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 Mark Arsten (talk | contribs) at 17:54, 30 April 2013 (→‎Account sharing between Riley Huntley and Gwickwire: Closing discussion). 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

    User:LittleBenW edit-warring over diacritics again.

    The consensus is for an indefinite block. I count 19 support votes and 10 opposes. One of the supports is based on outing, so I discount that vote, making it 18. Another support vote is unclear, but even assuming it is based on outing, there would still be 17 support votes. I am taking into account, of course, the rationales of the votes, not an easy thing to do, but on both sides some of the votes are conclusory, and some are reasoned.

    I understand NE Ent’s and Dennis’s desire to close this as a "mistrial". However, despite the messiness of the discussion, I still think the support for an indefinite block is clear.

    I am also taking into account Little Ben’s behavior here, which is pugnacious at best. It appears to me that he thinks he can do what he wants as long as he believes the original topic ban was unjust and he intends to appeal it. The topic ban was validly imposed, and although he can certainly appeal it if he wishes, he cannot violate it.

    Somewhat reluctantly, I want to comment on two users in this discussion. Konjakupoet should have kept their comments factual and civil. They don’t help themselves by some of the intemperate comments in this discussion. PBS should have reduced his role as an advocate for Little Ben. PBS’s comments, for the most part, did not help.

    Finally, as many have said, an indefinite block is not permanent. This is not a community ban, no matter what any may think. The block may be reduced if Little Ben offers sincere and credible reasons for doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    LittleBenW has been topic-banned from edits related to diacritics (broadly construed) since December.[1] He has since been blocked twice for violating this ban.[2][3] Unfortunately, he appears not to have learned his lesson, he has been reverting my removal from WP:SET of his links that undermine the use of diacritics in the article Lech Wałęsa over the past 24 hours or so.[4][5] In ictu oculi also noted similar TBAN violations not long ago.[6] Cheers. Konjakupoet (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[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[7] than specialist books and journal articles written on the subject. Prescribing which sources are "the most trustworthy and neutral" (and, apparently, "reliable"), regardless of subject, via the use of a template is ridiculous and runs contrary to the spirit of WP:RS. Konjakupoet (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? "Warring"? You are the one who reverted me three times (the other one was a short while ago[8]) You are deliberately picking out sources that don't use diacritics. This is a TBAN violation on par with the ones that have already got you blocked twice. Additionally, the specific article seems to be the one you were edit-warring on back in November that won you your TBAN in the first place. Konjakupoet (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[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.[9][10] (Also, note his ironic accusation that Hijiri88 was gravedancing despite his continuing to dance on Hijiri88's grave.) Konjakupoet (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note LittleBen has been canvassing and accusing both me and DV of having some kind of "ultra-nationalist" agenda.[11][12] If either NE Ent or Kiefer.Wolfowitz show up here and defend LittleBen this fact should be taken into account. Konjakupoet (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[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.[13] Should 4 consecutive instances of WP:CANVAS over an 8-minute period count towards a potential community-ban/indef-block? Konjakupoet (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A Quest for Knowledge, too.[14] And Ryulong.[15] (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.[16] 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.[17][18] The reason he wasn't indeffed months ago is because In ictu oculi has never brought a single charge against him here, but he definitely deserved it. For you to twist the facts here and claim he hasn't violated his TBAN because the only violating edits were made in November is extremely ingenuous. It's actually probably better that LBW did canvas you, since if what you say is true you may have otherwise just showed up, and I might have been forced to assume good faith despite your obvious bias here. Konjakupoet (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[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.[19] 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 can understand if he has exhausted your patience and you would support a ban, but how have you assessed what the "community's patience" is (as I doubt that 1% of active users will comment here)? -- PBS (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[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. Changed to support after review. 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]
    I have eight years of constructive edits under my belt, and I have nothing to hide. I have already responded to your query below on my user page, but I'm not posting it there because it's void (the user in question was blocked on being found to be a sock). What boomerang could be coming? Whenever I get in conflict with people on here they tend to wind up either getting indefinitely blocked or having broad TBAN's placed on them, or getting so tired of consensus always being on my side that they just stop harassing me: why would this be any different? Konjakupoet (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose While I don't want to condone topic ban violations of any sort, this, particularly given the issue, is way overkill. A far more productive use of community time would be a comprehensive look at the diacritics issue. We don't want to be in the position of banning otherwise productive editors because we can't decide when a ' should go over a letter and when it shouldn't. --regentspark (comment) 15:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you think LBW is productive? He hardly ever edits articles, and most of his talk page comments involve comments that are iffy at best and extremely poisonous personal attacks at worst. Anyway, you're late to the party. Consensus was in favour of a block but a mistrial involving ArbCom means that nothing will come of it. If LBW steps over the line again he'll be out of the frying pan, though. Konjakupoet (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant that as a general comment about the diacritics mess not specifically about LBW. Apologies. --regentspark (comment) 15:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I know better than most how messy it is. That's why we don't need LBW and Kauffner aggravating the situation by calling everyone who disagrees with them an "ultranationalist" who "don't want to write an encyclopedia in English". Konjakupoet (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We have common English language usage for place names, but we also have respected and independent data thereof, e.g., the BGN database. That said, when it comes to people, they are not places. Scholarly sources increasingly use Eastern European individual's "real" names. Making judgemental and baseless accusations of ultra-nationalism and complaining about said same individuals on the pages of admins or arbcom members is not the way to settle content differences. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I strongly disagree with the proposal to close this as 'No consensus'. There was a clear consensus in favour of the block, and the muddying of the waters regarding 'outing' was largely due to LBW's own disruptive behaviour. It should not be possible to avoid censure simply by messing up the process by which censure is decided upon. LBW refers to the topic ban itself as 'bogus' just a little further up this page, and that hardly suggests to me that he intends to abide by it. His interactions with practically everyone on this thread, and with PBS and IOO on his own talk page, show that WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND are still his method. And as for describing this as an 'organised lynching' - all I can do is suggest that LBW familiarise himself with the history of the southern USA, and with the meaning of the word 'hyperbole'. The accusations of poor faith against LBW's and Kauffner's opponents are getting to be extremely wearing, and not a little offensive. Do we really have to sit on our hands while the cycle repeats itself again? AlexTiefling (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further Comment - I see that over at WP:TFD, LBW is back to his old disruptive habit of using the live site as a preview, or if you prefer, of repeatedly refactoring his own comments while people are trying to respond. At one point, I see 7 consecutive edits to the same section in less than 20 minutes. I can't tell whether this is a WP:COMPETENCE issue, or a ham-fisted attempt at exercising ownership, but it's not acceptable. Numerous users have complained to LBW about this in the past. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice that perhaps as many users as those who voted against a block have come back after the ArbCom ruling to protest the potential "No consensus" ruling. Don't worry, my friends: history is on our side. The tide of history is shifting, down the page, to a new discussion of LBW's latest TBAN-violation. Konjakupoet (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, the user continued to disrupt the workings of the site despite a mountain of requests and warnings not to do so. The user should be indef blocked until they agree that they will follow community consensus, even where they disagree with it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    • Oppose its stale and Konjakupoet seems to have a battleground mentality that is all to frequently associated with this subject which makes it far from black and white. Put both of them on a 1rr limit and a civility warning. ----Snowded TALK 06:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a battleground mentality. LBW and his friends harassed me for months before I left Wikipedia. Now I'm trying to come back, but they continue to try to force me off. I have never made a negative edit to an article to deserve the kind of comment you wrote above. Konjakupoet (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    And can someone give LBW a new TBAN from CANVASSING?? Konjakupoet (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You have received four warnings on your talk page from four different editors about insulting edit summaries and about attacking other users in just four days, you have been warned to cool it, you even brag that you can easily get other editors blocked at ANI because you are always in the right, and you are claiming that you don't have a battleground mentality? LittleBen (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Konjakupoet's behaviour aside, would you care to explain how that was not canvassing? Resolute 16:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sick of LBW's personal attacks over this. I continued editing Wikipedia under my new account as though I had never left. This made some good faith editors think I was just being aggressive. But the fact is that the only edit war I have been involved in since coming back was the one where the block-evading sock-puppet Darkness walks started revenge-reverting all of my edits. When I asked him to engage me on the talk page he refused. He eventually got blocked. But, LBW, if you really think I am in some way a problematic user, why have I never been taken to ANI, and why have I never had community- or administrator-imposed restrictions on me? Seriously, instead of making one more ad hominem attack like the above, why not try posting about my behaviour in a separate thread here, or on AN, or on RFCU? Anyway, we need to keep focused: this thread is about LBW's behaviour. Since he was unblocked and the outing question was resolved, he has posted on numerous forums the ridiculous accusation the Boing! said Zebedee manufactured a fake outing charge against him to silence his voice here, canvassed some more, made the same repeated attack against me as above a bunch of times. And even though only two users (I think) who were not canvassed voted against him getting indeffed, more than that have come back and said he should be indeffed based on all of the objective evidence and nothing to do with the outing question. Konjakupoet (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Konjakupoet you write above "I don't have a battleground mentality" (15:00, 26 April). yet you wrote on your talk page "Gentlemen, to be completely fair, my new account is much more aggressive in dealing with harassers than the last one was" 14:45 25 April.[21]. While it is quite possible for someone to change their mind on an issue, other editors I am sure are able to look at your edit history and draw their own conclusions as to which is the more accurate statement, and if indeed you have changed you opinion and started to walk the walk -- PBS (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Konjakupoet gets sanctioned, as they possibly should (they've overstepped the mark a few times here, although under provocation), that shouldn't make any difference to LittleBenW's case, really. Forget outing: look how often they've canvassed people, sent personal attacks, on and off Wiki, to various people, edit warring, violating their topic ban, ignoring any effort to resolve disputes properly, etc... this user may occasionally make good edits, but they can't edit within the collaborative environment here, and don't belong here. This is why I, and many others, called for an indef. I fail to see how there is no consensus for this, there are far more calling for an indef, without outing being part of that call, than are opposing it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, and would like to point out one other thing/ask one other question: if an indef is not applied, what are the odds this editor will be back on ANI again, for exactly the same reason, quite soon? Based on observed behavior, "chances are very good". That is, logically, supporting the indef position. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        If being "back on ANI again" is reason for a site ban, you should consider yourself site-banned Bushranger. It's a pity that you haven't had the decency to comment on the bullshit accusations of "canvassing" or the overkill in the tag team attempts to ban LBW. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I presumed the "for exactly the same reason" made the intent clear, but as it seems only part of the sentence is being read, it can be changed to "back on ANI again with regard to misconduct in exactly the same area as multiple times before". I am weighing LBW's conduct only on his dealing with the diacritic issue; any "canvassing" (as rejected, it seems, by Arbcom) is utterly irrelevant, as is alleged "tag-teaming". LBW's record with regard to his topic ban is the only issue being weighed here in my !vote, as it is the only relevant issue with regards to a potential ban, and when weighing his conduct w.r.t. his topic ban in the balance, I find it wanting. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    KW: Wow. Where do you get the idea that accusing LBW of canvassing is "bullshit"? Surely noticing that someone has proposed you get indefinitely blocked, and then immediately posting on the talk pages of 6 different users (most of whom have supported the same in the past) and linking here with the accusation that one's opponents are "ultra-nationalists" is ... well, what would you call it if not "canvassing"? Do you want to propose KoH get sanctioned for making the same "bullshit" accusation and blocking LBW accordingly? Would you consider that block to have been an abuse of KoH's administrative powers? Further, as far as I can tell Bushranger has had no editing restrictions or blocks placed on him, while LBW has violated his TBAN hundreds of times and has been blocked (only?) twice for it already. Konjakupoet (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I expected you to respond like this, Kiefer. You've ignored the edit warring. The fact canvassing has CLEARLY happened. The constant stream of personal attacks. The violations of his topic ban. The POINTy comments about their topic ban. And everything else that just shows this user is not capable of editing in this environment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Luke,
      Canvassing has been clearly alleged, but absurdly. I was "canvassed", despite my being adamantly pro-diacritic. Then I was "canvassed" because I (like 100 thousand other editors) was ignorant of LBW's alleged offenses. Others have expressed alarm at the tone and sloppiness of this discussion, e.g. Drmies on my talk page.
      My take: There is a gang trying to ban LBW that, regardless of LBW's behavior, is repeating falsehoods and absurdities and disrupting WP by the broken-record call for a ban.
      LBW seems to be a somewhat confused and perhaps productive editor who has created a nice set of templates to find high quality reliable sources, who (being ganged up on) has responded by openly asking for outside opinions, on Wiki and by email---not smoothly but often by asking persons who disagree with him. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rubbish. He's not canvassing about the topic ban, but things like this,[22], are inappropriate and constitute canvassing. There's been several other diffs to prove this. Is this discussion a bit sloppy? Yes, is is, and Konjakupoet has been no saint either. Giving people notifications about this ANI with headings such as "More bullying by the ultra-nationalists" is not an open question. It's also a personal attack on people, which is what LBW has been doing all along. Also, your comments here have only attempted to refute (incorrectly, as well) the canvassing claim. Again, you ignore the history of personal attacks, edit warring, topic ban violations - whether the edits were good or not is irrelevant. If they violated the topic ban, then he needs blocking. And I myself remember inappropriate and frankly disgusting behaviour from LittleBenW when the ban for JoshuSasori was discussed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Konjakupoet's behavior here and on my talk page puts him in the same boat as LBW, as far as I'm concerned. If both receive substantial blocks, then the decision might be fair. It would be unfair to scapegoat LBW in a conflict which you acknowledge has had several misbehaving editors. I would like to think that LBW has potential to contribute to the project. Most of our editors are young, and I can forgive a young person for behaving panicky when being threatened with being banned (in an unfair discussion). What is essential is that all participants try to treat both LBW and Konjakupoet with respect and also try to conduct themselves soberly here. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hardly scapegoating LBW. Konjakupoet has been nowhere near as bad as LBW, either in this discussion, or generally, since LBW has been at this for a very, very long time. I am a young editor, and age has absolutely nothing to do with reacting to sanctions - a 60 year old could be just as panicked as a 16 year old. I'm trying to keep my (very low) personal opinion of LBW out of this, but the number of times they've been at legitimate ANIs for violating various guidelines means they have no place here. Konjakupoet probably needs a cool-down block, but not the indef that LBW has earned themselves. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Konjakupoet: Eight years of constructive edits, not a single block except for a minor technical issue, demonstrating good faith, until LBW and his hounds harassed me off Wikipedia for a couple of months. LBW: Constant, flagrant topic ban violations, making absurd personal attacks against those who disagree with him, assuming bad faith, harassing, canvassing... Why are we in the same boat, Kiefer? Konjakupoet (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Konjakpoet, you have shot yourself in the foot in this thread: you were probably quite right to make the points about LBW...once. You were also right to defend yourself...once. You were probably even right to reply/defend your original points...once or twice. However, you have continued to badger and re-state the exact same point again and again and again until you lost the support of the community - as you can see, many on this board now see you as equivalent to LBW. You've screwed this up badly, when it should have ended differently (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's overstating it a bit but it's a valid point Konjakupoet's best tactic right now it to walk way from the thread. NE Ent 15:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My original point that the entire process has been compromised and should be closed still stands. That doesn't mean future actions can't be considered, but we are well past the point that the stick should be dropped. I was hoping that by now someone would have closed this discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request for a reconsideration

    I'd like another editor to review this closure. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The purpose of an ANI closing is to neuturally summarize the consensus of a discussion, not make comments about unrelated matters/editors; accordingly I've asked Bbb23 (talk · contribs) to remove his inappropriate commentary regarding users other than LBW from the closing statement. NE Ent 18:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please review WP:Boomerang and consider the importance of having some perception of fairness and uniform standards in the community. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what your point here is, Kiefer. Far more voted for the block than against. Even discounting the disproven outing comments, the fact remains that it was a 2:1 ratio, near enough, of votes, and the vast majority on both sides were proper ones, not just bandwagon jumping. LBW's behaviour during this ANI alone would be enough for a hefty sanction. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Try reading about "consensus". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with NE Ent, the close had an unintentional air of involved supervote. A dispassionate evaluation of the discussion indicates that no consensus was reached. I ask Bbb23 to withdraw his close and convert his input into a 'vote' supporting the block. My76Strat (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not objecting to the finding of consensus to indef block; I'm saying the comments about kp and PBS contained within the summary are inappropriate for a summary of the entire discussion. NE Ent 22:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The close doesn't have an air of a supervote at all. It analyses both sides' comments, both their numbers and their contents, and comes to a logical conclusion. You may not agree with it, but that doesn't make it a supervote. Ched appears to support the close. Besides, as it was an indefinite block, and not a community ban, Bbb23 actually had every right to close it as an indef. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The finding that the consensus was for an indef ban is fine, as I have already stated twice and I don't think I was that cryptic (was i?) . This comment: Somewhat reluctantly, I want to comment on two users in this discussion. Konjakupoet should have kept their comments factual and civil. They don’t help themselves by some of the intemperate comments in this discussion. PBS should have reduced his role as an advocate for Little Ben. PBS’s comments, for the most part, did not help. reflects the closer's personal opinion, does not summarize a consensus of the discussion therein, and isn't actually relevant to the topic at hand. Putting such a comment in a "closed" discussion on a high visibility forum is unfair to the editors involved as it's unclear whether they'll be allowed to refute / rebut such an accusation. If the closing editor has advice related to the subject at hand they could certainly use an appropriate forum, such as the editor's talk page; in fact, a couple editors had already done so prior to the close. NE Ent 01:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Bbb23 you wrote above "PBS should have reduced his role as an advocate for Little Ben. PBS’s comments, for the most part, did not help." Of the statements I made above which one do you think most typifies my advocacy for Little Ben? Which one of my comment do you think is the least helpful? -- PBS (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Rather than reply here to my question at 09:54, 29 April that starts "Bbb23 you wrote above ..." Bbb23 replied on his/her talk page (see here). I think that is a mistake, as the record of the questions and replies ought to be archived together as part of the ANI.
    Bbb23 the point of an ANI is for a fair and frank exchange of view to take place, and I think that ANIs are frequently kangaroo courts with little natural justice. Over the last 12 months I have stated several times that I do not that that for high profiles editors ANIis [Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 9#Discussion (a)|not fit for purpose].
    In your reply you noted that I posted questions to Bushranger and Cúchullain's support votes, and you wrote "Neither editor answered you, which I also think was telling" so do I! but I suspect for different reasons from you. When a person justifies expressing an opinion based on "community's patience" then they ought to be able to articulate how they draw that conclusion. I think that for you criticise someone for asking an editor who uses such a phrase to explain how they have assessed what the "community's patience" is ... surprising. -- PBS (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Kiefer - perhaps instead of white knighting for LittleBen, you might perhaps engage with him on amending his behaviour and accepting that he is topic banned, so that the block can be lifted? It should be obvious that if he is allowed back in and these antics continue, his next stop is a community ban. Resolute 13:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolute, please read my talk page if you wish to correct your false allegations, which I assume were made in ignorance. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Kiefer, what would your reading of consensus be here? Bear in mind also that there is not and never has been any requirement for a closing admin to be neutral with regard to the matter at hand, but merely uninvolved; we trust that closing admins will only close in line with their own thoughts in the case that those are coincidentally in line with the broader consensus. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

    Straw man argument -- there's never been an actual "closing ANI" policy. NE Ent 10:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm, are you endeavouring to make my point for me? The straw man here is the occasional insistence that Justice herself step off her pedestal and issue a closing statement devoid of any human emotion or influence. In reality, where the evidence is straightforward it is perfectly common for a closing admin to agree with one particular side while closing. So long as the close reflects the consensus, this is absolutely fine. In this particular case some other users (yourself included) have indicated that this could be perceived as a supervote simply due to the wording of the close, which can be corrected easily enough without altering the outcome: however, Kiefer seems to be suggesting that he doesn't agree that the decision itself was a reflection of the debate. As such, I'd like to know what Kiefer thinks the consensus was, so as to compare it to the close as-is and decide which one is a more accurate reflection of what's passed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    When it comes to indefinitely blocking someone, it would seem to be a reasonable to work on the same %ages for a rough consensus as are are used for selecting administrators. In this case was that sort of rough consensus reached? If not, but there was a significant majority in favour of a block (say 60-70%), perhaps as block of several months or a year (depending on the perceived majority and the severity of the offence) might have been more appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    IIRC, 17:10 was not, in the past, considered a "clear consensus." Removing the "outing" votes was proper as ArbCom ruled that it was not "outing" so Bbb23 was safe there. Collect (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed.
    Also, vote-counting does not establish consensus, or even approximate consensus. Let's use terms like "nearly a 2/3 majority", to avoid jeopardizing our souls and offending Quakers.
    It's not clear that the indefinite block has consensus. A month block might have been agreeable to almost all discussants. Many supporting an indefinite block (through the end) joined BWilkins in also raising concerns about the discussion's civility, and the behavior of those criticizing LBW. Now we here statements that there is not consensus about the behavior of the critics. Really? We don't have consensus that "SHUT UP", etc., is unacceptable? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    why didnt you wait till he was unblocked to pursue this case? at this moment he cant defend himself obviously & im sure you have seen my pledge to help calm things down over there. Baboon43 (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I left a message on his talk page, specifically stating that I, or another editor, would bring any of his comments here. As for your pledge, it's very good, but remember that, several months ago, I made an identical pledge, got things sorted for a bit, only for it to kick off even more. Forgive me, but I can't see anything short of a topic ban sorting this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • seriously these users too should also be blocked.

