just "no". I've seen this user name time and time again on the boards. There's a 3 month block in place, let it run the distance. If Alan "gets it" as far as editing in a collaborative fashion then that's great. If not? Well ... we just have to accept that not everyone is a good fit here. I don't know the details, and I honestly don't care .. but drama for the sake of drama just isn't my style. — Ched :  ?  05:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So why are you not in favour of filters to reduce drama? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just IMO .. but I think it is absolute ridiculousness to write individual "filters" and "rules" for one single editor. If you're writing something to keep "I like poop" off the project .. fine. But no .. you don't spend hours finding ways to "fix" how another person edits. A person edits in good ways ... or they don't. Like I said ... just IMO. — Ched :  ?  05:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the reality is that some editors are blinkered in some ways, but otherwise are highly intelligent, productive and useful editors. It's just the way their brains work. It's perfectly possible for Wikipedia to use rational ways to work with them, instead of letting lose the current ham fisted approaches based on criminalising them with specious moralities, punishments and pseudo jurisprudence. Moralists on Wikipedia do more damage than legions of vandals. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Concur with NE Ent, Ched and BMK. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - The community, and the WP framework, does not bend around one editor who flouts the restrictions imposed by that community. Every editor who joins WP should understand that the way they do things is not always going to be the way. Failure to adapt your way of doing things is not a failure of the community to accomodate you, but one's failure to adapt to the community's requirements at the time, which may, or may not, change in time such that how you do things may become preferred. Blackmane (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose As explained above, if an editor cannot abide by community consensus they are not a good fit for this project—hiding the problem with a dedicated filter is not a solution. A topic banned editor may be correct (because the community came to the wrong decision), but the topic banned editor must still respect the consensus decision—that's the only way to avoid chaos. Johnuniq (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Months of problematic IP edits

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

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

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

    User: Rajkumaryadav123

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

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

    I've indeffed him. Most disruptive editors don't get nearly this much rope before the blockhammer descends, so I don't see this as being a decision that's likely to cause any controversy. I've nothing against any admin unblocking if a decent appeal is posted; no need to consult me first. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    [[WP:I don't like it, but good block]]. From what I can see from the National Informatics Centre and the Indian states' websites, most (and possibly all) of the localities don't actually have airports. I'll see if I can find one to write as a suggestion for him.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I tried to find references for the purportedly existing airport articles that Rajkumaryadav123 had started. No NIC or Karnataka state government website mentions, no ICOA codes for any of them. This seems unrepairable. 100% support indef block.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Edit: "references" - these airports simply do not exist. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    "The media reports that he has confessed but he has yet to stand trial." (ref) Will that settle the inclusion?--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My take on it is that if the sources still call him a suspect, then WP needs to reflect that. Any other way of referring to him would be synthesising the material. Blackmane (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if other sources don't call him a suspect, we should not say anything that even implies he is guilty of a crime unless/until he is convicted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a simple writing competency issue—someone is a "suspect" until they are convicted. WP:BLP is the primary policy, but BLP is not really the core of the issue—it's just a fact that no one is anything other than a "suspect" until a court says otherwise. An encyclopedic article needs to acknowledge standard nomenclature. Johnuniq (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That gets back to the only real question here. Since one brother is dead and the other is not, should the article be calling the dead one a "bomber" and the live one a "suspected bomber"? Rklear (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling the dead brother a bomber implies that the living brother is also a bomber, rather than a suspected bomber, since the two of them have been tied together so strongly. Thus we have to treat them both as suspected/alleged bombers, to avoid breaking BLP for the living one. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 13:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I do not think I am looked at as lax about BLP, but the source stating that Dz admitted or confessed to the acts is certainly usable in Wikipedia. Wikipedia, however, can not state he committed those acts in Wikipedia's voice per BLP. Collect (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree that noting the confession makes sense. (Carefully framed as being an initial confession made from a hospital bed during interrogation, etc.) That doesn't conflict with properly noting that he is only accused and is the suspect/alleged perpetrator elsewhere in the article. (It'd be good to get the two issues separated somewhat, since they really do seem to be separate things.) His confession doesn't legally mean anything; but the fact that he initially confessed is encyclopedic, even if it turns out to be a false statement or he manages to be found not guilty. (Edit: to further complicate this, WP:BDP applies to the dead brother...that might preclude the inclusion of the living brother's confession as it implicates the dead brother. That has harmful implications for his wife/child, for example. So maybe we shouldn't include the confession after all, due to that.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 13:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no reason to exclude the confession if it's widely reported by reliable sources. That's the guideline for all matters, especially BLP issues. For example, even now CNN is still referring to the dead Tamerlin merely as a "suspect".[130] Also, keep in mind that the alleged ricin mailer, now released due to lack of evidence, is a different story. These two guys were named as suspects based on relatively firm evidence, and there is a widely known timeline or continuum leading to the death of one and the arrest of the other. That's not the case with the ricin situation. Meanwhile, the divergent opinions of the suspects' relatives, while only opinions, have been widely reported and could be used here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The idea that we would avoid including any information in these articles that would "implicate the dead brother" in the bombing and related crimes is not reasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. That's why we have to use the "hedging" words the media use, like "suspects" and "alleged". The media didn't used to do that in the old days. They would have just said "the bomber" or whatever. Now they hedge, in order to avoid being accused of biasing a potential jury. I'm also seeing a lot of criminal cases where the media will say "the police say..." which is also a good hedge. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's okay to say "suspect A stated that dead suspect B, his alleged co-conspirator, is guilty", based on the word of suspect A? How would that be different than, say, "police officer C stated that dead suspect B is guilty"? (The latter of which we surely wouldn't include.) I'm not sure my reasoning is correct, but BDP should probably be minimally considered. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    AngieWattsFan (talk · contribs) has had a reputation of edit warring in the past (earning themselves a ban only three months ago), and it seems they are continuing to do so now. The main culprit article is Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010. Although the first edit war is over (they wanted to add a series of images to the article, even when consensus was overwhelmingly against them. It only ended with a three-day full protection of the article), this editor has continued to be belligerent in other areas. Their edit summaries are rather aggressive, and s/he has often insisted that many editors other than his/herself are unfit to edit the article [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] , thereby breaking WP:OWN.