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

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

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

    Speaking as the admin who's been trying to adjudicate this mess, a little bit, and who blocked Msoamu for edit warring...Am Not New's explanation is simply wrong. MezzoMezzo and Lukeno94 have been inserting neutral, well-sourced info. Msoamu has edit warred, made arguments based entirely on his personal opinions, and regularly introduced "sources" that don't even come close to WP:RS.
    Regarding sanctions, I do have to agree with Am Not New, however, that this is the wrong time to ask for sanctions on Msoamu. I know that if I were blocked for a week, I would probably walk away from Wikipedia and not even look at my page until my block was up. There's no reason to believe that he is aware of this conversation and thus able to offer a defense. As for Am Not New, I'll need to review the exact extent of his edits before commenting. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I should've waited a week, but Am Not New's continued dodgy edits meant that I put both up at the same time. If you like, I can withdraw the Msoamu part until they return from their block. Am Not New's statements about me edit warring for years are blatantly incorrect - I only started editing this article a couple of months ago. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. Am Not New, care to explain what's going on here? [34] - information inserted (which I left there initially, for a more religiously-experienced editor to analyse), it was then removed by GorgeCustersSabre, readded by an IP with an incomprehensible reason,[35] removed by me, then re-added again by this IP here.[36] Did you forget to log in again, Am Not New? Because it's pretty blatantly obvious this is you, and I don't want to have to file an SPI unless it is necessary, for WP:AGF reasons. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    SPI already filed. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    • Holy shit. IP's most recent edit summary: "all that editors are wahabi or either sockpuppets.my demand is again same." I'd like to see evidence that I'm a sockpuppet, and I'd also love to know how I'm a Wahabi when I'm not a Muslim... Can someone block this IP, because this is just pathetic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably could have blocked the IP, but chose to semi-protect the article for a week instead. The article doesn't really have a history of useful IP edits, and this editor seems to only be going after this page...but I don't mind at all if someone wants to switch this to a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Alright, regarding Am Not New. In the beginning, he started out like a typical newbie which is totally excusable. A number of editors have tried to work with him in order to explain various site policies, and the process has been difficult. Lukeno and GorgeCustersSabe tried to explain the WP:OR violations he was committing and encouraged him to take things to Talk:Barelvi, as did I. Lukeno was then forced to revert further instances of POV pushing by Msoamu and original research by Am Not New, at which point TommyFenton also got involved in defending the page. Even the admin Qwezxian has to revert the constant insertions of OR on the part of Am Not New, with more diffs by GorgeCustersSabre and Lukeno than I care to link here. The ever-present Mathew Vanitas also randomly showed up to revert Am Not New's OR pushing, as did Darkness Shines. The previous two never had much involvement or interest in the page as far as I can tell and probably just recognized aggressive, tendentious editing when they saw it. It finally ended with Qwerxian protecting the page again which I'm sure annoys the hell out of him. Qwexzian, Lukeno and GorgeCustersSabre tried to explain to Am Not New why his edits were wrong on the relevant talk page (more than just the above diffs but I'm tired of sifting through everything) to no avail.
    So, yeah. If the SPI turns out positive, that's a different thing. Even if it doesn't, Am Not New's tendentious editing and refusal to accept advice from more experienced editors is a problem and smacks of someone who just doesn't get it, and doesn't want to get it. I'm actually leaning toward Lukeno's suggested topic ban simply because I've seen the Barelvi page and how it's been manipulated by followers of the movement such as Msoamu, Shabiha and others for the past seven years and considering that YaNabi.com (a website for which Shabiha appears to be the owner or an admin - check that article's related discussions) has an army of zealous young Barelvis who speak...well, I won't say passable English but enough to respond, I don't see why we should assume this case is any different. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, since we are looking at a topic ban here in general, Am Not New's OR pushing and tendentious editing on Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri can be attested to, and perhaps should be attested to, by User:Justice007. I'm exhausted from sifting through diffs now but suffice to say that the article's history alone is indicitave of a spurt of tendentious editing warring against at least three experienced editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just seen above that Am Not New has accused me of a deliberate attempt to slander them, via usage of an IP. They've made this accusation twice, possibly three times.[38][39] That's fairly tendentious editing, especially considering that the style of English is nothing like mine, I was logged in at the times the IP was making edits, and the fact it most definitely isn't my IP, which begins with 31. I feel like you are only digging yourself into a deeper hole, Am Not New. I'm beginning to wonder if just a standard indef under WP:NOTHERE is in order, whether you're a sockpuppet or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • i am(am not new) is not a part of this dispute.as accepted by all these.
    • user am not new is not part of these sanctions.(tahir ul qadri sanction are not related to this dispute and that was a misunderstanding even i now provided some authentic sources on Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadris talk page that he is a barelvi.)
    • user mezzomezzo is a major part of these dispute from years
    • user mezzomezzo is envolved in enforcement from 7 years
    • user mezzomezzo is engaged in edit war from years
    • as related with behaviour of mezzomezzo.mr admin only people associated with it think that he is right.many of users think that he always try to show negitive side on these article barelvi and related articles.his edits are not constructive and often doesnt let anyone to add constructive edits.
    • user luken94 is major part of this dispute.
    • user lukeno94 is envolved in enforcement wether it is from years or months.
    • use lukeno94 work hand to hand with user mezzomezzo wether he is right or wrong.
    • user lukeno94 is engaged in edit war from months.
    • I'm really getting fed up of you making the same arguments, even when they've been proven to be wrong. I do not go around "hand in hand" with MezzoMezzo, in fact, I can remember at least one AfD where I expressly disagreed with him. Look through my talk page archives, and look at the times I've told MezzoMezzo to calm down, because they've overstepped the mark. You most definitely are part of this debate, and I have no idea why you're claiming you're not. MezzoMezzo hasn't edit warred (I possibly have, to keep the consensus) for quite a while. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're now going to try and manipulate my posts to suggest something else? I've told MezzoMezzo to calm down when Msoamu's POV pushing has really got them riled. Again, if you actually go and look at my talk archives and find the thread, rather than just deliberately quoting me out of context, you'll find that there's nothing untoward. Can we have an admin deal with this WP:POINTy behaviour please? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Dear Dil e Muslim, I have read what Lukeno94 wrote, and I agree entirely with him: you are trying to manipulate what he wrote. Sadly, I am now convinced that you are a partisan and provocative editor who will not accept advice. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence the consideration of a topic ban; we're seeing major issues of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT right before our eyes here, on ANI of all places. Even beyond the fact that Am Not New seems to be an agenda account, the extremely combative nature he's displaying here is enough for some sort of action to be taken, even if community support isn't enough for a topic ban. And it might not be enough; what I've noticed with Msoamu's own ANI discussions in the past is that when someone floods the discussion with enough blatant personal attacks, random accusations and manipulation as Am Not New is doing now, outside observers don't take interest because there's simply too much text to read. For my part, my three comments here, here and here express my own position clearly. Lukeno has been the target of some rather nasty personal attacks by Am Not New right here, in the middle of ANI, so I understand why he has responded though I myself will try to minimize comments from here on; I don't want others to be scared away. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    After seeing how this has played out here, and how Am Not New's edits have continued to be problematic since after this report was filed, I have to support some sort of sanctions. There is no question that he either misunderstands Lukeno's comment he's quoted above twice (which indicates a lack of the required English language competence), or he's deliberately and transparently trying to manipulate words to tarnish editors who are doing extremely important work in making our religion articles more NPOV. As George Custer say's above, I'm inclined to believe it's the latter; the bans he is calling for are simply absurd. That type of lashing out is generally a sign of behavior incompatible with collaborative editing. I don't know if another admin is willing to step in here (I'm probably WP:INVOVLED), but it does look like something should be done. I'd even be happy with a clear "final warning" from an uninvolved admin that any further POV pushing or tendentious editing will be met with blocks. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that any discussion involved Am Not New/Dil e Muslim, Msoamu or even Shabiha results in them posting walls of repeated text which kills any interest outside observers might have had. Bbb23 has some experience with this issue but I don't know if contacting them about this would violate WP:CANVASSING or not.
    Anyway, if something is to be done about Am Not New/Dil e Muslim then what about Msoamu? Am Not New's account is only three weeks old. Msoamu has displayed that same behavior for seven years and after every block and warning before the last one, he was unrepentant. I'm still convinced they're the same person but since the SPI isn't getting anywhere, I suggest that both accounts receive some sort of repercussion. Although Msoamu hasn't edited since his last block, we all know he stalks Wikipedia because he magically appears any time I edit Barelvi. I have no doubt that he has been reading this thread while laying low, just as he does with the discussions on Talk:Barelvi without commenting yet swooping in to revert out of nowhere. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Msoamu's dormant for now. We can re-open a thread on them if this one is dealt with, and they return. As to CANVASSING, I requested Qwryxian to take a look into this again, since no other admin appears to want much to do with this case - which were pretty much my words. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Qwezxian is correct about being somewhat involved. All of it is legitimate involvement as Am Not New/Dil e Muslim has been edit warring across half a dozen articles, and Qwerxzian is one of about six or seven editors now trying to clean up the mess, but nonetheless if he isn't comfortable enacting sanctions on his own perhaps we could contact someone else. As it stands right now, I doubt many of the admins are reading this thread any more. Who could blame them, I think I need prescrption glasses after going over this so many times. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Am Not New/Dil e Muslim is apparently harassing Pass a Method due to Method's reversion of Am Not New's POV pushing/OR on Sunni Islam, plastering his talk page with templates like some noob. Am Not New is now consistently being reverted by at least half a dozen editors plus one admin across more than half a dozen articles as of mid-day April 30th. Some of his comments are even bordering on trolling at this point. Please, if another admin does take the time to look at the end of this discussion, please take the time to check a bit more. This is ridiculous. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Spam attack on Evolutionary psychology

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

    Mathsci Just trying to update the old page with new information and formatting. The old article was insufficient. While the new one can definitely be further organized, I was just trying to make a new page with further information on evolutionary psychology and culture. I cannot speak for Masterofthepages (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    The entire work is verifiable, and I believe it is much better than the alternative lack of information on wikipedia.
    All the content you are adding constitutes an WP:ESSAY, like the deleted article with its bizarre capitalization. Wikipedia is not a blog. It looks as if Jhicks0207 and Masterofthepages (who presumably created the deleted essay-article Evolution and Culture) are the same person. Mathsci (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The cache on Google tells me that Evolutionary Psychology of Culture is an identical copy of the recently deleted article Evolution and Culture. Jhicks0207/Masterofthepages is abusing wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I came into this imbroglio in the middle. I've deleted the article created by Jhicks (per WP:CSD#G4), but it took me a bit to figure out what was going on. Unfortunately, Mathsci, whose heart is in the right place, tagged the article as WP:CSD#G1 (nonsense), which, frankly, was a nonsense tagging. I removed the tag, read the talk page comments, which were also pretty silly. I finally traced it back to the article that had just been incubated per a deletion discussion. That article had been created by User:Psyc452-lrockwell, whoever that is. I assume there's a relationship between Jhicks, Masterofthepages, and Psyc452, but it's possible that they're just all fellow students, not a single individual. They do need to stop recreating the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It could be students, but it's hard to say. If so, they should not be let loose on articles like evolutionary psychology, which is a contentious and problematic article. I watch it, but do not usually edit it. The changes being made at the moment do not conform to normal wikipedia standards. I have requested full protection. As far as school projects go, I have seen students involved in fairly narrowly defined areas, such as certain parts of ecology, trying to add essay-like content in a prominent but WP:UNDUE way to top level articles such as Europe. Mathsci (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps somebody should give advice to Jhicks directly now that he is trying to recreate the content for a third time in the article incubator. Wikipedia is not the place for pseudoscientific "essays" of this kind. Mathsci (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Sanctions for Memills?

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

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

    Other stuff

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

    As a point of information, Akuri received a specific warning from Future Perfect at Sunrise two weeks ago:

    I didn't actually notice Mathsci reverted me, but I now see he reinstated the hatting, though in a slightly different form, a short time after. Surely, you noticed that too, did you not? And now to the substance: Hijacking noticeboard threads for in-fighting and pursuing grudges between commentators, in ways that are unrelated or only tangentially related to the actual topic of the thread, is seriously disruptive. I saw you doing that on AN (or was it ANI) the other day and hatted you off there; now I'm seeing you do it here. Don't do it again. Please take this as another official warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

    Mathsci (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In the section above it is disclosed that Memills edited the project subpage of Psyc-mmills. That second account is a legitimate but undeclared alternative account of Memills. On their talk page they state that they are the professor responsible for this wikipedia educational project. It's a trivial matter to check what's going on off-wiki, but because of WP:OUTING issues we do not discuss that publicly. Nevertheless it does indeed confirm the identification. The on-wiki edvidence, however, is completely adequate and water-tight. (Some trusted administrators and arbitrators are aware of the off-wiki information.) Cailil confirmed the identification on-wiki which is very easy (see above). As regards Akuri's postings, Future Perfect at Sunrise warned him about misusing noticeboards in exactly the way he has above (hijacking a discussion to move onto an unrelated topic). Akuri has ignored that warning and proceeded to replay the previous performance on this noticeboard that resulted in his first narrow range block by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Timotheus Canens blocked a much wider range a second time because the reasons Akuri gave for editing through a webhosting site did not add up, particularly in a contentious subject. He has declared himself to be mostly interested in R&I, with a special interest in WP:ARBR&I. Akuri is currently editing through open proxies. He has not sought or received permission from the arbitration committee. Instead he has accused Timotheus Canens of "wheel-warring." The diffs I gave above concerning the topic of the thread (an educational project) speak for themselves and are unambiguous. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Akuri has not helped here, nor his advocate-apologist NE Ent. Memills has now confirmed that he used these alternative accounts. However, he has not addressed the problem of why he did not declare his main account when questioned on the talk page of the alternative account. As the main editor of Evolutionary psychology and its talk page, that is unhelpful. The problem is that the article is on a controversial topic and not really the place to let students loose. Memills has also not addressed the creation-deletion cycle for the fork articles. With Akuri's intervention, Memills has now made a personal attack on me, while following NE Ent's advice to post an unblock request. There he stated,[44] "These edits were made under the auspices of the APA Wikipedia Initiative. Unfortunately, Mathsci is, IMHO, a malicious editor, and does not respect or appreciate Wikipedia's mission, or its policy on good faith edits." But Memills has already been told in great detail by administrators what the multiple problems have been with the way his class project has proceeded. Here is what Yunshui wrote:[45] "From the notices you've been given above and the pages that have been deleted, it is clear that you are not sufficiently conversant with Wikipedia's content guidelines and editing policies to be running a class here. If you want to use Wikipedia editing as an educational tool - and believe me, we want you to do that - then please sign up to the Wikipedia Education Progam, get a course page set up and work with one or more of our Online Ambassadors to create a suitable course for your students. If you continue creating inappropriate content, then we will - with some regret - be obliged to block your account from editing. There are ways of using Wikipedia for the purposes you intend, but if you continue to insist on disregarding them, you will not be permitted to continue editing here." So the problem is two-fold. As the principal editor of Evolutionary psychology, Memills is using his students to "help" him, effectively as proxies, with his favourite article on wikipedia; there has been little openness or transparency. Memills himself started the cycle of create-delete for new fork articles; his students, editing in good faith, have followed that pattern. That certainly must have marred their experience of wikipedia. Memills should have taken the advice of Yunshui and others concerning how to run an educational project. What positive benefit can there have been to his students from this experience on wikipedia? Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    APS Wikipedia initiative

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

    User:Fladrif with their finger on the trigger

    Fladrif indeffed by Ched, endorsed by community.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Someone who knows their history and can remember who's who from a number of feuds needs to have a look at the recent contributions by Fladrif (talk · contribs), who's tagging as db-attack a ton of user pages. I rolled one of them back (I didn't see the attack), but a. I don't have mass rollback enabled and my RSI is playing up and b. this should be handled by someone who knows this stuff better than me. In addition, I have just warned Fladrif on their talk page (no doubt already deleted) for this piece of editing, which someone else might block them for in a heartbeat (I wouldn't object). Drmies (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Fladrif removed numerous of my user pages with out notice. I'd forgotten I had them actually, they were leftovers from an arbitration, and would have appreciated a notice if there was a concern. I don't appreciate another editor without notice removing content from my user page. Such an action runs close to vandalizing a user page.(olive (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]
    Well, I don't know what the deal is, but I think that's the last of the noms dealt with. One way or another, if these pages need deletion, they need discussion, not a speedy deletion tag slapped on them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite frankly I'm amazed that "Fladrif" is even able to edit. His violations of core policy astound me, ... but perhaps my thoughts are singular. — Ched :  ?  05:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Something's not right here... This is quite consternating. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I might have spoken a little too soon, but Ched has already blocked Fladrif indefinitely for being "unable to work with others." Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough is enough .. We should not be accepting this kind of behavior. — Ched :  ?  05:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly agree, enough is enough. This type of behaviour displayed by Fladrif is a bright line violation of our civility policy (which is one of the five pillars). Well, that's all folks! Now go edit somewhere else. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This page that Fladrif marked for deletion is actually an evidence page in a now-closed ArbCom case and to my understanding is not to be deleted, I blanked it out of courtesy - I believe several of the pages Fladrif marked were also evidence pages in that or other ArbCom cases involving him. The evidence on that page was used to place Fladrif on a civility parole, yet here we are several years later still having to put up with his vicious and hateful comments and actions such as this recent personal attack on an Arbitrator; continuing the same pattern of personal attacks as he has for years - even after his civility parole by ArbCom. An indef block of Fladrif at this point is certainly not surprising; the surprise is that it has taken this long for some action to be taken. Dreadstar ☥ 06:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Fladrif's editing restriction in the TM case was for one year (which ended in June 2011). Even while that restriction was still in effect, the maximum block authorized by ArbCom was for one month. IMO, an indefinite civility block for Fladrif would require a new ArbCom action. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is saying that 2010-2011 ArbCom restriction justifies anything right now, I'm providing a little background into elements of this issue. But I do think there's justification for a very long block on Fladrif with just the recent evidence I provided; personal attacks on several editors, disruptive editing, etc; and I'm not quite done yet. Dreadstar ☥ 07:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, a block for Fladrif would be entirely acceptable as an administrative action; the existence of ArbCom sanctions does not prohibit community-based action. Still, I have no idea why [46] would qualify as a "personal attack" (as Dreadstar cites; I haven't looked into this all that much). The tagging of the pages is one thing, but those really ought to be simply reverted and moved into "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/" space anyway.

    Ched, you made this block and I am now asking as a fellow editor and fellow administrator, as well as someone who might have to one day review this block as a member of the Arbitration Commmittee, for you to give a more detailed rationale for his block per Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability. NW (Talk) 07:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    So, NW, "I'm not the least bit surprised that a mere child lacks the judgment and maturity to do this job" isn't a personal attack? Others seemed to think so; stating that the comment by Fladrif was an "utter disgrace" and "venom". Dreadstar ☥ 07:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you're confused because Fladrif initially misplaced his comment, later moving it so that it clearly was responding to the person intended. Dreadstar ☥ 07:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    as a ... fellow administrator, ... member of the Arbitration Commmittee, ??? I wasn't aware there are different versions of WP:ADMINACCT based on the identify of the requestor. The policy statement Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. makes no reference to who is making the query. NE Ent 11:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dreadstar, I did indeed miss that line. I thought the offending sentence was "when the accusation is shown to be utterly specious and untrue, you try to hide behind SilkTork's skirts, and repeat it in a brazen effort to bluff your way through" (which while rude, is directly commenting on actions and not character). The one you bring up is a bit worse, yes.

    NE Ent, Ched had said on his talk page: "I will be willing to provide specific diffs upon request if an arbitration situation comes of this. The attacks are many and directed toward multiple editors; and I'm willing to support that if need be." I was trying to remind him that no matter if he did or did not want to explain himself before this reached the ArbCom level (because of some offwiki thing even maybe?), the Arbitration Committee would still need a full explanation even if it couldn't be explained in public. NW (Talk) 21:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • NW ... that's a fair request. I am surprised you need to ask, but I will point you to the relevant threads. I'll get back to this within the next 24 hours. — Ched :  ?  07:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Strange how Ched who is involved would take it upon himself to block Fladrif. I oppose the indef block and have unblocked the user in question until consensus develops. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • And now we have a clearly involved admin, User:Doc James, blatantly and grossly misusing the tools by unblocking an editor he is clearly and closely involved with over a long period of time, editing many articles together, engaging in many disputes with others alongside each other on a regular basis! This is outright and outrageous admin abuse of the tools by Doc James. Dreadstar ☥ 08:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: On another front, I have been constantly Wikihounded by Fladrif over the last few weeks - so much so that I have felt unable to do any significant editing as anything I did was likely to get jumped on by him. He has subjected me to serious personal abuse and constant uncivil behavior. He even seemed to align himself with the work of a recently banned sockpuppet, the seriously dysfunctional User:Star767 (although I cannot believe that they are in any way related). Much of his activity on my work is centered around abuse and template:bullying. He seems to have a battlefield mentality, bludgeoning away continuously even if there is little or no support from other editors.

    I was intrigued by his user talk page arrangements so I have taken the trouble of piecing it all together at User:Penbat/fladrif. Here you will see numerous example of other editors complaining about Fladrif's behaviour over many years. He seems oblivious to his own bad behaviour but keen to find fault with others.--Penbat (talk) 08:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    thank you for that work of diligence. I posted once, and established just now what it referred to:
    re: what?

    Every editor is a human being,
    and we need to consider regularly whether our view/approach to an issue brings out the best of humanity or not. (Geometry guy 28 February 2012)

    --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The "what?" referred to this, added for context, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you will probably call me involved, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to add that it is clearly absurd that an editor who often dishes it out and throws stones at other editors makes scrutiny of his own behaviour difficult by continually blanking his talk page - now at User:Penbat/fladrif.--Penbat (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes a mass "db-attack" on loads of user pages by Fladrif only a few hours ago has just been rejected Special:Contributions/Fladrif.--Penbat (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I'd like to see a fuller account of the rationale behind a block. I admit to an ignorance of the backstory, which must be fueling this, but characterizing an arb as a mere child is barely enough to warrant a warning, much less a block. I reviewed a few other links, but haven't found anything recent justifying the wailing and gnashing of teeth.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There must be well over a hundred examples of Fladrif's uncivil behaviour and personal attacks which I could link to but I will leave that to others for the time being. Loads of complaints/warnings by other editors over the years can be found on Fladrifs talk page reassembled at User:Penbat/fladrif.--Penbat (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes usually the expectation is that a blocking admin will provide the evidence in question. Not just indefinately block a user and state when asked that they will simply provide evidence latter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of expectations: "Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion." So what "good cause" warranted Jmh649 unblocking prior to consensus forming here and without discussing with Ched first? NE Ent 14:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well believe me, the evidence is all there in spades - must easily be enough to get him "hung, drawn and quartered".--Penbat (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Penbat, you have my deepest sympathies regarding your issue with Fladrif. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, for a period of time i was getting my work ripped into by User:Star767 and fladrif at the same time, total nightmare.--Penbat (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I am uninvolved. I don't know Fladrif. I do know Ched and like him. I also know Drmies who opened this thread and like him. Fladrif's editing history is prolific, so this compilation of recent diffs doesn't go very far back because it's too tiring. Most of the diffs go to Drmies's point about putting {{db-attack}} on a great many pages. As far as I can tell, those tags were then removed by other editors (usually admins - I didn't pay a lot of attention). Some of the other diffs are somewhat controversial as they attack other editors (not necessarily always to the level of personal attacks). For example, they accuse Ched of vandalism. Mostly, the diffs support a crusade against certain editors based on an apparent back history that I know nothing about (as usual). Here they are (I realize that annotating them would have been more helpful, but that would been even more work):

    In my view, the evidence supports a block. Whether it should have been indefinite is a matter of discretion. Ched is one of the more laid-back admins, so the fact that he felt an indefinite block was justified says something. Whether Fladrif should have been unblocked pending this discussion is another matter of discretion. What's clear to me, though, is that Doc James, given his history with the user, should not have been the one to issue the unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Aha so Doc James has a history with this user, may be worth investigating by someone. Here's a start to that investigation: [47] --Penbat (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I have taken the liberty of converting these links to diffs using a diff converter script so interested observers can review them using pop-ups. -- Dianna (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Response by Keithbob

    Comment: Fladrif has a long history, spanning several years, of battleground editing, bullying and personal attacks. I commend Ched for standing up and taking strong action. I am deeply concerned with involved Admin, Doc James’, reversal of the block in lieu of Doc James' long time association and editing with Fladrif. In my observation, Fladrif is abusive to every editor, Admin or ArbCom member who disagrees with him/her and Fladrif appears incapable of civility in a collaborative environment. Although I could provide more than one hundred diffs of Fladrif's abusive behavior over the past 4 years, I will confine myself to just the 4 months of this current year.

    *Here are the behavioral standards Fladriff held other editors to in 2013. Fladrif says:

    *But here is the condescending and offensive way Fladrif treated others in 2013, Fladrif says:

    *Battleground editing

    *Warnings and feedback given to Fladrif just in 2013:

    Looking at the evidence provided above, I am now convinced that Fladrif is becoming disruptive and condescending towards other users (including myself) and I deeply resent Wikipedians being abusive towards others. These comments are, to quote Ched, "beyond the pale". Something needs to be done about this matter. His insults and heckling towards me comes off as an utter disgrace and I think it is a blemish on my excellent contribution record on Wikipedia. Fladrif has already driven off Dreadstar into retirement a few months ago, and I agree with the observations by Bbb23 and Keithbob about his abusive behaviour. Before I go, I would like to make it clear to everyone that I have an extremely low tolerance regarding comments which I find to be harassing, haranguing, accusatory, inflammatory, incivil, heckling, insulting, condescending, disrespectful, abusive, venomous, yelling, annoying, embarassing, temperamental, rude or threatening, or those that are full of vulgarity. All of these can create a power imbalance in communication and are considered detrimental to the discussion. With that said, I think it's time to hold a discussion regarding if the block should be reinstated or file a request for arbitration. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    More recent warnings to Fladrif:

    One hundred and twenty eight more diffs of Fladrif's abuse of other editors, Admins and ArbCom members

    In addition to the 24 diffs I have provided above, here are 128 additional diffs of Fladrif's personal attacks and warnings during the years 2009 thru 2012. Just click here to view them.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Response from Ched

    First, my apologies for not being more timely in responding to the requests regarding WP:ADMINACCT. There is a lengthy history here which requires a great deal of reading, and I do stand by my original block as "indef" and not infinite. I am attempting to sort through a great deal of information and communication, and will do my best to respond as quickly as possible to any questions. A great deal of information in regards to my "justification" of my block are provided above in diffs, and I appreciate any patience that the community would be willing to grant me in the coming future. My apologies for not being able to respond to each and every individual comment. — Ched :  ?  19:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Reassembled Fladrif talk page

    As Fladrif continually blanks his talk page, to help with proper scrutiny I have completely reassembled all past posts on his talk page at User:Penbat/fladrif.--Penbat (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Response from Jmh649

    Yes Fladrif behavior is not appropriate. However neither is handing out an indef ban without providing any justification. I have banned Fladrif for 72 hours based on the evidence provided above. If others wish a permanent ban however IMO this should be supported by community consensus not a single admin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    72 hours is a joke. Around 10 editors have already made seriously critical comments above about Fladrif with possibly more to come - that looks like a consensus to me. Also some editors above commented that because of your past involvement with Fladrif you shouldnt be involved here at all [49]. --Penbat (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note: There is a difference between "ban" and "block" — Ched :  ?  19:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In theory, but not really in practice. Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. I'll concede that. — Ched :  ?  20:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ched has posted twice today at AN/I saying he/she is working on a comprehensive report and several other editors including myself have provided dozens of diffs showing chronic problematic editing. What you should be doing Doc James is undoing your reversal of the indef block by Ched and waiting for the community to complete its evaluation and decide what the period of time should be. Instead you have appointed yourself King Admin and undermined Ched's authority and undermined this community process. You are running interference for a blocked editor with whom you have a long term connection. Just as you have been doing for Will Beback in recent months. This is very troubling. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    General comments from Fiddle Faddle

    I may be the exception here. I have had a decent interaction with Fladrif and have participated in useful collaborative work. I met this editor with no preconceived ideas, though was told they were sometimes awkward to work with. I have had to be assertive to ensure collaboration, but am satisfied with conduct and nature of collaboration. I am not saying it was easy to collaborate, but it was also not difficult, though I can see how it could have become so.

    The only area that I have found awkward is their perpetual blanking of their talk page, but they have self identified as OCD, though with the words in a different order, and can forgive that awkwardness.

    I have seen poor interactions with other editors, but have not experienced that myself. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ive started a new ANI on DocJames' involvement in this ANI

    Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Questionable_involvement_by_DocJames_on_Fladrif_dispute--Penbat (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Can't we keep the whole thing together? OK, I'll start: I do find this troubling. Doc James could have come here to make a case, he could have advised Fladrif on how to get back into people's good graces--but this is drastic and obviously can't be reverted lest that admin be accused of wheelwarring. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    the merits of the case

    I'm a friend of Doc James. My general style as an admin is that I rarely think it's necessary to block. But looking at the material above, and at Fladrif's block log, I would support indefinite. 72 hour blocks have failed in the past, and though normally blocks should be gradated, this behavior is so pervasive that there's no reason to expect anything other than that it would continue after the block. If I were Doc James I'd say something like "I expected what I did to be approved by the community, but I find I was wrong, and reinstate the original block." I see no real reason for a more general inquiry into his work as an admin. Every active admin makes this sort of mistake once or twice. I know I have. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope every active admin doesn't make the mistake of accusing other admins of being "involved" with no basis in fact.[50][51] Actually a serious accusation. It depresses me to see Doc James take random potshots like that at the conscientious Ched. It worries me more than the block-unblock-reblock cycle here. :-( Compare my unanswered query on Doc James' page.[52] Bishonen | talk 22:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    You comment on me not answering your question after a total of 2 hours and 31 minutes? Seriously? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding Fladrif, my impression is that he often has a valid underlying point, but he habitually expresses himself in hyperbolic and confrontational language which obscures whatever point he's trying to make. I've seen a number of people like that in my years on Wikipedia, and they typically end up indef-blocked, for better or worse. While I don't know that I'd have blocked him myself, Ched's block is a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion, and frankly was pretty much an inevitability.

      Regarding James' unblock, I see Ched's perspective. I definitely wouldn't be happy if one of my administrative actions were reversed without discussion. That said, Fladrif is still blocked at the moment, for 72 hours - which should be enough for us to develop a consensus on whether or not he should be indefinitely blocked. The most constructive way forward is probably to have that discussion and implement its outcome (although I recognize that AN/I is not typically about finding the most constructive way forward). MastCell Talk 22:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree that we should try to find a consensus for how long Fladrif should be blocked. But if we're going to do that in the section just below, it should not say "ban" but "block". I didn't see anyone arguing that Fladrif should be community-banned at this point. In addition, not that I care a whole lot, but these kinds of discussions usually take place at WP:AN, not here. AN also has a longer archiving window. Drmies properly brought it here mostly based on the CSD tags, but it has, uh, evolved since its inception.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please simply state how long a block (if any) you think Fladrif should have

    • Indefinite. His bad behaviour has been going on for years and is obviously deeply rooted. Looks most unlikely he will ever change.--Penbat (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite - It's obviously clear that Fladrif won't change his behavior anyway. Having been involved with the project for 6 years and have contributed extensively to 11 good articles and 10 featured articles, and, as people have been kind enough to acknowledge (see User:Sjones23/Barnstars), have managed to improve Wikipedia, especially with regards to video game, anime and manga articles. As I have stated above, after taking a look at the evidence, I have been fully convinced that Fladrif has been disruptive towards other users and he is unable to cooperate with anyone who disagrees with him. His conduct to say the least is profoundly detrimental to the encyclopedia. Enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of the header, I think longer statements than a time period should be allowed (!vote, not votes), but I'll try to keep this short. Should this be moved to WP:AN, per Wikipedia:BAN#Decision_to_ban? (Not clear on why that rule exactly exists, but AN is 48 hours to archive versus 24 at ANI.) In any case, indefinite. As I related above, I tried to engage Fladrif in a discussion on his attacks and conversational tone and he was uninterested in my help. He has shown no apparent improvement in behavior in several years. Of course, he can always appeal (Wikipedia:BAN#Appeals_and_discussions) and if he happened to show remorse and promise to really start to change his ways, I might change my mind. It's not clear he has ever apologized in his entire history. II | (t - c) 23:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your information is imperfect, to wit: policy (WP:CBAN) supports ban discussions on either ANI & ANI; note Wikipedia:BAN#Decision_to_ban includes the phrasing "subpage thereof." The archive time (actually 36 hours here) is for the bot to automatically move quiescent discussions into the archive pages and will not affect active discussions. NE Ent 23:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • One week --SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite. --4idaho (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd imagine that I'm expected to comment here. Fladrif's past history weighed heavily in my original block decision. In my opinion nothing has changed in Fladrif's editing style since the arbitration declaration. That is the primary reason I chose the "indef" option in my block. I will always abide by community consensus, but I do believe that "Fladrif" simply is not editing in an acceptable manner. I also think there is a much larger picture here involving manipulation, coercsion, intimidation, and collusion; but that is something for another time and place. In short: I support an indefinite block. — Ched :  ?  01:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite-- And in case the 24 diffs of Fladrif's personal attacks and warnings from 2013 outlined in my thread above are not convincing for some folks.... then please have a look at the 128 additional examples of personal attacks and warnings from the years 2009 through 2012, which can be seen here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite I'm uninvolved as I have no previous interaction with or knowledge of Fladrif. Reading through the diffs, it seems clear that there is a behavioral issue that can not be solved within a predetermined period of time. Indefinite doesn't mean forever, but there is no fixed amount of time that can assure the community that the behavior will not continue after the block expires. Because of his own actions, we are left no choice but to use an indefinite period. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite, per all the reasons outlined above; this has gone on for far too long and shows no signs of abating. Dreadstar ☥ 03:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite. - I never interacted with Fladrif personally, but I watched what they did to others, which made me make my one and only entry on their user page, quoting Geometry guy who said in PumpkinSky's (difficult) return request in February 2012: "Every editor is a human being". Fladrif seemed not to respect that, what can we do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite - I've not come across Fladrif myself, at least, not as far as I can remember: but their block log, and evidence here, suggests they aren't really able to contribute in this sort of environment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No more than a week, since I don't see Fladrif's attacks as being any worse than, for example, the attacks [53] [54] that got Dreadstar a 1 week block (on 15 November 2011 [55]). Also, it is several years since Fladrif's last block, which was 72 hours [56]. Cardamon (talk) 09:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite but not infinite. Fladrif has continually shown extraordinary resistance to community standards despite numerous warnings. He should be welcomed back when he can demonstrate sustained collaborative editing for at least 6 months. See the section below for a supplementary proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite While Fladrif's last block was years ago, his venomous attacks upon others have continued unabated, to wit: on 13 April 2013, where he calls AGK a "mere child" and calls for him to totally stop editing. I suggest the reason for no recent blocks is that admins don't want to have to put up with his venom. I'm baffled as to why Fladrif feels it acceptable to repeatedly behave in this manner. Fladrif has shown a complete unwillingness edit productively in a collaborative environment. We are here to produce an encyclopedia, not do nothing about those who repeatedly denigrate others year after year. If he can show he can edit productively he can come back but in the meantime the community should not have to put up with his appalling behavior.PumpkinSky talk 11:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite The block should be indefinite. It can be lifted if Fladrif demonstrates that they understand what they did wrong and promise not to do it again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indef Serious behavioral issues on display here, perhaps the best (worst) example being his attacks on AGK a week or two ago. His conduct makes me skeptical that he's willing to work as part of a community. I'm willing to change my mind, I'd like to see a significant change in attitude first. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • One week and longer periods if they do not change their behavior. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Doc has done the right thing, but I have serious concerns with the allegations that he made about Ched's prior involvement with Fladrif. I will assume good faith and suggest Doc made a mistake, because seen in any other way Doc accusations against an innocent editor and admin would be unconscionable. (olive (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

    Defining an indefinite ban/block for Fladrif

    There is obviously now a consensus above for an indefinite ban/block for Fladrif. I think it is worth thrashing out a clarification here of what that means in practice.--Penbat (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Have indefinitely blocked user in question per forming consensus here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh the deed has now been done. I doubt if there is any more worth saying.--Penbat (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Supplementary proposal: Fladrif may not remove warnings from his talk page

    Given all the discussion above about Fladrif's response to warnings, I propose the following indefinite restriction. This will apply regardless of how long he is blocked for:

    Fladrif is prohibited from removing or hiding any warning from his talk page within 30 days of it playing placed. Incorrect or tendentious warnings may be removed by an uninvolved administrator at their discretion. He may appeal this restriction after three consecutive months of active editing with no warnings. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Spoof account?

    1-day old user account creating related articles Hamish Miller (dowser), Paul A. Broadhurst, and The Sun and the Serpent in praise of Miller and Broadhurst's book. Appears to be some kind of spoof: articles and edit summaries are peppered with joke phrases such as "funky dudes", "super-groovy" and "greedy capitalism", etc. Talk page antics include accusations of religious hatred [57] and WP:ICANTHEARYOU [58]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hey man, I ain't no spoof and don't like being called such. I'm a happy hippy. Now I get where you're coming from dude, perhaps we don't share the same views on stuff, and perhaps you don't like hippies or something, but I can mellow with that and tolerate your views. There's no need to come over all heavy. I haven't "accused" anyone of "religious hatred". Please read again and you'll see that I was just warning against that sort of bogusness. I'm not the one calling names here. Sticks and stones won't break my groovy bones. You don't like my lingo, well, I'll try to cool that in my articles for you if you get off my back a bit and chill with deleting my perfectly well referenced and notable work about a late, close friend of mine. Cool? ۞TrippingHippy۞talk 14:49, 18:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are serious about wishing to contribute to Wikipedia, I suggest that you drop the fake hippy-speak right now. It achieves precisely nothing beyond making you look like a troll, and we have too many of those as it is. If your late friend deserves mention in Wikipedia, he deserves to be referred to in the appropriate language for a reference work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a place to get your groove on. By editing here, you agree to abide by the community's code of conduct, and part of that is to use proper English grammar in articles. Also, you might want to take a look at WP:COI. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This sock puppet is now blocked. Looks like another Paul Bedson sock (one of several created in the last few days). Dougweller (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin impersonation and other mischief

    Impersonator now expersonator. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:DxRD, a brand new account, says he is an admin; he's also mucking about on other pages, including changing a SPI case to "closed". Currently in action, should be blocked immediately. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely by Gogo Dodo. De728631 (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Who is Analog Bars (talk · contribs)? RNealK (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Most likely User:Dy11111 (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dy11111). ChemNerd (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Resolved
     – Blocked two weeks by Bwilkins

    Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

    Edit summary: editor Dr.K is a self-described member of WikiProject:Greece and should recuse himself from the Turkey article
    • adding unsourced, WP:CRYSTAL, speculative original research in the article of Turkey against multi-editor consensus on the article talk:

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

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

    Background

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

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

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

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

    and

    What I Have Taught Wikipedia

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

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

    • Also from his block log:
    • 12 May 2008 Wafulz blocked WikiSkeptic (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attacks or harassment of other users: Racist comments)
    • 31 March 2012 Tristessa de St Ange blocked WikiSkeptic (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Disruptive editing: Project disruption: Repeated incivility/trolling/baiting, abuse of user page, claims of ArbCom influence.) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I second this report, I find this user's conduct odious. Looking over their contribs, I see very few useful edits if any, mostly addition of unsourced nonsense and conflict. Four block after only 800 edits. Suggest blocking indef, this user clearly is not suited to the project. Athenean (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree he should be blocked, though I think we should bear in mind cultural differences when reading some of his comments.Deb (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Deb, I'm not sure what you mean by cultural differences but the idea here is that a. He doesn't understand the concept of original research which he defiantly and proudly pushes through most of his career here and b. He abuses and harasses other editors based on their ethnicity. Both of these points are clear imo. He has also afforded himself the luxury of openly and repeatedly flouting and publicly mocking our no-original research core policy while attacking other editors based on their ethnicity and no other evidence. This is clear hypocrisy and has nothing to do with cultural differences. In fact the open mockery and repeated longterm violations of the NOR policy across multiple articles are grounds alone for an indef block. The hypocritical discrimination is just the icing on the cake. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The subtext is clear: You ethnic editors are an underclass. We anonymous bigots, due to our undisclosed background, are superior to you who were suckers to identify yourselves. You ethnics, cannot therefore touch the articles related to your ethnicity. But we anonymous bigots can edit those articles due to our undisclosed background, and our privilege is such, that we can even destroy them by our openly declared mockery and opposition to the fundamental policy of WP:NOR not to mention WP:NPA. Is this the new environment of editing on this wiki? This doesn't sound like Wikipedia in the least. It sounds more like a madhouse from a particularly twisted episode of the Twilight Zone where the malicious and incompetent have taken over. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we've made it clear a long time ago that anyone is free to edit an article involving people of their own ethnicity and not be afraid of accusations of Conflict of Interest. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Of course you can still be guilty of disruptive editing if you refuse to connect with other editors, but that would be the same whether you were born in Greece or Green Bay, Wisconsin. —Soap— 18:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much Soap for your advice and well-made points. I fully agree with you on all levels. Disruption is not related to ethnicity, it is a behavioural issue. And as you mentioned, it is independent of origin, be it Greece, or Green Bay, or Wisconsin. :) I couldn't agree more. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    ‎71.191.244.33

    Resolved; removed the BLP violation and blocked the IP for 30 days. Dreadstar ☥ 20:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    My guess is that your comments were removed from the article talk page because some of them violate WP:BLP. (For example, suggesting that Anderson's ex-wife is lying.) You need to be careful about what you say about living people on every page here.
    TheRedPenOfDoom does have a talk page: User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom. His user page (User:The RedPenOfDoom) has been deleted, but that doesn't hurt anyone. Zagalejo^^^ 19:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @71.191.244.33: WP:BLANKING is very clear: "For IP editors, templates in Category:Shared IP header templates and notes left to indicate other users may share the same IP address." On the other hand, TheRedPenOfDoom is not an IP. I granted you a reprieve. Use it wisely.—Bagumba (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    So the BLP vio stays now? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you provide me a link to the BLP violation? I'll take care of this. Dreadstar ☥ 19:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    already given above, but here again: section "many children..." was removed 3 times per BLP. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a link to the entire history of the talk page, are you talking about this section? Dreadstar ☥ 19:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be in the context of attempting to improve the article based on one's interpretation of identified sources. I think it's fair to stay on a talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you need to give vandalism warnings to those who removed it, and we need to talk about Dianna's desysopping. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call it vandalism, BLP was the justification, and I respect that. I just tend to be more liberal when it comes to talk pages.—Bagumba (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    then you're in the minority here :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP applies just as strictly to talk pages as it does to articles. And Dianna has done nothing wrong. Dreadstar ☥ 20:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP hopper possibly a banned user & copyvio clean up needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ok, I'll take care of the deletions now. Stand by. Dreadstar ☥ 20:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. And please don't forget to restore the semi-protection (until July) when you restore the article. We don't need this mess all over again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, and I extended the semiprotect for six months; let me know if that should be reduced. Dreadstar ☥ 20:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    October works too, thank you (it should have been 3 months instead of 1 week last time anyway).—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Echigo mole again

    Blocked as a WP:GIANTDUCK. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Because of two edits which reproduce Echigo sighanature trolling advice, "You're not going to win this one", Silicate minerals is a sock of Echigo per  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Apart from trolling on this page and at user talk:Memills (the signature posting[59]), they have made and are continuing to make disruptive edits to wikipedia. Please could somebody block Silicate minerals indefinitely? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Yet Another Slow-Motion Edit War

    Yet Another Slow-Motion Edit War, this time at 7400 series:[60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68] (No 3RR violation, because the main edit warrior has been blocked before and knows to keep outside of the 24 hour window.)