    Now, after I deleted a certain claim on the article, they've re-added it with a source; the problem is that the citation does not support the claim. I have removed it twice, explaining this, but I'm unwilling to get into an edit war and break 3RR about it. Despite talking this through on my talk page with the editor, they continue claim that the source does prove what they're saying, in the process asking why "I'm not at work" [139]. It seems that they are either completely misinterpreting what the source says or hoping to deceive editors so they get their own way. Although I normally try to assume good faith about these things, it's becoming difficult to trust that this editor is not trying to declare ownership of the article or slipping back into an edit-warring state of mind where they are reluctant to discuss things properly. – Richard BB 10:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can I support this. I came across AngieWattsFan in EastEnders articles but he has also been abusive towards me and other editors in relation to other articles - Noticeably University Technical Colleges. Bleaney (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand if people would like to have a discussion however, with User:Bleaney, you said something that was not true and needed correcting. My frustration is that you refused to correct and you ignored consensus. On EastEnders articles, I have been previously blocked and I accepted the consensus. As for User:Richard BB, you made an edit to a long-standing piece of the article and you clearly did not read the article otherwise you would have left it alone. You also should have tried to have a discussion on the talkpage, something that I accepted. On top of that, User:Rrius and yourself have been abusive in your correspondence towards me. I would like to question the motives of those who ar ejunping on this particular bandwagon.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Angie, not part of the article supports your claim about Ruth. Just because it had been there for a long time (unsourced, I might add), it doesn't mean that it deserves to stay there. I have challenged its inclusion, and still see no reason to keep it. I have tried discussing this with you; that is why there is a discussion about it on my talk page right now (where you have yet to address the points I have presented). And finally, neither myself nor Rrius have been abusive to you. On the contrary, I think your attitude towards him (and to a lesser extent myself) in the edit summaries prior to the page protection was awfully aggressive. And please do not accuse other editors of "jumping on the bandwagon" just because they disagree with you. — Richard BB 13:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats not accurate AngieWattsFan, With UTCs we were trying to discuss a rewording of the article, yet you threw accuations of edit warring against me as well as being generally rude about myself and others on other articles. Your default position seems to be accusing people of not knowing as much as as you when they disagree with you, and you just will not stop edit warring. You have even apologised for edit warring, but then effectively say 'But im right anyway'. I dont doubt that you are a good faith editor, its just that become very aggressive when others disagree with you, and seem to operate a 'its my way or the highway' attitude in regards to edit wars. Bleaney (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, I'd like to emphasise that I am pointing out that the source that AngieWattsFan (abbreviating to AWF if that's ok) used did not support the claim they were aiming to introduce into the article. The wording in the source does have enough ambiguity that a quick read of it will give the conclusion that AWF came to, but careful reading of it will make it clear that is not the case. I also had a look at the other sources in that same section and their use for the claim being made, that a particular politician was a possible candidate for leadership of the UK Labour party in the 2010 leadership challenge, is very specious and warrants some attention, but that's for the article talk page. As for the "bandwagon", I have no horse in this race. I'm merely an ANI stalker who periodically seeks to provide an outside opinion on things that are raised here (maybe too often). Blackmane (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arshad.mohammed18

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

    • Option 1: Arshad is topic-banned from working (broadly construed) at Articles for Creation for a period of one year, and agrees to a period of mentoring from an experienced editor (to be appointed here); during which time he will not create new articles until they have been checked by his mentor. His mentor will decide when this period of mentoring is complete.
    • Option 2: Arshad is temporarily blocked for uploading copyrighted material, and is topic-banned from working (broadly construed) at Articles for Creation for a period of one year.
    Pol430 talk to me 11:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And he's just re-factored my post [140]... Pol430 talk to me 11:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Unrefactored. Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Copyright violations are serious. I would prefer this: FurrySings (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3: Arshad is temporarily blocked for uploading copyrighted material, and is indefinitely topic-banned from working (broadly construed) at Articles for Creation.

    User talk:Yintan

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

    And...you notified him of this discussion, right? Never mind, I'll do it. TCN7JM 12:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    130.238.141.152 and 130.243.168.103 (same person?) kept adding the same unrelated photo to the Palingenesis article. User:Faizan Al-Badri and myself removed it, feeling it was completely misplaced (if not plain vandalism). I asked 130.243.168.103 for an explanation, first via the usual template ("If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page") and later direct[141], but never got an answer. Now 130.238.141.152 has taken up the axe, apparently. That's all I have to say, really.  Yintan  12:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=551967152"