    Please note that this is recurring issue, and that the usual response (temporary page protection) usually stops the problem -- until it happens again on another engineering-related page.

    Warnings given:[69][70][71][72]

    Further revert after deleting warning:[73][74]

    ANI notices:[75][76][77] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume that is not specifically addressed at me as I have not edited the article in question since the warning was posted on my talk page. Posting a warning to decist and then raising it as an ANI when an editor has decisted is a bit underhand. 86.147.236.27 (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly you are not the problem, yet I am required (see notice at the top of this page) to notify any user who is the subject of a discussion at ANI, even if the only discussion is about them being reverted by a persistent edit warrior. Sorry if it seemed like I was criticizing you; that was not my intent. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close as impractical for ANI to act on this. Admins would much rather find some trivial, but obviously clear-cut, issue to exercise their superpowers over than they would to try to resolve a complex and long-term issue like Wtshymanski. Remember, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and you'll be banned if you say otherwise. Doing something useful is not a requirement. If there is any solution to be had for this, it would have to come from outside ANI, which is presumably now left as ArbCom. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked Wtshymanski for a week (which is extremely lenient) for continued tendentious editing. This should have been met with escalating blocks a long time ago. Assuming that this doesn't stop the warring, let me know and I'll issue semiprotection per the usual response. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

    Apostle12, again, and POVPUSH (RE-SUBMITTED)

    Below is the blockquoted text of the previous discussion. I did not feel the discussion it generated was adequate. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 22:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I logged in to put a tag on a medical article that was full of primary non-MEDRS sources. I made the mistake of looking at my watchlist.
    Mere days after the previous ANI discussion about User:Apostle12's editing behavior, he has inserted contentious material that had been removed from Huey P. Newton into Black Panther Party, though he is clearly aware of the substantial sourcing and credibility issues -- he took part in the discussions that led to their removal.
    The edits at issue in Black Panther Party:
    [78] -- assertions of criminality and a Kate Coleman SFGate piece
    [79] -- portraying an allegation, never proven and based on hearsay, that appeared in Pearson's book "Shadow of the Panther" as fact
    At Huey P. Newton, he took part in extensive discussions about the credibility of Coleman, both in reference to the SFGate piece and to his insertion of what were deemed non-RS allegations of a romantic relationship between Newton and a movie director: [80] [81] [82]
    There have been discussions at RSN already about:
    the John Frey "admission" (which was re-inserted here)
    the Coleman/SFGate source (inserted here)
    (in regards to the allegations of a romantic involvement, there was a DRN case as well, in which Coleman's use as a source was also at issue)
    Rather than rewrite the claims to better reflect the sourcing issues, as he suggested he would do at one point on Talk:Huey P. Newton, he has simply re-inserted the contentious claims on Black Panther Party. This, especially given the history, seems as clearn an indicator of WP:POVPUSH as I can imagine.
    I attempted to initiate enforcement actions through ArbCom. In the course of the previous ANI discussion Apostle12 received a warning, and I thought that this would qualify as being about "race and intelligence, broadly construed." ArbCom did not feel it was actionable.
    I have not notified or engaged with Apostle12 other than place an ANI discussion tag on his page because the previous discussions should, quite frankly, have been enough of an indicator that this source was contentious, and that more care should have been taken with its use. We discussed these sources in excruciating detail, for an extended period of time. I am not willing to get more deeply involved in this discussion right now; I have not even reverted the edits in question, and they persist in the Black Panther Party article.
    The reason I am unwilling to engage should be apparent from the Talk page discussions I have linked. If not, well, sanction me for not following protocol. I care more, at this point, about raising the issue of this disruptive, tendentious editing than i do about maintaining my own ability to edit.
    And I will now be resuming my wikibreak, and if i have reason to make small edits in the future, such as the one I made at Eculizumab, I will not make the mistake again of checking my watchlist. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 05:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

    So, Mea culpa. my apologies.

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

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

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

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

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

    There doesn't seem to be much for an administrator to do here. My advice is to perhaps take this to reliable sources noticeboard, file an request for comment, or simply remove the material. Another piece of advice is to embrace brevity. No one responds well to massive walls of text. Keep you complaint succinct and to the point, because a lot of editors and administrators see how much you've written and move on to the next issue because there is SO much to read through.
    Also, even though it may be unpleasant, you have to engage with Apostle12. Following his edits and complaining here without engaging him on article talk isn't going to get the results you seek.
    Finally, there are a lot of issues at work here, and there have been issues on multiple articles. I'd say kick this up the dispute resolution chain. You've participated in an WP:RFC/U in regards to this user, so perhaps a request for arbitration is in order. That's the best advice I can give you, because I really don't think you're going to get the result you want at this noticeboard. AniMate 01:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these options are acceptable to me. And you're misconstruing what my aim is. My aim is not to address the content issues directly, but to either:
    make the mechanisms work (squeaky wheel, etc), or
    demonstrate just how badly they are broken, such as by becoming such a nuisance here that I am sanctioned myself -- I aim to re-submit until either adequate discussion has been had, or I am banned from participation
    If you have a mop, and "TLDR" is an acceptable way for you to deal with things, then you are part of the problem. If the mechanisms don't work, then we have a responsibility to figure out and create mechanisms that do.
    I am, frankly, eager to get back to contributing to WP, particularly on medical articles. I have voluntarily limited my edits to article space.
    And as for engaging Apostle12, he can engage here if he wishes. He is aware of the discussion. I have already wasted far too much time discussing these issues with him. read the discussions i have linked. I am in no hurry to waste more time -- if I edit, or revert, then I will be expected to adhere to WP:BRD, and participate in yet another interminable discussion. and if I don't that may be used as ammunition in future disputes.
    Fuck that. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 01:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    UTCL, you are the only one using past editing history as "ammunition." One might even interpret your motive as retaliatory, something I do not wish to join in.
    Always open to constructive editing on the various articles that capture our mutual interest: the proposal you submitted for a new lede sentence at "White privilege" is presently being discussed on Talk. Please note that I largely support your proposal, which is among many of your proposals and edits that I have backed. Another editor has commented that your proposal may not be supported by the source you provided; you might want to defend your choice or contribute another.
    Regarding the other edits you mention here, I will be happy to discuss those too on their respective Talk pages. The less confrontation, and the more collaborative spirit, the better. Apostle12 (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Max Borin

    The user is apparently new and is on a spree of creating dozens ridiculous articles such as Spoofing your technical friend and the dab Washington Museum to "disambiguate" 2 museums that are not popularly called "washington museum". The user has been warned on their talk page about creating frivolous stub articles but has continued on their merry way creating more and more. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I thought I was just helping out. I will try to disambiguate more carefully. Max Borin (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have to start by not making up stuff. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I have cleaned up several articles that duplicate existing articles as well. I recommend this editor must create all new articles through WP:AFC (and be temporarily sanctioned from creating articles in the main space) until they are more familiar with the many policies and guidelines for new content on Wikipedia. It seems a bit harsh but several people have tried to talk to them with no apparent change in editing pattern. Mkdwtalk 03:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    after making the statement " I thought I was just helping out. I will try to disambiguate more carefully" they went on to create this beaut: San Francisco Museum and several others. Every minute delay will result in additional cleanup. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have recommended that Max hold off on creating new articles until we can appropriately find a solution that. It is also clear that this editor has a high level of understanding how to use a wiki; redirects, reflists, disambiguation pages, links, bolding titles, and knowing MOS title formats like article name + (topic). Even his first edit is very indicative of an experienced editor. I worry that this editor could be evading a block as this seems strikingly similar to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson days ago. Some very troubling similarities. Mkdwtalk 04:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Restoring until an admin can take a look at the mass series of articles created. Mkdwtalk 23:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor has resumed editing, and understandably so since no admin has commented on this yet. Just an FYI. Mkdwtalk 23:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Orlady

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

    I have only a few comments to your wall of text. First, for so many accusations, there are very few diffs. Second, just glancing at Orlady's talk page, your comments appear rather lopsided. Third, I took a look at some of the articles, and, in my view, they are a mess. Your just-created article, County government in the United States, has ONE source for a very large article. Then, there's Local government in the United States, which was created quite a while ago. Putting aside some problems (an imbedded Wikipedia reference in the lead?), it's not clear to me why you needed to create your article, particularly given yet another longstanding, pre-existing article, County (United States). As an aside, when you report someone here, you are required to notify them; I did so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, my fifteen minutes of reading led me to the conclusion that you are primarily unhappy that consensus went against your viewpoint. Sorry about that, can't be helped. This admin page is not the place to resolve content disputes.
    This page is for examining editor conduct, and I can't find anything Orlady did which was sanctionable, certainly nothing meriting a topic ban. [OK, this diff deserves a wrist-slap, and one will be duly administered. But beyond that, I see no evidence of an agenda, conspiracy or serious misconduct. Your own conduct appears to be far more tenditious (eg. repeatedly dismissing other editors' comments as "Not Helpful"). Manning (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrist-slap was deserved and is duly acknowledged/accepted. For the record, I've investigated some of sources that Gregbard offers in support of his claim that counties are in fact state agencies, and I've recorded my analysis at User:Orlady/County by state (structured after his user page of the same name). --Orlady (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The original poster called Orlady a liar in this post [83]; I request they strike the comment (preferred) or support it with diffs if unwilling to do so. NE Ent 02:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Other editors have expressed concern to me about Gregbard's ownership and tendentious behavior with respect to his theories on the nature and derivation of local governments in the US, and his use and structuring of categories to support his assertions. He appears to assert that he is entitled to edit-war over categories "Because I had asked for your cooperation and you refused to give it." [84] Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Proposed topic ban for Gregbard

    • Sheesh... OK I read most of the cites given above and frankly Gregbard's perspective (My claim is that a county government is an agency of the state government) seems quite... unique. To be fair, I am coming to the topic in near total ignorance, but even so, nothing he provided seems to visibly support his position. The Alabama example is a legal dispute over shared costs... and well, "dependent entities" don't tend to take independent legal action. Even the NACO site seems to confirm the consensus position. (Gregbard's NACO quote above was talking about how things were back when state constitutions were drafted, it then goes on to contrast how things are different today). Of the several parties who have participated in discussion, I did not find one who agreed with his position.
    • Despite all that, we're not here to rule on content matters. So... what I DO see is someone seriously unwilling to abide by consensus, who ref-dumps and then claims victory (even though the refs are far from conclusive), who has apparently major WP:OWN issues, and who is quite uncivil to anyone who gets in his way. As a result, I'd be well inclined to recommend a topic ban on GregBard for any local government related articles.Manning (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In looking through the contribs, especially on various talk pages - I can Support this. — Ched :  ?  17:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - A no-brainer. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as it seems related changes continue to be made against consensus per this recent editBoogerpatrol (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You people should be ashamed of yourselves. I came here in good faith to report a situation to the supposedly mature members of the community. The climate here is more similar to a prison yard than an academic senate. Boomerang, indeed. Let me go on the record to state that I put in a great deal of effort in a neglected area, which in any fair and reasonable universe would be appreciated, and I was promptly derided and hounded by people with no special knowledge or experience in the subject matter. I reported the situation to the wider community, and rather than have logic and critical thinking prevail, they got mired in the egos and personalities. I provided about a dozen references, any one of which taken at face value suppports my conclusion, and which together form a strong argument for my claim. Rather than accept the simplest, most reasonable interpretation, you chose to accept the wild convoluted rationalizations of a immature person with no claim to expertise in the area. I stand by my claim that I am the mature adult in the room.
    • Even my mature response to her immaturity is being interpreted as *MY* being immature. Orlady's comments were unhelpful, in that they did not address the actual issue, but rather were an attack on myself to which I maturely refused to respond. These discussions are open and readable by anyone at anytime into the future. Let the record show that I did not back down from the ignorant, and the ignorant plowed forward. This is a Wikipedia:Fail.Greg Bard (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked for a referee on the matter. It has been provided. I did not previously know Orlady or any of the other participants, so I had no bias toward any individual. I did not examine the conclusions of any other participant. I did, however, examine all of your references, and was unable to see on what basis any of them supported your conclusion (as discussed above). The NACO reference you provided above specifically contradicted it. No-one has derided or abused you, but you have abused and derided everyone who disagrees with you. I stand by my claim that I am the mature adult in the room. You are welcome to make any claim you like, it will have no impact on our collective decision. Manning (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "A mature person is one who does not think only in absolutes, who is able to be objective even when deeply stirred emotionally, who has learned that there is both good and bad in all people and all things, and who walks humbly and deals charitably." -- Eleanor Roosevelt, channeled by 71.139.157.86 (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternate suggestion to above

    • Sigh Ok, I WP:AGF about what Gregbard is trying to do. However, his method is frickin ridiculous. What I would prefer to see is this:
    • a 3 month topic ban from making changes to any article related to government, broadly construed. He may continue to discuss changes or potential additions on the talkpage of any government-related article. Gregbard is also subject to civility parole during those 3 months. Although "optional" in my view, I would recommend mentoring for him in order to better learn what CONSENSUS really means, and how this project works as a whole through its many processes, policies and community nature (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. --Orlady (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • From my WP:INVOLVED perspective, this seems like the right sort of direction to take, but with a couple of modifications:
    1. The topic ban should apply not only to articles, but also to pages in the Template and Category spaces. I suggest this because much of the recent contention has occurred in those spaces.
    2. For proposed categorization projects, once consensus on a proposal has been reached (as determined by someone who isn't Gregbard) on an appropriate talk page or project page, Gregbard may make edit government-related pages to add them to categories. To avoid misunderstandings, the consensus to authorize Gregbard to make such categorization edits should be recorded (by some other user) as part of the conclusion of the talk-page discussion. I suggest this because categorization has been Gregbard's main focus recently in relation to government and much of his categorization work has been productive and non-controversial. --Orlady (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I can agree with the first, but no ... do NOT allow him to edit those pages, other than talk. Pushing the envelope like that will just lead to problems later (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with Orlady's conditions. Gregbard is willful and disruptive but can be productive. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have been give absolutely NO warning prior to this sudden non-judicious proposal to ban me from a topic area in which I have made a huge contribution. Even my original post to this group about Orlady was only to put the issue on the record. What have I done to deserve such a rash, severe response? The problem could just as easily been resolved by rashly banning her (which, I was too fair-minded to propose). I have violated no policies, so this amounts to a political issue. I have start over 60 articles in the area of local government. If I am banned, I will immediately appeal. Don't waste my time or others with this outrageous impatience. For my part, I have stopped editing, as I am shocked at the shark tank mentality here. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. I have only my words, as reasonable and decent people don't have a lot of tools at our disposal. If you use administrative powers against me, you are a bully, and don't deserve them. Greg Bard (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Greg - I've run into you before (I forget where...) - I'm not involved in this, I couldn't care less about the definition of county governments, I'm not an admin, and I'm not gonna vote. I just wanted to say two things: (1) Read WP:Boomerang. I've seen this happen before - anytime you bring anything to ANI, everything you do is scrutinized equally. No warning is required for any action that results (2) I can see your frustration, but in some of your edits you're not really taking a consensus-building approach. You may be right, but you may not win with that approach. Maybe take a break, go into another topic area for a while, walk away from wikipedia, do something else. It will still be here when you're back. Every time I've gotten fired up about something, I have eventually regretted it here, and every time I've tried to work in a more gentle fashion, things have worked better. Just a few thoughts. cheers --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

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

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

    Request to eliminate restrictions

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

    Support removing restrictions. NE Ent 02:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Support   little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          02:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am at least a little bit worried at seeing rapid endorsements of this request when Jona (AJona1992) has not actually described to us (or even linked to) either the specific restrictions that he is editing under, or the circumstances that led to those restrictions being imposed. Does anyone have links to all the relevant discussions?
    From what I can piece infer from Jona's user talk page archive, it appears that he created more than one sockpuppet to push article(s?) he was working on through GAR and to engage in deliberate copyfraud. (There was apparently also some personal nastiness, including an unblock request that included "but the bitch needs to know, well everybody, needs to know is that if you piss me off then I'm going to attack" as justification for his conduct.) I can't help but feel that we're being rushed to a decision while being kept in an information vacuum. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Their block log has been clean since Bwilkins imposed the restrictions. The request is unambiguous in acknowledging their past mistakes as well as their promise to avoid such behavior in the future. I'm willing to AGF this is a sincere request. If Jona betrays this trust, then shame on them and call me a sucker.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          03:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose the misbehaviour described by TenOfAllTrades is pretty strong. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I actually apologized to those users I commented on when I was asking to be unblocked. That was years ago and my behavior is nothing like that anymore as you can tell in my more recent archives and has improved since those remarks were made. Best, Jonatalk to me 03:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear, I'm not coming down one way or another on this request. I don't mean to torpedo it out of hand; my concern is that we're missing too much detail to make an informed decision in response to this request. Were there one or more noticeboard discussions that pull together the relevant history and evidence? (Sockpuppet checks, AN/I reports, any previous appeals, etc.?) The discussion on AJona's user talk page gives some hints about what the problems were, but doesn't tie it all together and put things in context. As I said, I do find it troubling that AJona didn't feel it necessary to provide that information – or even a clear list of the restrictions he seeks to have lifted – as part of his original request. Care and attention to process details matter—both for requests to lift or modify sanctions and in uploading non-free content. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For some past history, I've posted the previous ANI's that Ajona was called up for.
    The copyright issues started back in 2010 and were discussed in ANI. The ANI wasn't limited to just copyright, but the discussion at the time cleared the air of these other issues (incivility, edit warring, socking, the usual kitbag)
    ANI was where AJona first appealed the restrictions. Ajona's name pricked my memory a bit and it was at the same time that Ajona also agreed to my proposal for a sort of mentorship as a precondition for a lifting of the upload restriction.
    Ajona asked for advice this ANI, which wasn't really a request to lift sanctions, so shouldn't be really held against him.
    Ajona was restricted from making any image uploads due to their lack of understanding of copyright and attempting to pass off copyrighted images as their own, which was noted in the 2010 ANI. I'd support a lifting of their restrictions since Ajona has managed to keep himself out of trouble with regards to image copyright, but would counsel that they return to image uploading very slowly and carefully. Blackmane (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    As far as their block log shows, their last block was in August 2011 and unblocked in Sept 2011 with the aforementioned restrictions. Nothing since then. Blackmane (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't include those here because I've apologized to every user I badmouthed to so there's no need to bring my past back up if its patched up already. I still talk (from time to time) to several of them and they are okay with replying back especially User:Moonriddengirl who has given me several links to help me understand Wikipedia's non-free content and I sometimes go to her for advice. I also requested several non-free images on Commons to be deleted and worked there for a short time helping fight vandals. If this isn't enough proof then I don't know what else is. I know Bewilkins didn't approve of the loosen of my restrictions (the last time I requested it) because he felt that I didn't understand what I was doing was wrong, but this time around I did and even read several polices about non-free content. I hope you guys can see that I've changed over the past two years. Best, Jonatalk to me 19:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Which restrictions do you want removed ... all of them? I would disagree with removing the restriction to one account - it should stay. Obviously following CIVIL and NPA to the letter should still apply ... and I see no suggestions about what type of non-copyrighted images ant Ajona needs to upload all of a sudden. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that in his opening statement, Ajona says that he would like his upload restriction lifted, in a somewhat roundabout way. Following CIVIL and NPA should be a given and the single account restriction being lifted wasn't mentioned. Blackmane (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm just guessing here, but perhaps being allowed to remove that scarlet letter notice on their talk is an issue too. — Ched :  ?  03:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just want to be able to upload images and music files as my main contributions relate to music-related articles especially ones that are stubs and turning them into FAs. I don't mind staying with the notice on my talk page if everyone here believes it should remind me to stay civil and only have one account. Best, Jonatalk to me 13:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so you won't mind getting indeffed the first time you upload any copyrighted material...the block was your final warning - you don't get 3-strikes-and-out anymore ... so what I'm asking is that are you 110% certain you understand WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:IUP and all other vital policies related to images and files? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I understand and have made myself familiar with the non-free content polices. Jonatalk to me 16:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support lifting upload restrictions, especially in light of his comment just as above. As one of the admins who was working cleanup during these issues, I've seen a huge turnaround in Ajona1992 since the restrictions were rightfully imposed and personally I have confidence that the problem will not repeat. That said, I think that this is in a way offering a bit of rope. I expect that Ajona will be very careful; I would encourage him to be extremely scrupulous about documenting where images come from and if in doubt seek feedback before uploading. I think he's being doing good work, and I'd be really disappointed if we lost that. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Biased RfC and improper closure thereof at Ugg boots trademark disputes

    RFC RE-CLOSED
    RfC closure reverted and re-closed by myself. Am closing this discussion, at least in part because ANI is not the place to re-argue the issue. At this time I also think it will not be helpful to take any further action against those involved in this dispute as all need to be involved in working out a way forward. That said, as I note in the RfC close, if editors continue to act in the way they have thus far blocks are a real possibility either for personal attacks or disruption. Dpmuk (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    WLRoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been involved in a very partisan, occasionally WP:BATTLE manner in a long-running series of content disputes on this article and the related Ugg boots for years. He started a biased RfC on the Ugg boots trademark disputes article. The explanation of the bias is a bit complicated. Essentially, he constructed the question in a way that would produce the responses he wanted. Thirty days later, he requested closure, waited a week, and then closed it himself. Policy based arguments are being carefully ignored; he's relying on a raw vote.

    According to WP:RFC, since it's been contentious, formal closure is "advisable." He has refused mediation twice, and he has indicated that he won't withdraw the question, so formal closure seems to be the only remaining option. And according to WP:RFC, formal closure must be done by an uninvolved editor; there's no way for him to weasel out of it. His attitude has been, "Fine, go ahead and report me to ANI" after a warning.

    It should be noted that the editor has a history of ignoring WP policy whenever it suits his agenda. The article about Kerry and Kay Danes was stubbed by Jimbo Wales. The article about the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations was stubbed by other senior administrators. Both times for this editor's comprehensive BLP violations. Although the policies aren't the same for this latest case, they're still policies. I first ran into this editor when I noticed his BLP and other policy violations at the Franklin article, and brought them to admins' attention. He's been following me around ever since, taking the opposite side in content disputes.

    Most recently, he's followed me to Tea Party movement and immediately joined the content dispute there, on the other side. He's Australian and has never before demonstrated any interest in articles on American politics. This seems to be a violation of WP:HARASS. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Getting someone here to review the closure looks like a good idea but I'm not sure we shouldn't be looking at your own behaviour at the same time. I followed you to Ugg Boots to see if your fierce advocacy of a Tea Party agenda at Tea Party movement while claiming to be an Obama supporter was just an aberration or a pattern wherever you edited. It turns out that you only seem to be interested in two issues and the behaviour is identical on both. Personal attacks, misinterpretation of BLP policy, canvassing, tendencious editing seem to be the norm. Its a pity you were not active before Arbcom took up the Tea Party issue otherwise you would be conjoined to that case. Now I'm involved on the Tea Party issue so it really needs a neutral and experienced admin to take a look, but I think there is a wider behaviour issue for the community here. ----Snowded TALK 06:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re the two articles where P&W accuses me of bad behavior. The Danes article: Kerry Danes contacted me and asked if I could make some changes to the article. I made most changes she asked for except for ones involving legal documents in her possession that contradicted some media reports mentioned in the article and I told her I couldn't add it because the documents were not in the public domain, I then asked for help from the foundation response team who told me to post it at the BLP board which I did and she thanked me for what I had done. Editors at the BLP board were divided over the material and Jimbo Wales stubbed the article here. The BLP violations referred to unsourced material that had been in the article for four years, none of which was specifically about the Danes. In regards to the Franklin article, P&W originally edited that article to eliminate any mention that the main accused was very prominent in the Republican Party, not because he noticed BLP problems and that dispute lasted months with P&W the only editor opposing mention. He later introduced a source to support his own edits which several editors, including myself later used to add other material he then objected to. He took the issue to three different boards and after failing to get the author declared an unreliable source did get the author’s publisher declared unreliable at an RfC, which left everything in the article sourced to that author with BLP violations as it was now effectively unsourced. That was when he first argued BLP. An alternate source was disallowed as it was behind a paywall so the article was stubbed.
    Since then he has brought up the stubbing as a "evidence" of bad behavior on my part in every single disagreement we have. I can add the diffs when I have a lot more time. He was reported for this by another editor to the Wiki-etiquette board[85] which advised him to stop but he continued and it was brought up at a further two boards yet he still continues to bring it up despite frequent requests not to. He has even gone so far as to recently transclude another editors post that made the same claim from his talk page to the Ugg boot disputes talk page. I'm out of here. Wayne (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just need a neutral third party to close the Rfc. UGH....or is it UGG? I can't tell anymore.--MONGO 14:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been asked to comment here. The issue seems to be bad blood between Wayne and P&W from prior, completely unrelated, discussions which neither editor can let go of, and which P&W cannot restrain him/herself from constantly bringing up, no matter how inappropriate the situation (just see the initial report here). This has resulted in constant disruption at Ugg boots and related articles (see their related talk pages and marvel at the P&W's constant stream of tendentious editing). While P&W is most at fault here, Wayne isn't exactly helping by allowing himself to be baited by P&W's behaviour. I suggest that both editors should disengage, Wayne by stepping back from the Tea Party article (although P&W's claim that "has never before demonstrated any interest in articles on American politics" is contradicted by P&W him/herself when s/he refers to Wayne's editing about a scandal in Nebraska, which was in America the last time I checked a map) and P&W by practising what s/he preaches: if s/he thinks that Australians should not be working on articles about American political groups, then s/he should refrain from working on articles about Australian footwear. If they can't do this voluntarily, I'd suggest a topic ban on the Tea Party for Wayne, on ugg boots (broadly construed) for P&W, and a mutual interaction ban for both parties (for the sake of clarity, P&W should be restricted from bringing up his/her past disputes with Wayne) so that they can both get back to actually improving articles.
    The actual RFC close here appears sound; it would have been better to come from an uninvolved editor, but none seem to have been available (or cared about the subject) but as most support for P&W's preferred option was weak (the one !vote that appeared to give substantial backing to P&W was in fact copied and pasted by P&W from another discussion), if there was any consensus there, it was consensus not to include. Daveosaurus (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't you the complaining editor on all those bogus WP:SPI investigations against me? And the scandal in Nebraska wasn't about politics. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not I who started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix and Winslow; in its entire history I only ever made two edits to that page, the first almost six months after it was created; and the half a dozen or so socks blocked as a result indicate that it is not as bogus as you claim. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Daveosaurus. My own involvement is limited to being summoned by rfcbot to comment on the rfc in question, but what Daveosaurus describes is what I saw, as well. I further agree with his suggestions on how to handle the issue. These two editors don't seem capable of working with each other, as they are both highly opinionated and diametrically opposed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    One obvious problem with the proposed solution is that I started editing Ugg boots related articles before Wayne did. He has admitted it, and that he started editing there after his confrontations with me at the Franklin article and WP:RSN. The only thing he's denied is that he knew I was editing Ugg boots, and that he deliberately followed me there. He claims it was a happy coincidence. Real coincidences are very rare. If he did follow me there (and I suggest that he did, and his subsequent behavior suggests that he did), topic banning me on Ugg boots related articles would reward him for Wikistalking. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WLRoss (Wayne) apparently did edit the Ugg articles after you did and that was after the Franklin article where you first encountered him. On the Franklin article, the end result was it was stubbed out by User:NuclearWarfare in October 2011 [86], but it looks like its been expanded once again with similar sources as last time by other parties......now WLRoss has followed you to Tea Party articles...if this is the case, then thats stalking.--MONGO 03:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you check the history of Ugg boots you will see that I started editing in October 2010. Phoenix and Winslow edited two days later which would have been the first time that I knew he was also editing the article. Despite both of us editing that article frequently, the first time we actually interacted was on the Talk page in July 2011 when I replied to a post he wrote and there was no acrimony at all. The disputes first started in October 2011 when P&W objected to using the word "generic" in the article. Most editors opposed him so he posted the most insane personal attack against me that I've ever seen[87] in an attempt to discredit everyone who opposed him. That post was the first time either of us said a bad word about the other in that article. I remained completely civil in answering that post and the argument didn't develop until after P&W kept repeated the personal attack. You can check the entire discussion for yourself here. Being on the same article with another editor, treating them civilly for the first 12 months and then only starting to argue after they make unwarranted attacks on you, is that the behavior of a stalker? Wayne (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I just had a look at the editing history of Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. User:Phoenix and Winslow made his first edit to that article in January 2011, over three months after I first edited Ugg boots so I couldn't possibly have followed him from the Franklin article to Ugg boots. In fact, I could accuse him of following me to the Franklin article if I wanted to be petty about it. As for the Tea Party Movement article, I remind editors that the movement is relevant to Australia as it is frequently reported by the media here due to the movement starting up in Australia under the same name two years ago which maintains close links with the U.S. version.[88] Wayne (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's nip this in the bud to save flooding this page in even more text. On Phoenix and Winslow's Talk page he has indicated an intention[89] to claim I'm also stalking him on the Ward Churchill, Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin articles. Firstly, I had been editing the Churchill article for two years before Phoenix and Winslow edited the article for the first time. Regarding the Tarpley and Chaitkin articles, if P&W casts his mind back, he argued in the Franklin article that because the Tarpley and Chaitkin articles both claimed in their leads that they were conspiracy theorists, the Franklin article could say the Franklin accusations were also a conspiracy theory because Tarpley and Chaitkin both supported the accusations. I then went and had a look at both articles...and found that P&W himself had edited both articles hours earlier to include the claim, so I tagged both edits requesting cites. Other editors reverted both of P&W's edits the next day as vandalism. Turned out the claim in both articles had been rejected in recent RfCs at both pages. P&W was in fact altering other articles by adding unsourced information to support his arguments in an unrelated article, which, he did also at the Ugg boots trademark disputes article. I hope this puts the ridiculous stalking claims to bed. Wayne (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposed solution is not about "rewarding" anybody, it is about protecting the Wikipedia project from further disruption, such as has already occurred at Ugg boots trademark disputes thereby preventing that article from meeting the Good Article criteria. That you see this as a contest between yourself and Wayne is a large part of the problem here.
    As an aside, your time would probably be better spent improving the Tea Party movement article. I have just had a look at it, and as it is I need to scroll down ten screenfuls before I see even a mention of that aspect of the Tea Party that is best known overseas: its racial overtones, as exemplified by the image of a sub-literate racist at an anti-Obama protest holding up an offensive sign. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We're getting way off topic when we start accusing the Tea Party of racism at WP:ANI. (Your perception may be due to some selective perception by the foreign press, since many of the most beloved Tea Party candidates are black or Latino: Allen West, Ted Cruz, Herman Cain, Mia Love and Marco Rubio.) Wayne's analysis of the editing history at Ugg boots doesn't go back far enough. Here's a good look: [90] Notice that I was editing the article extensively all the way back in Summer 2010. First time as a registered account appears to be July 26, 2010.[91] Wayne edited it for the first time on October 20, 2010.[92] I added a lot of material on October 17 in four consecutive edits shown here:[93] I was active on the article's Talk page, and I had also edited the article on October 20,[94] hours before Wayne's first edit.
    However, Wayne's Ugg boots edits on October 20 were the last time he edited the article for several months. He evidently hadn't spoken with me and had effectively abandoned it while I continued working on it. At that point we were just two ships passing in the night. The first time we had any real face-to-face interaction was in January 2011 at the Franklin article. That interaction continued off and on for several months and grew increasingly frequent and acrimonious, as he defended the abundant policy violations in that article, which is what makes his sudden appearance on the Ugg boots Talk page on February 25, 2011[95] and his first edit to the article mainspacein nearly six months on March 2, 2011[96] a bit suspicious. With his appearance at Tea Party movement, it all becomes clear. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I somehow followed you to the Ugg article in February yet worked on it with no interaction with you until after you made the personal attack on me in October, 11 months later and to you that seems suspiciously like stalking and harassment? And you accuse me of pushing conspiracy theories. BTW, October 20 to March 2 is four months not "nearly six months". Wayne (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur that Daveosaurus desire to see one morons opinion about Obama festooned prominently in the Tea Party article would seriously violate weight. Hoever, the issue here is to make sure no one is wikihounding anyone else and see if you all can get along before this goes to arbcom. No one has the time or the desire to read a wall of text.--MONGO 15:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't want to make this another wall of words

    ... but as I've said, Wayne's defense is to build wall after wall of words, consisting of brick after brick of distortion and spin-doctoring. I can either let them stand, or laboriously start tearing them down one brick at a time. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply by Wayne(WLRoss)

    Battle is a bit of an exaggeration. At the Ugg boots article, User:Phoenix and Winslow has generally found himself a sole voice in promoting Deckers Outdoor Corporation in a long-running series of content disputes. Where he has had support, many of those editors have been either blocked as sockpuppets or named as meatpuppets.[97] For transparency: Phoenix and Winslow has active accounts on the German[98], Spanish[99], Norwegian[100], Polish[101], Romanian[102] and Swedish[103] Wikipedia's. None of these accounts have made any edits outside of their respective Ugg Boot articles and all edits are promotional in favour of Deckers. In the case of the Spanish article, it was created by Phoenix and Winslow and is a good example for comparison to the English.[104]
    The article Ugg boots trademark disputes was the result of several RfC’s and related discussions at the Ugg boots page and was intended to cover the genericity dispute so it need only be summarized at Ugg boots. The consensus was to cover only the genericity dispute and exclude all other disputes. As the Ugg boots trademark disputes article was stable for 12 months, I applied for WP:GA status. P&W now argued that (paraphrased) the article leant too heavily towards Australian boot manufacturers and their disputes with Deckers Outdoor Corporation and cast Deckers in a negative light when it should also include trade dress disputes Deckers have been involved in. Specifically counterfeits. I made a considerable number of concessions to P&W’s edit requests, allowing content with limited relevance into the article but stood firm on not allowing counterfeits per the previous RfC's.

    • As this issue could not be resolved on 21 March I opened an RfC with the heading; RfC: Should this article include other disputes involving Ugg boots? Below I posted Should this article be expanded to include copyright and trade dress disputes involving Ugg boots? I truly can't see how this is not a neutral question so I leave that to admins.
    • Phoenix and Winslow then canvassed a large number of editors to take part in this RFC. In his posts he reframed the RFC as "a question of law" and asked editors Is the counterfeiting of brand name goods a "trademark dispute" when the counterfeiters are taken to court?...vote Support if you believe counterfeiting is a trademark dispute when taken to court, or “Oppose” if you believe the reverse is true.[105] Hardly a neutral question.
    • P&W bases his arguments largely on WP:PRECISION. This is the "policy based argument" he is referring to. I replied that he couldn’t cherry-pick which portions of WP:TITLE applied to the article and that the article title is the name commonly used by sources for the genericity dispute and is used correctly per WP:TITLE. The article lead also explains this. This explanation was supported by other editors and was given to P&W maybe five or six times.
    • P&W transcluded two favourable comments from his talk page to "Support" votes in the RfC without the editors permission. In one case the editor specifically stated he did not want to vote. These votes were deleted by other editors with one being replaced later when the editor gave P&W permission to include it.
    • On 25 March, P&W posted other related articles (UGG Australia and Deckers Outdoor Corporation) have counterfeiting as a SUBSECTION of trademark disputes to support his case.[106] I had a look at both articles and found that P&W had edited both the previous day to make the counterfeiting sections sub-sections.
    • On 26 March, P&W posted a new competing RfC under "Politics, Government, and the Law" and worded the question the same as in his canvassing posts.[107]
    • On 26 March P&W posted these personal attacks against two editors.[108]
    • An editor warned P&W about additional canvassing on 26 March and suggested administrative action be taken.[109]
    • P&W did not complain about the wording of the original question until 8 April by which time consensus was clearly against him.[110]

    On 18 April I applied for the RfC to be formally closed at WP:AN/RFC, specifically requesting either resolution or abandonment due to it being compromised by the canvassing and improper additional RFC. It was one of only two requests for an article RfC closure on the page for several days and requests posted several days after mine were acted on. I waited one week, there had been no reply at WP:AN/RFC, no additional votes for two weeks and no further comments posted for seven days. I was ok with accepting the 7/3 consensus as only two support votes resulted from the canvassing and P&W still has the option of bringing a new RfC at a later date. P&W remained virtually the only editor still objecting and as this same RFC had previously returned the same result twice before, per WP:RFC I closed it, listed the result and added a comment that if there were any objection to bring it up in discussion. After P&W objected I told him to take it to another board if he thought I had closed the RFC in a manner that was not neutral or did not reflect the consensus. He then warned me that if the RfC was not re-opened he would report me to ANI. I told him that I had already offered him that option if he had a problem with me closing it.
    In total the RFC goes on for over 14,000 words so it is a big read. I have no problem with my own behavior being scrutinized and accept I may have been short with P&W at times. As far as I'm aware, I have complied with WP:RFC#Ending RfCs closure requirements. Wayne (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    I like both of these folks and was sort of "in the middle" at the article as a GA reviewer who became a bit of a semi-mediator. I think that the dominant force is the people dynamics between these two folks rather than the content dispute itself. My main advice is the do a thorough close on the discussion, and to recommend to them to try to avoid increases in contact (e.g. nobody follow anybody). North8000 (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I am currently tutoring a student for his masters degree and he needs to use my computer atm so I will briefly cover this. Phoenix and Winslow and I have only found ourselves editing the same article three times. I was editing the Franklin article before P&W showed up and six months later it was vice versa on the Ugg boot article which I had no idea he was editing. I ended up at Tea Party page two and half years later as a result of User:North8000 becoming the reviewer of the GA I proposed, seeing an invitation on his Talk Page to comment and I had a look. Contrary to P&W's claim that I’ve taken the opposite side, on the Tea Party article, although he objects to some of what I have said he has supported the compromise edit that I proposed there for the lead. Considering we are talking about three articles over a three year period it is hardly stalking. I have also edited many American and several American political articles in the past. Wayne (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just being clear, I did NOT mean to imply or even hint that there has been any improper "following", and please accept my apology if I did not make that clear enough. What I was trying to say is just a recommendation of a bit of an effort to minimize interaction in areas where it is not already occurring. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A substantial part of the problem in dealing with Wayne is that he constantly spin-doctors and distorts everything, using what can best be described as a "wall of words" defense, and unraveling all the distortions is such a monumental task. I have walked away from the Wikipedia project twice because of his behavior. The first time for a month, the second time for about a year. He violates policy whenever it suits him, as the stubbing of the Danes and Franklin articles confirm, and takes Wikilawyering to an entirely new level. For example, as they said at WP:RSN regarding his favorite source on the Franklin article, "Unreliable publisher = unreliable source." I've even posted that quote for him in recent weeks and he still claims that the publisher, but not the source, was found unreliable. As another example, he never had consensus to make Ugg boots trademark disputes limited to the genericity dispute. He had one or two editors supporting the idea, a couple opposed. Several editors who have supported me over the years — MONGO, LuckyLouie, Liangshan Yi, ChristieSwitz88001 and Factchk among others — have never been blocked as socks or found to be meatpuppets. I've been the subject of WP:SPI four different times and walked away clean every time, but he continues to present this innuendo. Some forms of canvassing are acceptable, and the line that must not be crossed is "stacking the deck" — canvassing only the people you know will support you. I have never, ever crossed that line. I could continue, but you get the idea.
    • The improper closure of the RfC needs to be addressed. He's using formal closure, he's about as far removed from being an "uninvolved editor" as he could be while still staying on the same planet, and he trampled all over Liangshan Yi in the process. It needs to be closed by an uninvolved editor, preferably an admin, and the closure needs to focus on the policy-related arguments.
    • The bias in the original RfC question needs to be addressed. He asked whether copyright and trade dress issues should be included. He already admitted that counterfeiting is a trademark dispute,[111] and the article is about trademark disputes. So continuing to pretend that counterfeiting is a copyright/trade dress matter was dishonest, and designed to get the answers he wanted. This skewed the vote for the first week or so — a critical period.
    • And his Wikistalking needs to be addressed. We have spent a substantial amount of time butting heads on four different articles, not three. I've been editing the Tea Party movement article for only about two months, and he shows up. I've been unable to find any evidence that he has ever edited an article about American politics before, but I admit that I've only reviewed the past couple of years of his submissions. He claims he didn't know I was editing Ugg boots, but it's clear that wouldn't have made a difference — he was well aware that I was editing the Tea Party article and showed up, joining the other side in a content dispute immediately. Most of the time I work on only a couple of large articles at a time. Otherwise, it appears that he would have shown up at seven, or eight, or ten of them over the past three years, taking the opposite side on any content dispute in sight, and his Wikistalking would have been obvious long before now. To answer North8000, my decision to start editing the Tea Party article was, in fact, "an effort to minimize interaction in areas where it is not already occurring." I was trying to find an area of WP that interested me, and was not already being WP:OWNed by Wayne. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, by the way: on the Franklin article, the guy that he partnered up with to WP:OWN the article, and preserve all those BLP violations from that unreliable source, was named Apostle12. Scroll up. Much of what's being said about Apostle12 fits Wayne like a glove. They picked up a lot of each other's dubious skill sets when working on that article. Here we are, two years later ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that limiting Ugg boots trademark disputes to just one type of trademark dispute (genericity) is a form of WP:POVFORK. It directs all material that the WP:OWNing editors find inconvenient to a different article — in this case, UGG Australia. I hope that getting some previously uninvolved and experienced eyes on this will produce a result that is positive for Wikipedia. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC closure issue is a complete cluster, but let us not confuse the improper closure with the clear consensus that was formed at the RfC against having illegal counterfeiting be equated with legal disputes about trademarks. Phoenix and Winslow misrepresented WLRoss's position [112] as being in agreement when it is patently clear that WLRoss continues to oppose the inclusion of counterfeiting. This issue is getting very ugly, with Phoenix and Winslow creating the most disruption. I say stick a fork in the RfC and tell Phoenix and Winslow to stop arguing for the inclusion of counterfeiting. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Deleting sourced material the Weight of chains

    Article The Weight of Chains is having a problem. Couple (obviously Serbian) users constantly remove sourced section "Criticism"

    and others. Please, action! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.15.156 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 29 April 2013‎

    You neglected to disclose your own participation in this matter, and to notify the users concerned as instructed at the top of the page. Not that bringing the matter here was particularly appropriate in the first place, mind you—this is a re-eruption of a garden-variety content dispute which is already being discussed on the article's talk page, and which was previously discussed there and at other venues such as WP:RSN. It seems the only party not actively discussing the matter (but rather choosing to mischaracterize edits as "vandalism") is the roving IP editor. If more attention to this dispute is required, it should be sought at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, not here. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst we're here, though... UrbanVillager's editing pattern is nothing new, but I am concerned that Staro Gusle is a new account which has immediately started editing on controversial topics - even rather obscure articles which just happen to have been battlegrounds involving a handful of long-established editors. For instance, Malagurski films and Ukshin Hoti. This is their third edit. Their editing spree started editing on 27 April. Compare to this edit by Evlekis, who was blocked on 25 April. bobrayner (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As Psychonaut noted, there has already been a dispute regarding the content in question, and as one of the sides in the dispute, I'd like to repeat that I absolutely support criticism being added to any topic. However, the references that are being used in the new section in question ("Criticism") are not reliable as they consist of Internet blogs and self-published web portals. Desperately adding criticism carried by unreliable sources is worse than not having any criticism until reliable sources are found. Also, thanks to Psychonaut for informing me of this discussion, as the IP never did. --UrbanVillager (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    For other admins who may be unaware, the reference to UrbanVillager's editing pattern above likely means the BM/"Serbian Youth League" stuff: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bormalagurski/Archive. I remain convinced in the accuracy of the large amount of evidence on how this user is involved in long-term abuse of Wikipedia, but I concede that in this latest reincarnation they've mastered their skill of wikilawyering to such an extent that they've rendered our typical methods of curbing such abuse ineffective. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I completely agree with Joy's stance but that's not a problem we're going to solve here today on an AN/I thread. So; who is Staro Gusle (talk · contribs)? I'm quite busy today so I don't have time to dig through lots different people's edits for comparisons, but it's very difficult to believe this is a new editor. bobrayner (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw the piece was removed many times, the source is unreliable and above that, it is very badly written, wording out of place, just looks very out of place on the article and only seems to be forced in by anonymous editors. Staro Gusle (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The account was created two days after the block/topic ban of Evlekis (talk · contribs) and began edits from the get-go in similar topics with similar views. Look at the Serb/Montenegrin/Yugoslav perpetration of crimes in List of massacres in the Kosovo War [116][117][118] and Ćuška massacre [119][120] and Albanian/Serbian names in Climate of Kosovo [121][122], Đakovica [123][124], and Ferizaj/Uroševac [125][126]. Staro Gusle's IP [127] also stems from the UK like Evlekis. In my opinion this is a clear case of WP:DUCK. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As mentioned on talk page, the only problem is "labelling" the sources. Some editors described some sources as "unreliable". The only reason for that is they (e-novine for instance) support left-wing in Serbia, while others like Politika, Večernje novosti are supporters of Serbian right-wing and huge history of war mongering during the period of Break-up of Yugoslavia (which happens to be topic of the movie)

    See the section :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_propaganda_in_the_Yugoslav_Wars#Milo.C5.A1evi.C4.87.27s_reign_and_control_of_media_in_Serbia

    I love how people present Politika as Milosevic's propaganda newspaper. The newspaper is the oldest daily in the Balkans, founded in 1904, not even Milosevic's parents were born back then, maybe not even his grandparents. And Milosevic was deposed in 2000, died in 2006, while the Politika articles that are cited as sources were all written after 2006. Get over the past, Politika is the oldest and most reliable newspaper in the Balkans. E-novine doesn't even have a print edition, it just re-posts blog posts. As for Joy's comments, I'm sure he or she is convinced that I'm, actually, Boris Malagurski or one of his associates, but this has been disproved in countless Wiki-investigations (and you can start countless more, but I'm sorry, I won't turn into Boris Malagurski, that can happen only in science fiction), and I have never abused Wikipedia - if I didn't respect Wikipedia, I wouldn't be here or I would've been blocked a long time ago (all I've done is tried my best to add sourced information to articles that are of an interest to me), but I'm getting quite sick of these personal attacks (especially taking into consideration that they're being made by an administrator, among others), just because Joy seems to have personal issues with Malagurski and his work. I'll repeat, I have nothing against adding criticism about Malagurski and his films (I agreed wholeheartedly to the addition of criticism to the Malagurski article that had a reliable Croatian source as the reference), but the goal is not to desperately look for criticism in blogs and self-published web portals. Wikipedia doesn't care about personal issues. I'm willing to work with everyone who has the quality of the article and the rules of Wikipedia at heart, regardless of whether they like or dislike Malagurski and his work. I personally like some of his films, but I can be quite critical about them too. I wish there was more criticism about his films in reliable sources, because his films deserve criticism as well, as any piece of work does. I repeat, that does not mean we can create a blog post and use that as criticism, just for the sake of having criticism. Or am I wrong? --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Politika is the oldest and most reliable newspaper in the Balkans.

    All I can say on this statement is [128]

    We all know when Politika was founded, but we are also very well aware what they became during 1990s. AS well as RTS that apologized for the role from the same infamous period. [129] [130] [131]

    Before ANI

    Nothing requiring admin action here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Is it worthy of Admin notice if an editor attempts to demote a User's reputation during discussions (without really caring what the discussion is and not even adding any input).Lucia Black (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please always provide links to the diff in question (example) for discussion here. To answer your question, grossly insulting, defamatory, or threatening language may merit immediate action such as reporting here and/or WP:REVDEL. See WP:Talk pages and WP:CIVIL. Off-topic comments which only attack can be summarily deleted, and the author warned on their Talk page with one of the standard templates (such as those provided by Twinkle). In mild cases, several warnings may need to be given before it's appropriate to bring here. Calm discussion can, if you're lucky, defuse an abusive situation. --Lexein (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why provide links if I won't know the outcome? This editor had several issues in the past not relating to this particular case. Niemti recently did atttempt to give bad rep Here's one example: [132] and again Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Opening comments by Niemti.Lucia Black (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on what I've read, the nudge to the other editor you linked was somewhat impolite, but not abusive, nor creating of a hostile environment, so IMHO no, not requiring adminstrative action. Yes, that editor should not make comments about you: article discussions should not be about editors, they should be about content. On the other hand, I've seen no evidence of you de-escalating or thanking other editors for contributing. Wikipedia really isn't the place for strong opinions. Please read WP:TIGERS. It also isn't the place for radical merges done without extensive discussion and definitive consensus. I hope you're beginning to see that. You seem litigious: you've sought administrative action twice, and were summarily denied. These are, in my opinion, very strong clues that you're taking the wrong tack with other editors. I encourage further discussion and calm reflection with other editors at the WP:TEAHOUSE - they're awesome, and probably use gentler language than I do. --Lexein (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That's the issue with ANI, admins have this unwritten rule that allows bad behaviour to occur just because the admin believes s/he was asking for it. Or WP:BOOMERANG where one hurts his/her cause by falling down to the, but honestly we're all human and the worst part there's no medium between severe actions and smaller actions that tick other editors off that will affect in the long run. This can affect good editors (especially the ones who don't trust Wikipedia's resolution system). You can't possibly expect a cool headed editor to stay cool aftr constant interuption by those passionate strong opinioned ones.

    Niemti was not part of the discussion, was not posting anything at all about the topic, and also has had issues in the past that also had attempts of a block.

    So does it even matter if I never thanked anyone for their contributions (during that discussion, because I have thanked editors before. Quite recently). What makes you think I never tried to de-escalate the situation? I'm not stupid and I can tell when editors attempt to "game the discussion" and a specific editor has derailed the conversation so many times. One tends to lose it. But that's not even important. Niemti really didn't care about the topic. All the editor wanted to do was to tell other editors to ignore me. And this is coming from the editor who has had several issues in the past. And I mention this because you seem to keep tabs on failed ANI.

    And I HATE how admins take this as a content issue rather than behaviour issue.Lucia Black (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The opposite, in which admins take the power unto themselves to determine what's right, is a tenfold worse than the system we have now. Admins are not leaders. We are not in charge. We push buttons when asked to in discussions or when previous discussions have determined the conditions to push them without further discussion. If you're looking for "someone in charge" to "right great wrongs", you are better off holding an WP:RFC. We don't run the place, you do.--v/r - TP 13:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not related to this specific discussion or necessarily to anyone who has commented or is otherwise tied to this specific discussion, but that's funny. --Onorem♠Dil 13:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    "What? Of course I was "a part of discussion" (it's especially ridiculous because it's so easy to check), and which is why they asked me to comment. And which is why commented. Knowing from my prior experience, LB is practically impossible to be convinced by anyone (not even by me) about anything (even very trivial matters, with people commenting on how she's "melodramatic" about it), or to agree to any compromise, why never presenting any counter-arguments (besides having a strong opinion and then stonewalling). OK, I'm not needed here, right? Cool. --Niemti (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Niemti did nothing wrong here, all he said was that he wasn't really involved or interested in the issue, but that he did know that Lucia had been difficult to work with in the past. Lucia, its your own fault you've grown a reputation for being difficult to work with. (Something I've witnessed first and second hand.) Definitely no action warranted here. I agree with Lexein that Lucia probably needs some reflection - on how she handles herself on Wikipedia, her own understanding of incivility, NPA, and what warrants administrative action or a trip to ANI... Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Niemti: Compromise means both sides give up something. When did you ever gave a compromise where you also gave up on something? We had only 1 heated argument. Just 1. And you were outvoted too. But you were as stubborn as I was (and worst). The other editor "gave up" because it didn't matter how much consensus we gained, you would have ignored it. You were "part" of the discussion in the sense that User:ChrisGualtieri wanted another editor to outvote me (and somehow still believing User:Ryulong was on his side aswell). On another note: Providing no counter arguments? Really? Before this gets anymore heated, I will say that's a flat out LIE. I won't expand on that because just explaining it all is irritating and ridiculous.
    @Sergecross: Of course he did something wrong. He provided no discussion relating to the topic and just wants to mention how "difficult" I am to others and should "ignore" me. You're bias and you know it. If an editor vandalized my page, would you agree because you believe their telling the truth? You don't really have a say in this. You and me have our own issues, that doesn't mean I have a reputation everywhere else and it shouldn't even have to be that way. Why should disputes among you and a small handful of editors attempt to overshadow my good editing skills and editing choices?
    So what if I'm difficult? And I ask that because its like asking a policeman why he constantly being a stickler about the rules. If I recall correctly, being difficult has its merits: Example Tails (character) name. The only time being "difficult" is an issue if the editor constantly loses. But being "difficult" being negative and positive is subjective. Passionate, inexperienced editors may deem you difficult. Does that mean you have a rep of being difficult. I also noticed first-hand editors end up agreeing with me months later and being approved. So I've seen editors neglect and oppose out of spite (as crazy as it may sound but I got the proof).
    Being difficult is something all editors have because its totally subjective. Whether you agree and disagree about what that editor is being difficult for is what makes other editors see you in a good or bad way. And in this case, Niemti didn't even put his imput on the topic, he derailed the discussion making it about me and how I should be ignored. You agree, doesn't makee it right.Lucia Black (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So, with all that finger pointing, I'll take that as you're not interested in taking the advice you've been given about reflection on yourself and interpretation of policy, huh? Best of luck trying to hammer your views on incivility and misconduct at ANI then... Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not exactly saying I'm wrong. I asked before reporting if the incident would be worth it. And it was. But then the editor tried to turn it around saying I never thanked an editor for contributin or made no attempt to de-escalate (if Niemti was making a relavant point in the discussion and made several points before then I MIGHT have listened). Also attempted to make this a content issue rather than behavior issue. I never once brought up the discussion of the merger. Hence "Before ANI". Most of these editors don't get banned but just barely. User:ChrisGualtieri for example. In the beginning, ignored consensus and attempted to overhaul an article and didn't and still doesn't follow BRD rules. Once reported here, he is forced to discuss but the moment the discussion closes he reverts back. I gave up, months later, an editor user:Ryulong does a revert on his edits. And now that consensus is stronger, has no choice. Instead though makes him out to be his savior or his trump card despite user:Ryulong not agreeing with a single thing (at first didn't agree with me but that was a misunderstanding). But he goes so far to reward a barnstar.
    I know the policy well. But admins here have allowed bad behavior because they don't deem it worthy of their attention or see the other editors falling to their level. Let's just say this is just further proof of corruption in ANI. And I'll be proposing a medium between long term incivility, and minor passive aggresive action that will affect in the long run that will compliment ANI better.Lucia Black (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging by how many times you've been told you're wrong about "incivility" both at ANI and my talk page through talk page stalkers, makes me think that no, you don't have a good grasp on that concept. I'm not sure how're you're making things seem so complicated. You asked if Admin attention was warranted. You were told no. The end. No action required, this should be closed and archived. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That attitude of yours is common in wikipedia. You try to over simplify something. Unless you're n admin, I suggest you keep your opinions to yourself. You don't care what the subject is as long as its against me.

    I asked if admin attention was warrranted before giving links. He said it was warrantable (made up word) and I provided links. He derailed the discussion to excuse why no admin action was taking place. And you're continuing to make this about the past rather than focusing on the actual situation. So I could careless about your judgement on me, no one here gave a relevant reason why this shouldn't ANI.Lucia Black (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    REQUESTING ADMIN ONLY: I'll say it again, user:Niemti is informing editors that I'm being difficult and should be ignored in public domain. This editor made no attempt to resolve the actual Topic at hand and made it clear he has no interest in it.

    I can understand, in the heat of discussing, editors would defame for the sake of the topic (User:Ryulong and User:ChrisGualtieri), I can even understand if this was done at their talkpage. But in this particular situation, User:Niemti was being abusive.Lucia Black (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Raskolnikoff13 at Günther Reindorff

    A relatively new user Raskolnikoff13 decided that Wikipedia is battleground, and started to edit-war [133], [134], [135]. Note POV statements in the edit summaries. I would have no difficulties going for WP:DRN, but the user seems to not be looking for a compromise solution, despite being warned first in the edit summaries, then more strongly at the talk page of the article [136] and at their own talk page [137]. The user edited after these warnings were issued. I am not willing to revert the article every time just to draw their attention, and they do not seem to react on anything else and have only two edits outside of this article and its talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed a piece of Soviet propaganda. Günther Reindorff was not a Soviet nor Russian, although Estonia was occupied by Soviet Union during the last decades of his life. I have done nothing to apologize and to "warn" me. --Raskolnikoff13 (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a great illustration of my point, that the user basically demonstrates battleground behavior and lack of understanding what neutrality means.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Contributions/82.122.74.60

    Just for your attention.Tagremover (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Red X User blocked for spam. Others are on the revert trail. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 10:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SAADGT and User:SAADWWE

    SAADGT (talk · contribs) and SAADWWE (talk · contribs) appear to both be the same editor who has a history of uploading files with incorrect license information. Both accounts have been blocked in the past (though only the former for copyright abuse), and it seems they're continuing to upload images with misleading copyright notices[138][139] despite many warnings. While I appreciate that it is difficult for new users to grasp why certain images cannot be used, this has been going on for some time with no effort made on behalf of this user to cease. A simple look at this user's Commons accounts [140][141] show that they slowly but continually upload images with incorrect rationale. What should be done about this? — Richard BB 15:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This was about to rightly fall-off as it's obviously the "wrong venue", but as you simply changed the timestamps, I'll remind you that although some duckishness may be obvious, the minute you start asking people to review their edits on other projects it means it's probably time for WP:SPI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Milowent has engaged in multiple very reude actions. This user has called me "The Unintentional He-man women haters club president". I do not appreciate this rudeness. This user has lied about what I said in a facebook discussion on the discussion which had no relevance to wikipedia, and used this to personally attack me on the discussion. In this [142] eduit she implied that those of us who do not see eye-to-eye with her "do not live in the real world. She has called me "the primary source of the problem", when I did not create the discussed category, was not the first person to add to it, I was not the first person to move people into it and out of Category:American novelists. Here persistent attempts to blame me for it and insult me and malign me in the process are very disturbing. They also suggest that their comparison to Nazis and to the support for slavery were both meant to be personal insults at me since she claims that I am personally resposnsible for the problem. Here [143] is where she calls me out with "do you admit or deny" that " your public facebook page you advocated that a female president should be called "presidentess"" I emphatically deny that as a false representation of what I actually advocated. What I advocated is people know as "mission president's wives", and officially identified with that title in the most relevant publications on the matter, such as this [144] Deseret News article that discusses their added role, should be called "presidentesses". This editor did not aplogize for comapring me to those who massively exterminated the Jews and Gypsies. This editor's rhetoric rhetoric of claiming I am "the most responsible" shows that their statements on the discussion of Category:Americn women novelists at CfD that those involved there were like the Nazis, shows that they are trying to specifically compare me to a Nazi. I do not appreciate such personal attacks. This [145] posting of a statement from my private facebook page was totally inaprpriate and clearly constituted a personal attack. Their false explanation of what I said, both on that page and in the discussion of Category:American women novelists is even more disturbing. Here [146] is where they bring up her totally personal attack on me, but falsely representing my postion on titles. Here [147] is where they bring in slavery, Here [148] is where she compares wikipedia editos to "Nazi soldiers". Here [149] is a diff where they trie to ban me from editing an article because the subject has supposedly "directly called into question John Pack Lambert". Tht is a new one, a-I have still to see where the subject personally attacks me, and b-when did it become possible to personally attack an editor and thus ban them from editing your article, and c- All I did was move the person to a more specific, by genre article, yet they have acted like I am somehow the one who has removed text from the article involved, which is totally not true. I find the tone of their comments on JohnHinsdales user page seen here [150] also disturbing. To call other editors edits "fecal matter" is needless rude and combative. I find the personal attacks very disturbing. Editors should not have their comments on wikipedia attack on false represenatations of what they have said elsewhere. To do so is a personal attack that is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that Milowent's behavior is out of control, as indicated by the cited diffs. Some action is appropriate to stop the disruptiveness and incivility. There are multiple parties to the situation, though, so there may be other editors whose behavior needs to be addressed. (I haven't looked to see who else might be at fault here.) --Orlady (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, that is quite the paragraph. To respond to all this would take quite some time. The short version: John Pack Lambert is the primary editor defending Category:American women novelists despite the NYTimes op-ed and numerous other respected commentators uniformly decrying this unfortunate event. Jimbo (whose first comment on the whole drama was titled "WTF" - ban him now for uncivility, btw!) basically suggested he might be banned for this behavior, though there's been no real push for a ban (User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#WTF.3F). What does need to be done is that the problem needs to be fixed. John, unfortunately, has also been willy-nilly creating other new categories since the "scandal broke", including putting the author of the NYTimes op-ed (Amanda Filipacchi) into another new category he created (Category:American humor novelists, also now at CfD). Indeed, I did empty most of the Category:American men novelists category because it was created as a JOKE by an editor who put two females who use initials into it. JohnHinsdale, an infrequent editor, then put about 50 of the best known male American novelists of all time into the category; I believe he did it as a joke, though he has not confirmed that. My actions have been in good faith, the "NAZI OMG" aspersions cast against me have come in the back and forth of discussions and not as personal attacks. I admit that I misunderstood JPL's promotion of the term "presidentess", which is an archaic term for a female president, but not the way he apparently intended it to be used in a context outside wikipedia. I also admit I used the term "fecal matter".
    Lastly, I admit, though JPL calls me "she" four times above, that I am male. If I've been a little heated, I promise to calm down. But the most uncivil actions on Wikipedia are deeds, not words. And the deed that has been done recently to female novelists, even if done unintentionally, must be rectified.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • An editor holding opinions different than yours is not grounds to compare them to those who put people in slavery or to Nazis. The bottom line is that disagreement with actions does not justify personal attacks. I do not think Milowent understands this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See John, this is why you have trouble interacting with folks around here. The way the slavery/nazi references came in was because Obi-Wan Kenobi pooh-poohed the whole categorization problem by saying the U.S. Library of Congress was just as guilty and sexist as Wikipedia. The comparison was ridiculous, so I noted the US Government also supported slavery, but that's wasn't a reason to endorse it. Obi then replied to my comment by saying I basically went Godwin in no time flat by referencing slavery--Godwin is a reference to invoking a Nazi comparison, as I noted in response. I did not EVER compare any editor to a slavery supporter or nazi. I tried to maintain good humor throughout a very very disturbing situation, which you have exacerbated in many ways since the "scandal" broke.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to correct what Milowent said, my intent in these edits [151], [152], was to point out that the world was making a lot of noise about one particular cat, but ignoring the much larger structural issues, both in wikipedia and in the broader world, over which those writing articles in the NY times should be even more incensed. I wasn't joking when I said why aren't they attacking the Library of Congress - these are professional librarians, professional category experts, and even they have so-called "ghettoized" categories for female novelists. Thus either they are also guilty of rampant sexism, or the whole thing is overblown and just a misunderstanding of the nature of categorization and sub-categorization. In any case, Milowent quickly turned the Nazi/slavery thing into a joke, and I don't think the whole Nazi thing is worth exploring further - it was a pecadillo and definitely worth moving on.
    Milowent has however (a) admittedly emptied categories that were currently being discussed at CFD, in contravention of policy and (b) behaved in an uncivil manner, throwing around the terms racist and sexist with abandon. For this at least a trout is certainly merited.
    In any case, I invite all here, especially Milowent, to take the categorization quiz I put together, so we can see if anyone, on any side of this issue, can correctly and fully categorize a single bio without falling prey to a situation that would get you accused of either "sexism" or "racism". I've spent about an hour in total now sorting out all of the possible categories, and I'm quite sure no-one will pass the test (even my answer key is likely flawed!) - that's the challenge with this domain- you can correctly and in a non-sexist manner categorize someone in 32 different categories, but if you miss one - BOOM - you're a sexist. Non-diffusing gender/ethnic cats are actually quite hard to do really well, that's my main point - so accusations of sexism and racism are uncalled for and serve only to fan the flames rather than help us move forward with a workable solution.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • lol, Shadowjams. You just e/c'ed on following from me: "If you want to get in the weeds all day, I know the admins who work on this page really love it. Let's back-and-forth with increasing indents until we need 50 inch wide screens to read our debate. No need to talk about the substance underlying things."--Milowent • hasspoken 18:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hopefully someone with some sense will come along and close it right away - otherwise it will go and and on and on and might get ugly. I've been asked on my page to adhere closely to policy, (especially civility and AGF), which has had a chilling effect so won't say any more at this time. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The disruptiveness over this issue is not limited to these two editors. There are a few others who have been fanning the flames with personally insulting comments and/or allusions to ignominious historical events. It wouldn't do much good to block several editors. I suggest that the experienced users who have been misbehaving (including JPL and Milowent) should withdraw from the battlefield (stay away from the discussions for 24 hours) -- but only after you excise the personally offensive comments you have made. A renewal of hostilities may lead to more severe sanctions. --Orlady (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, "mission presidents' wives" is a somewhat unwieldy term to be using, so I can see why someone would want a shorter alternative. "Presidentesses" would probably be too much of a neologism though to be using in articles though. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't comment on this one - that is another reason for a nice wet trout for Milowent. Going off-wiki, finding a random facebook posting an editor made having nothing whatsoever to do with wikipedia or the articles under discussion, and then mis-representing the intent of that posting in several places is going too far IMHO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Mark Arsten's comment illustrates why the issue is totally irrelevant. Facebook and news article comment board comments I have made were with the intention of creating a new use of a term. I fully accept that terms are not to be created on wikipedia, and have not to my knowledge tried to do so. I edited the article on Mission (LDS) to reflect the most recent policy changes but did not try to insert the new term into it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to Obi, I did not go trolling around off-wiki for the presidentess thing, it was posted by others on twitter. But I can't believe anyone is focusing on that tiff rather than the underlying problems. And for anyone still interested in the weeds, I am discerning JPL didn't know the pop-culture source of my one edit summary joke referencing him as "the unintentional He-man women haters club president" for doing most of the editing work removing women from the American novelists category, which is what triggered the controversy. Its from a 1937 Little Rascal's episode.[153].--Milowent • hasspoken 03:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonetheless, *you* grabbed it off twitter, and then *you* posted it in various forms and made various accusations about it on several pages. I see that you've apologized about that, so I would also consider that closed - once the wet trout is applied. :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    And by the way, there is now a Salon piece [154] decrying the recent treatment of Amanda Filipacchi's page as "revenge editing" since the 1st op ed appeared. --Milowent • hasspoken 03:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting, but off-topic for this particular discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-topic? What about this detailed expose of JohnPackLambert's actions in the The New York Review of Books by James Gleick?[155] He concludes, "People of Wikipedia! You have a problem." No one rational, absolutely no one, is complaining about editors like myself who have raised the red flags and tried to stop this fiasco.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Milo, you're still engaging in the same sort of behavior which brought you to ANI in the first place - for example, going off wiki and bringing in irrelevant stuff. Now, the James Gleick piece clearly relevant, but the Salon link has *nothing* to do with JPL. You seem really obsessed and upset with what the media is writing about us here, but it is all going to blow over, and once several hundred women have been put back in the famous Category:American novelist category, everyone will go away - even as endemic ghettoization remains. There won't be more exposes in the NY Times or Salon or anywhere else about ghettoization of Christians, of native americans, of male prostitutes, of gay people, etc etc. Those people out there, that are writing this stuff? They don't care enough to fix it, so I tend to ignore them more or less...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I got brought to ANI by the editor who is documented by numerous reliable sources, cited everyday on the project for our content, to be the problem. I love how when Wikipedia is the subject, some editors wish to ignore all those same sources on which the project is built. Its pathetic, which is why most people are staying away from this thread. Let it be closed and let the CfDs continue.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Johnpacklambert

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

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

    Topic ban Johnpacklambert from CfD?

    NOPE
    Clearly not happening. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. Support as nom pbp 18:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Oppose. --Orlady (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Oppose. Note that User:Purplebackpack89 previously took this to an RFC - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Johnpacklambert. There are a lot of broader issues here and singling out one editor will do no good. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Oppose - No Shadowjams (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    5. No, absolutely not. Disagreed w/ John in the past, but nothing justifies a ban. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: Nobody has yet to give a valid reason as to why Johnpacklambert's actions are acceptable. "No" or "Oppose" is not a valid reason, sorry. JPL has clearly been a disruptive influence at WP:CfD for months. As such, the one-word "No" or "Oppose" votes should be stricken unless someone can provide a better reason why JPL's disruptive influence should continue pbp 19:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Hm. You haven't given reasons, so what exactly should one say other than "no"? Your personal rants aren't reasons. Diffs are. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) No, the onus is on you (pbp) to substantiate your claims, not them to substantiate theirs. Also, "someone disagrees with him, therefore that person should be booted": pot calling the kettle black? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The burden of proof is on the person asking for the ban. Nobody needs to give a reason not to ban. You need to provide a compelling reason why it should. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      My reasons are pretty clearly delineated in the section entitled "User:Johnpacklambert" above. The general reasoning is his tendency to edit-war over categories, his tendency to mass-add or mass-delete categories from pages when he's losing at CfD, his tendency to respond to almost every comment in CfDs he's started where others disagree with him, and in general major, major, major OWNership issues at CfD pbp 19:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Another rant w/o reasons. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Excuse me? Ownership and disruption at CfD are perfectly acceptable reasons to be banned from there. pbp 20:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      When are you going to provide reasons/diffs? Prolonged unsubstantiated accusations are personal attacks and could very much lead to your own block or ban. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    6. oppose what looks like an opportunistic attempt at settling an old grudge. Mangoe (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Note that Jimbo suggested something akin to this on his page. Please comment on JPL's actions, not irrelevant past history between him and me. pbp 19:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Pretty sure we consider argumentum ad Jimbonem to be a rhetorical fallacy around here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      We even have a page on the topic: Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    7. Oppose - per Timroll. There are bigger issues here, and I don't think this solves enough of them. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    8. oppose I have respect for JPL and the work he does on categorization, and even though I sometimes disagree with him I think his heart is in the right place. Also a note: if JPL has emptied cats currently under discussion, please provide diffs - I haven't seen that. I would however, respectfully, ask that he (and I!) slow down on comments on this CFD - the world has probably heard enough from both of us. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    9. Oppose, where is the fire. I looked at the log for the discussions to be normally closed today. In there JPL had one comment in a discussion that had varied opinions and it just so happens that the position he advocated, with a reason, was how it was closed. There is no evidence in that days log of domination or ownership. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    10. Oppose, close, and trout PBP for this - regardless of the merit of the rest of the case (which I will not comment upon one way or the other), this has the smell of "opportunistic score-settling" all over it. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    11. Oppose. Evidence, Please. Pbp/Purplebackpack89 has been asked several times to provide diffs to prove his case. I think that it is fair to assume that if someone won't provide proof it is because they can't provide proof. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Consider the following:
      In four days of CfD discussions, I count over 270 edits. And of those 270, the majority are in only a handful or two of CfDs. Ownership? Yes. Also, I went to his talk page, I counted no fewer than four separate notices about edit warring, and that's in the last six months alone pbp 03:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      And yet, despite being asked repeatedly, you have yet to provide a single diff (the above links are not to diffs). Why is that? Why are you unable or unwilling to pick two or three examples and post diffs to them? WP:DIFFSPLEASE. Also see: WP:DIFF and WP:D&L. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I consider those to be diffs, and they most certainly are examples. Would you rather I posted all 270 diffs those pages represent? I didn't think so! The very problem here is that, in those four days of CfDs, JPL generated a TLDR amount of content in each of them. This much more succintly proves my point about his OWNership issues on those four days of CfDs, and in particular in regards to discussions of gender and ethnicity. pbp 04:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      What part of "pick two or three examples and post diffs to them" are you having trouble understanding? Please read Wikipedia:Shut up and show them the diff. Please do not respond with another reason why you are unwilling to provide diffs. Please do not respond with any other non-diffs that you "consider to be diffs". As a matter of fact, if your response does not contain two or three examples with diffs, please save us all some time and don't bother replying at all. I cannot hear your words over the defining sound of your actions. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    12. Oppose, and trout Purplebackpack89 for this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    13. Oppose Not only is there insufficient basis, I am not even sure what is supposed to be achieved by banning him from CfD.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    14. Oppose. Alex2564 (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    15. Oppose Also a bit pointless arguing about Cat-issues now anyway. Catagories are going to be dead as soon as wikidata is working as it intends to. Granted that could take awhile.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

    What we have here is:

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

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

    User:Dharmadhyaksha

    Nothing actionable out here. --regentspark (comment) 21:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user is taking my article to reassesments without informing me and he didn't even posted on the talk page of the article. This user has two of my GA to GAR. Huma Qureshi and 7 Khoon Maaf. I want to ask administrators that Is this the award for working day and night to develop a stub article to a detailed one. Is this my award? I want to ask the administration that we are here to work but, why some have agenda against others. This user once posted on the talk page of Imran Khan (actor) (a bad styled GA passed, how? And why?) that this article doesn't meets the criteria. He didn't opened a GAr for that article. But, why did he opened gar of these two without informing on talk page. This is because he has a problem with me and not the article. Also, 7 Khoon Maaf was passed by an inexperienced reviewer. I want to ask the administration that Is this my fault that an inexperienced reviewer chose my article to review, Is this my fault that he passed that article without being critical. Is this my fault that he didn't find mistakes. This was the reviewers fault as how he can pass an article which has problems. This was not my problem that he grabbed the article to review. I didn't asked anyone to review my article. But, this user reassed my article without even notifying in articles talk page Why? Please, sort it out.Prashant talk 18:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    An admin I suggest closing this asap, it isn't productive or likely to result in action. It's an issue which needs to be sorted out between the individuals without interference. Dharma's behaviour isn't blockable, it's just done grossly in bad faith which is very disappointing.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dr.Blofeld: Please prove my bad faith. Without that don't make such accusations. By trying to close this case now don't try and run away from the boomarang. You and Pks1142 have talked foul about me on various pages for now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad faith? Members of the same wikiproject don't go about trying to delist the articles that others of the same project have worked hard towards promoting. They work together and identify issues and work on them to produce results and improvements.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    DD, you know I respect you as an editor so don't take this the wrong way. But, nominating articles for reassessment a mere few days after they are assessed as GA is unusual. The least you could have done was to have tried to work with the editors first. If you feel they are pushing substandard articles through the GA process, then that too is better addressed directly rather than by pointedly nominating their articles for reassessment. I have to agree with Dr. B that, while there is nothing actionable here, it is rather disappointing. --regentspark (comment) 20:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a strong feeling it was related to this comment Prashant said yesterday about an editor you are on good terms with DD. It seems strange that you would then proceed to delist not one but two Good articles he has recently worked towards as if to say "nor are your articles good enough for GA". ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm. Looks like Prashant has some assumption of good faith issues of their own to resolve as well. But, since none of this is actionable, I'm going to close this with the suggestion that Prashant and DD work this out between themselves (elsewhere). --regentspark (comment) 21:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    @Dr.B: GAR can be opened by any editor, irrespective of what project they work on. And they can very well be opened by editors of same projects as they have experience of other similar articles. I have said before and will repeat it that those GARs have nothing to do with nominators or reviewers but are simply raised for their poor writing. Now poor is an adjective which everyone would perceive differently. You think its GA quality and i don't. Its pure coincident that both articles were nominated by Prashant.
    @RP: I could have talked on article's talk page, i could have talked on user's talk page, i could myself start researching and edit the article or i could have raised a GAR. I made my choice. There is no way i would go for 3rd option. I could have gone with first two but at the end of GAR for 7 Khoon Maaf i have clearly stated why a GAR, that too for community reassessment, was raised. I commented on talk page of Imran Khan (actor) when its GA was passed. These two more similar articles passed now. Either its the way GAs are going to be in future maybe because no one noticed them or maybe because that's how its going to be acceptable from now onwards. If its any of these, my alone's opinions don't matter and hence GAR was required. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive IP Editor at Suburban Express

    User:173.197.73.164 has repeatedly removed good-faith, sourced edits from Suburban Express, with the edit summary "undo vandalism": diff 1, diff 2, and diff 3. The IP address appears to remove only material which is unflattering of the company. User:NegatedVoid has argued that this IP address is connected with the company Suburban Express, as the IP address has access to pages on the company's website which appear to be unlinked to the company's main page, and which do not show up on Google searches (i.e. the pages have been created in order to provide a source for Wikipedia). Suburban Express has been very active elsewhere online protecting its image. On Reddit, for example, company representatives have pressured numerous users to delete posts under threat of libel suits. This lends further credence to the suggestion that User:173.197.73.164 is connected with Suburban Express in some way. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I searched ARIN for their IP address, and it appears to trace to an ISP based in Virginia. However, some of the edits that have been made by this IP are obvious advertising, as seen in the diffs above. Paid editing, maybe? --Mathnerd 101 (What I have done) (What have I done?) 23:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe paid editing, or else editing through a proxy server - I don't really know how such things work. The semi-protection should prevent IPs from deleting material, though. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The ISP is based in Virginia, but it's a nationwide provider. If you click on the user contributions, go down to the IP user info box below their edits, then select "Alternate" for the Geolocate tool, the IP traces to Los Angeles, and the host name shown suggests it's a business account with the ISP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppets at work

    Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesca Hogi (3rd nomination)... the previous discussion, together with several other Survivor-related AfDs, was speedy closed a few days ago for sockpuppertry. This new nomination, in addition to be basically an improperly placed merge/redirect discussion, is suffering the same problems including an edit warring about the removal of some SPA tags (eg. [156], [157], [158], [159]). Given that all the valid votes are for a "procedural keep", I'm calling for closing this silly sockfest. --Cavarrone (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    More sockpuppetry / block evasion

    Poopybobfart (talk · contribs) and Honkadoodoo (talk · contribs) are clearly block-evading sockpuppets, probably the same as 123abcwiki (talk · contribs), and I suspect quite a few others, including Bonker123 (talk · contribs) and Vizio123wiki (talk · contribs). They have a characteristic set of editing games, including self-templating themselves, presumably under the impression that this will blow investigating admins' minds. I think this may be a returning long-term vandal. Can some other editors please also take a look at this? -- The Anome (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: They seem to be back as Dinkchink (talk · contribs). -- The Anome (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppetry, hoax articles, intentional insertion of false information

    I would be grateful if an administrator would examine the recent edit history of the following two accounts:

    Both are newly created accounts. Georgehorse12 inserted references to a non-existent movie in an article about an obscure Slovenian village. Nineteen minutes later Timgoodings created a hoax article about that same non-existent movie ("Final Beginnings"), now speedily deleted as a G3 obvious hoax. Given the apparent coordination between the two newly created accounts, sockpuppetry seems likely. Georgehorse12 continues to insert unsourced and demonstrably false material about living persons and other subjects into articles. Activities appear nefarious and deserving of some admin attention. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba

    Moved from WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Could use another pair of eyes on this page. What appears to be a single person (or a single group of people) using multiple (WP:SOCK?) accounts has been re-inserting the same material over and over again on this page for a couple of years now after it got removed following a discussion. The typical pattern is a blanket re-insert, without edits, of exactly the same material that was removed a year ago.

    The problematic material is:

    • An exhaustive and fairly detailed description of every major mathematical result by Karatsuba, the notability of which is unclear, and which in any case belong on math articles (if they are notable) rather than in a bio article.
    • Biographical information without inline citations, and whose notability (e.g. which elementary school he went to) is unclear.
    • Exaggerated claims (e.g. that Karatsuba published the first "divide and conquer" algorithm) which are flatly contradicted by numerous high-profile published sources.

    Recently (2013), a review article (http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1134%2FS0081543813030012.pdf) was published in a journal from Karatsuba's institution in Russia that contains some very similar material (and is possibly by one of the same persons editing Wikipedia, since one of the accounts in the past claimed to be E. A. Karatsuba). This could be an appropriate source for the biographical material (assuming citations are added), but it doesn't remove the difficulty with the exhaustive list of mathematical results, and brief mentions in a relatively obscure journal don't seem sufficient for claims that contradict numerous high-profile sources. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm tangentally involved in this and have to agree with User:Stevenj, but add that the user is a WP:SPA and that language is almost certainly part of the problem. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Rmccormcack123 sockpuppet?

    Rmccormcack123 (talk · contribs) has created an article Israeli Empire, reminiscent of similar articles created by a previous sockpuppet whose username escapes me. Does anyone recognize this user as sockpuppet, or am I just paranoid (or all of the above)? - MrX 00:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've deleted it. It's clear trolling on the part of its creator. -- The Anome (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Recreated by same user. WP:SALT? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    ChrisGualtieri doing the exact same thing as I last reported

    A while back I reported ChrisGualtieri resplitting Ghost in the Shell (manga) without consensus. Heated argument caused me to avoid those articles until User:Ryulong boldly remerged Ghost in the Shell (manga) to Ghost in the Shell. After this consensus gained to remerge them. Now ChrisGualtieri decided to put it to DRN. Ryulong attempted to compromise and make list of Ghost in the Shell chapters. Recently though, ChrisGualtieri returns and does the same thing without any resolution from DRN. This editor in the past had barely avoided ANI resolution by deciding to discuss but as he declared no longer wishing to discuss with me at another editors page. It makes things difficult and DRN is still pending.Lucia Black (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Lucia this is the second ANI you've filed today on 'conduct', previously and despite me not even being a part of the conversation you attacked me at ANI with this post. I defame you for the sake of winning an argument? Hardly. At the last ANI you dragged me to you attacked me here and while I did not respond, Bushranger cautioned/warned you about it here. In response to your most recent personal attacks on me and Ryulong, I placed a formal warning which you removed here. And other editors like Lord Sjones23 replaced a note on your talk page about it here. Not to be rude, but WP:SS (WP:DETAIL too), WP:SIZE, WP:UNDUE, WP:SPINOFF are relevant and the argument "Because this page is about the manga now" is a poor one. This purging is distortion to 'original media focus' is highly damaging to Wikipedia. And the 2008 merging of the very important Dragonball Z and Dragonball GT articles resulted in a mere 3 paragraphs tucked into the Dragonball page. Lastly, WP:MOS-AM does not dictate or control how a page must be. And yes, I am seeking to change that. Four days ago I brought the matter up about it at here before the RFC on DBZ was even filed to which you are also upset about. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The more systematic issue here seems to be backlog at WP:DRN -- probably need to recruit more volunteers. NE Ent 02:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Its not a personal attack because I brought it up. And I'm not interested in personal attacks. You've made several personal attacks, far more blatant. You don't know what a personal attack is. And this is still about you disregarding consensus, doesn't matter what points you bring up. You want to discuss it? Fine. But you don't get to push your edits without consensus. You've done this 3 times already.Lucia Black (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not forget it was you who originally 'boldly' merged the content in the first place, my opposition hasn't changed since first discovering the merge. This is a content dispute, not a behavior dispute and you cannot cite policy for your arguments, hence every time I improve (and restore) the original page you do this. Per WP:SIZE the content is substantial to warrant its own page, your obliteration and prevention of the franchise page is the only real problem. With over 20 titles, 3 bearing the same name and being sharply different as noted by current WP:MOS-AM principals, your argument of 'redundant fork' was self-realized with your editing. Try making Star Trek about the original series and see how that goes, because that is what you are doing with Ghost in the Shell. Its WP:UNDUE to have a page dedicated to the original material and sum up everything else ever made as three sentence off shoots. ANI really isn't the place for content disputes, but anyone who cares enough, please provide a 3O or take the matter up at the DRN, its been 10 days since I submitted it. And yes as NE Ent noted, it needs more volunteers. Sorry, but I won't be able to reply for several hours to this ANI. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a content dispute where you are in the minority, Chris. Both Lucia Black and myself both feel that there is no need to have multiple pages on this particular subject and it is now you being disruptive (again) against the two people who have for the past month been trying to find a median with you. But you have simply been restoring your preferred content fork under the persistent idea that there needs to be a "franchise page". I attempted to make the other article a list of chapters as we had discussed prior on the talk page, but Chris's edits to the article in the past 24 hours have been to undo any collaborative work we have attempted in the past month and instead restore his preferred edition of the page, including moving it back to the title that he likes better.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Article content is substantial, enough for its own article, was originally pre-dispute at the manga page and I've cited half a dozen policies which suggest the action was appropriate. You revert even the tiniest of change like this which removes the unnecessary vertical bar for the category. 2:1 votes do not equate to consensus, policy-backed arguments do. I would appreciate any other input, 3O and correspondence on this matter because I've wait 10 days for it. The two of you seek to filibuster and hold hostage the page and the topics related pages to your perfect version. Deletion of reliably sourced and valid content is disruptive editing and damages Wikipedia. This content dispute needs outside help; and it hopefully will work with the two proposals for MOS-AM being publicly announced at the pump and the project. And again ANI does not resolve content disputes, which is exactly what this is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are in the minority of the only three people who care about the page. Try to compromise instead of turning everything back into your preferred state.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Splitting the same argument across several pages

    At this very moment, ChrisGualtieri is basically going to whatever talk page he can to try to get his way in whatever argument he is trying to win. There are multiple threads at Talk:Ghost in the Shell, Talk:Dragon Ball, Talk:List of Ghost in the Shell chapters, WT:MOS-AM, and WP:DRN that have all been started by Chris when he is not getting his way in an article. I do not have to have to open three talk pages just to tell him I disagree with his point repeatedly. This cannot be allowed by any Wikipedia policy.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The Dragonball article is about the discussion to re-create articles for Dragonball Z and the unrelated to the manga Dragonball GT anime series. WP:MOS-AM is to formally change the wording of MOS-AM. Over four days ago I posted it to MOS-AM, the wording change to the current issue of wording stems from the DBZ matter. The only mention of Ghost in the Shell matter on that page is that Lucia and you revert any edit I do, regardless of value. Like deleting the censorship matter as noted by the translator of the work itself. I responded you your merge, move and distortion of the manga page (now a list) because the page predates the content dispute. Stop being dramatic and thinking every little thing relates to GITS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're still arguing similar points across five different pages where you don't have the consensus to do anything.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not related. After seeing DBZ I posted about franchises at MOS-AM, and to my regret mentioning Gundam and GITS as examples. Changes to MOS-AM are to be made at MOS-AM. I was directed to make a case there and did, four days ago. You act as if I am forum shopping, the matters are unrelated and I would like you to stop trying to make them related. I think I've said my peace because if I keep replying to every little post you or Lucia make, ANI will become the new GITS talk page. Keep it there and leave it there, and that means I'll be ignoring your other talk page posts on Talk:List of Ghost in the Shell chapters which you are intent on continuing after making this notice at ANI. For an editor who thinks "Ghost in the Shell is a manga that has only four adaptations all based on the original."[160] and cannot even count the body of works (over 20) there is significant reason to wonder why this content dispute has become so frustrating. Unless there is pressing need for my response from other editors, I will refrain from continuing this at ANI. I do want to continue this content dispute discussion at ANI, its not the proper place for it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    SPECIFICO then claimed on the talk page that:

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

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

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

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

    Comment – While SPECIFICO can be terse, I've always seen him as a cooperative editor most willing to engage in discussion. E.g., he'll engage in WP:BRD. He's not an admin, so threats of blocks (which I do not see in the discussion) are unfounded. The edits complained of (above) may have been better handled with kid gloves, but do not warrant ANI action. If there are disagreements between these two editors, WP:3O is a better COA. – S. Rich (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Response — It's not that he's terse. I'm fine with that. It's not even that I think that he always acts like this. He might be generally fine. It's that in this instance he's bossily demanding and threatening, which shows up more on my talk page and in the sequence of events than on the article's talk page. This unpleasantness has apparently happened to at least one other user in the past. In that incident, he apparently accused a person who had reverted his changes only once of edit warring, which that user describes as slander. This sort of slander during what should be fairly minor editing disputes is apparently an ongoing problem that he has not corrected.
    His false accusations look like a barrage to me. He's accused me twice of edit warring for one revert on my part, he accuses me of violating policies in my reverts, he says that I should discuss things on the talk page after I've already started to discuss things on the talk page months before, and he falsely accuses me of not trying for consensus on the talk page.
    I've looked over the article's talk page before and after this incident. It has people talking a while back about the things he deleted because another user deleted them as well. The consensus certainly doesn't support his high level of deletion. He disregarded it.
    More notably, he has no comments at all before he made his significant deletions. His only comments are responses to me, and they include demands that I must comply with before he will even discuss things with me. This is obviously not consensus-seeking on his part, which would appear as him discussing things with me even though I don't take back one revert I made.
    The talk page does, however, include me seeking consensus for a change I made to the article a few months ago. He deleted what I'd added to the article without any comment in that section, which makes it quite hypocritical and false when he repeatedly informs me that I should discuss things on the talk page before I'm supposedly allowed to revert his changes. His demand applies directly to him. I have no reason to believe he even checked the talk page before I reverted him.
    I don't mind trying a third opinion if that's what's supposed to be done, but the primary purpose of my bringing this up isn't to resolve the editing dispute, since that can be done through consensus. The primary purpose is that I don't want to continue to be bullied by him with the risk that people will believe his false accusations. — Olathe (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply – But we don't have to discuss WP:BB changes before we make them. We make them and then let others contend with us about what we did. The WP:BURDEN is on the editor who want to insert or remove material. Seems to me, for the most part, SPECIFICO has been on sound grounds as I have watched him make edits. If he makes edits that contradict earlier consensus, point out the consensus and open up a new discussion. Contact me, if you like, and I'll take a look and help if I can (although this stuff gets pretty abstruse for my poor brain). Finally, I think SPECIFICO will take a look at this ANI and work on being more diplomatic. (Got that, SPECIFICO, these are opportunities for you to mentor.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Response — I don't mind his being bold, but I was as well with my revert but was criticized by him for that with the associated threats. I didn't want an edit war, which is why I reverted once and haven't rereverted his unrevert. He's mentioned which policies he thinks the content violated, but not yet why he thinks those policies are applicable. I have a different understanding than him, but he may be right. I hope he'll explain on the talk page. — Olathe (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Account sharing between Riley Huntley and Gwickwire

    Riley Huntley and Gwickwire's permissions have been removed, and no further sanctions appear to be forthcoming. Complaints about checkuser actions should be placed with the WP:AUSC. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    On behalf of DeltaQuad, Deskana and DoRD,

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

    Certifying this was the assessment. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Further

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

    Incidentally? As in there was another commonality between Riley or Qwickwire and another account related to the check?—cyberpower ChatOffline 03:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Routine"? Are you routinely checking random people 'cause you're bored of picking your nose? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Seb .. I think a lot of folks have concerns about CU types of checks, myself included; but I really do think that particular comment was way out of line. Please don't do that again. — Ched :  ?  07:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I will whenever I see fit. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You might just want to check that attitude at the door. Up to you, but I'm just sayin. — Ched :  ?  09:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You should check yours. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The natural response to this sort of needless hostility is that the perpetrator will find himself ignored outside of his own social circle. While this isn't quite as helpful as self-correction, it does help to ensure that the community as a whole is not unduly influenced by its ugliest commentary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Or, additionally, let's simply recall that Riley was an admin of the ACC interface, which in and of itself, as DeltaQuad told me (when I was previously involved in the program), causes one to be subject to frequent additional checks, due to...frequent additional risk. No need to create a mountain out of a molehill, friends. Theopolisme (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Reaper for that insight. That does change my perspective.—cyberpower ChatOffline 12:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Just to note that Riley removed himself from toolserver account creator access where he had access to sensitive information. His account creator right is separate from that now. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What reason was there to be scrutinizing either Gwickwire or Riley's account? Was there any behavior evidence to justify use of checkuser? As far as the violation -- really? I care why? Was there any harm to the encyclopedia?? NE Ent 02:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • As Riley was a sysop on Wikidata, this was a serious security risk for us. --Rschen7754 02:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Risk of what? "Serious security risk"? It's a frickin' website, not the finish line of the Boston Marathon. NE Ent 02:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Risk of blocking all administrators, deleting several pages, etc. When admin accounts have been compromised on this site, the Main Page has been deleted, and arbitrators and Jimbo Wales were blocked, and this would have continued had the account not been emergency desysopped. --Rschen7754 02:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • (edit conflict) Well, account creators have, if I recall correctly, access to user IP data (considered private info, requiring IDing to the foundation to have access). So theoretically someone with AC access and bad judgment could do some real-world harm using people's personal data. IPBE is also considered by some to be sensitive, since it allows users to edit through hard blocks. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • (edit conflict) (edit conflict) Riley also had access to sensative information such as IP addresses and relevant information as an account creator on the toolserver, so sharing passwords is pretty serious. Also, administrators are also privy to information that is not public, and Riley is/was an administrator on two wikis. Also, downplaying the situation as "it's just a website" as compared to a terrorist attack, probably isn't the right response. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Ent: Probably about as serious as removing some permissions from an account on "just a website", so this is a pretty proportional reaction. I am curious as to why a CU was looking at this, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Riley has also resigned as a Wikidata sysop. [161] I believe that this would be considered under a cloud, but I am sure that we will be having a discussion related to the matter, once we are officially notified. --Rschen7754 02:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why discuss this? Both have retired which clearly means both agree with removing their rights. So remove them and stop the drama. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it is a technical matter, if one 'retires' it is different from 'fired' in a business sense if one wants to come back. If a major breach occurred and is taken to the community the prospects of a future RFA or other position of power can be scrutinized. I am concerned as to how a CU found this, though, but transparency is not something that we are privvy to. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • One simple question: What led to the chck to be made? and I want DeltaQuad to please kindly explain how he considered that a check was needed, and that it fell within the boundaries of the CU policy. I understand that this should have never happened, but I'm now amazingly sad because after this unnecessary scandal, we've lost a great asset, and a very productive user. — ΛΧΣ21 03:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict × 5)I honestly don't see the big deal. No damage came from this. And if it did, it could easily be reversed. The password that was set up for Gwickwire was temporary so the real password was never revealed. Yes, there was the potential for damage, but did Gwickwire abuse the trust Riley placed in him? No. According to Riley, as he puts, was simply trying to get Wikipedia to stop sending a flood of emails to his phone, while he was trying to get his phone to work. Since he couldn't do it himself with his phone, he asked Qwickwire to do it for him as his settings were set to receive an email when something on his watchlist had changed and he has over 30k pages on his watchlist. Honestly, wouldn't you be annoyed if you couldn't shutoff that email function?—cyberpower ChatOffline 03:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could someone from the checkuser team explain what led them to run checks in this case? Was it an e-mail tip or was this part of an SPI or something? I assume they weren't just going fishing, but it would be nice to have some reassurance about that. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • DoRD explained a little above. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I think I understand what triggered the CU investigation now. I'm totally satisfied that the checks were done appropriately, i.e. not part of a fishing trip. I believe it had to do with the WP:ACC, as someone points out above. I'm not totally sure why the results needed to be made public though. This reminds me a bit of the situation a few months back when Arbcom announced out of the blue that two accounts were using the same IP. I understand why they investigated, but not why they made the results public. Was community input really needed here? Could permissions have been revoked without an announcement? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The most obvious parallel between that case and this one is that there was obvious wrongdoing involved (more obvious in the other case than in this one, given the long history of faux retirements and the subsequent un-retirement of the master account) and yet a long line of editors queueing up to express outrage at the perpetrator having even been named, let alone acted against. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too am concerned with due process here. On what grounds was a checkuser done in this case? The concern that Riley should not have let Gwickwire use his account may be valid, but of concern here also is that other people with advanced permissions (i.e. checkusers) are using those permissions commensurate with the regulations regarding them, and not just fishing. How is it possible that a checkuser could catch something like this unless either Gwickwire or Riley had some reason to be checked, or that there was a third account linking the two otherwise. I'm unclear on how this came to be found, and I have serious concerns of a Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? nature. --Jayron32 05:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is an expectation of privacy per WMF policy. NE Ent 11:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is absolutely an expectation that people entrusted by the community with advanced permissions like checkuser use those permissions persuant to the restrictions placed upon them, and that such people are ultimately accountable to the community to be able to justify their use of them. That is absolutely an expectation. We are not a government, we are a community who has entrusted checkusers with sensitive information, and as such, they are expected to use that trust appropriately and be able to justify their use of it when called to question. --Jayron32 14:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Last I checked, the standard of expected behaviors for admins was WP:NOTPERFECT and a "pillar" of this community was WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. " (emphasis original). If editors / admins are to be sanctioned for hypothetical events that could have happened, the reductio ad absurdum implication is that every admin who ever edited outside a Faraday Cage such as the one used for the recent papal elections[1] should be immediately desysoped. NE Ent 11:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Papal Election: Vatican Installs Anti-leak Security Devices at the Sistine Chapel". International Business Times. 2013-03-10. Retrieved 2013-03-19.

    Arbcom? Stewards? Jimbo?

    • CU aside, it's clear there is a major security risk involved here, I believe some course of action is required here. ArbCom should probably be notified, as well as the WMF Stewards, due to the fact that this is a cross-wiki incident. Jimbo would probably have some valuable opinions to share as well. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 03:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably not needed. Riley was desysopped on Wikidata per his request, and the only place Riley holds advanced permissions anymore is testwiki and that probably isn't going to be much an issue. We probably shouldn't escalate it. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm pretty much a hardliner when it comes to stuff like this, but I'm not sure I'm seeing the problem here. Given the extent of sockpuppetry on this site, I have no objection to CUs doing their job to protect us, but, if I'm understanding what happened, that gwickwire edited Riley Huntley's account using a temporary password, it doesn't seem much different from two people in the same room where one person edits on the other's account, with permission. It doesn't make much difference whose fingers are pressing the keys, the person with the account is responsible for the edit, and it becomes their edit. It may be technically disallowed (although I'm not sure how), but it also seems entirely innocent. No information was shared except a temporary password - I'm not seeing where that implies that sensitive information would potentially be improperly shared. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is a temporary password even possible? I know nothing of how it worked, but Beyond My Ken raises a good point. What's done is done, no damage seems to have come of it, I'd say let the concerned parties explain the matter if they wish and WP:TROUT or such, now that the resignations have been sent in. While I think I may be in the minority here, editors are people and people make mistakes, let the punishment equal the crime. The resignation and shame of this action seems fair, but lets not lose two people (forever) over this matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The implication relates to the belief the password did not also allow access to the account creation system on toolserver or admin rights on the data project. I could tell you i changed the password before i give it to you but will you really know if it is actually new? Riley's toolserver password would not necessarily have been the same as his WMF SUL password but it could have been. Whether the password be new or not it was still a WMF SUL password which gave Gwickwire access to an admin account on a different project. Having admitted to doing it once after being caught for that one incident knowing it was inappropriate to have done in the first place the credibility is destroyed for claims that it really was only the one time and so limited in scope. If the password Riley supplied did actually allow Gwickwire access to the account creation system on toolserver then Riley violated the WMF Privacy Policy. All we have is Riley's word on the matter and right now that isn't so trustworthy.
      Notwithstanding all of that the edit Gwickwire made in Riley's name is hardly of such immediate concern it would require such measures. That alone shows some really poor judgement on Riley's part. If you're going to break the rules you really ought to have a really good reason and that isn't. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 04:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moral of the story: Never, ever ... and I mean eeeeeeever give your password to another person. It happened in 2008 with the best of intentions, but the results were disastrous. — Ched :  ?  05:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed they were.... Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 06:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how this violates the account sharing rules at all. That implies that the account was shared on a long-term basis, not for a single minor edit with a temporary password. Furthermore, I am also concerned about what started this CU check in the first place. Considering the very minor edit that took place, there should have been absolutely no reason to run a CU in the first place, which implies that constant CU's were being conducted on Riley and/or Gwickwire's accounts, which is a complete violation of CU protocol. If anything, we have a much larger incident here of abuse of CU privileges. SilverserenC 06:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is all rather silly, but it is the Wikipedia way to create a dramacane over the things no one honestly cares about rather than the things that actually matter. Of course, you are just adding to the silliness with your illogical accusations.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless I've misread what's been written above, no one has said that there was a specific CU about this edit, but that, in some way, evidence of the edit came up in the course of other CU business. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's true. It is stated above that they came up "incidental to a routine check". Of course, that raises further questions, because there's been no evidence presented that this edit or either of these accounts have been involved with any others. How does one come up "incidental"? Does a CU check bleed over into other accounts when you run it? Are there sockpuppets involved here? The evidence above is presented in a fashion as if to not invoke any questioning, as if to say that, when running a CU, this sort of thing just falls into one's lap. I think the community deserves more information when this has caused two editors to retire from the project. SilverserenC 07:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's perfectly natural that CUs would not be able to explain in graphic and gruesome detail what led up to the incidental discovery of the edit in question, given the personal and confidential nature of the data they have access to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think anybody's asking for specific details. It's just that most people are under the impression that a justified CU check only brings up IPs and users in a narrow specified range or something like that. Now it sounds like any CU check "routinely" brings up most everybody's data now and then. That could be explained. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe yes, and maybe no. Not being conversant with how CU works (technically), I cannot tell one way or the other from the outside, but I certainly didn't get that impression from what the CUs have been able to tell us so far. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • For those wondering how CU works, when I run a check on an account, the tool gives me all IPs used by the person operating it. I can then check each IP individually (or an entire IP range) and I can see all accounts that have edited from said IP. That's useful when looking for sleepers, for instance. I have not reviewed the CU log, but, from my experience with the tool, I'd say that DQ was checking someone who happened to edit from the same IP (or IP range) as Riley or Gwickwire, saw something suspicious and decided to investigate. It's not that rare to see many unrelated accounts when checking heavily used IPs... Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was indeed helpful, Salvio. I'm pretty sure any of the three involved CUs could have provided such a simple explanation without going into specifics and compromising anybody's privacy or violating policy, and I only wish they had done so. In fact, if they can't give even a reason like that, then FFS they could have said so at least (the reasons can't be disclosed due to privacy blah blah). That would have been much better than the vague passing mention of a "routine" check which has created the mess of confusion and speculation above. Chamal T•C 17:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think rather that the "mess of confusion and speculation" was the result of a general lack of AGF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) My comment was made late at night, and I was tired, so perhaps it could have been more clear. I would have preferred to have had a discussion with the other two CUs, but they were both offline then, so I said what I was comfortable with at the time. I will add, though, that I err on the side of caution where the Privacy policy is concerned. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Length of time is irrelevent. Sharing an account password is sharing an account password. IT security is based on potential harm. In most modern companies, sharing of accounts is prohibited on penalty of disciplinary. For much the same reason as the WMF requires identification - access to restricted personal info. While the WMF is not liable for content by editors, it IS liable for personal info it stores/holds on people who visit the various wiki sites hosted on its servers. It cannot take a 'relaxed' stance on this sort of thing. Having someone who isnt identified with access to 'personal' info is a major security breach. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Acting as an independent admin, I have just revoked Riley's permissions. I have not blocked either him or Gwickwire because both appear to have stopped editing and, so, for the moment, a block is, in my opinion, unnecessary. Unless the community wants to discuss further sanctions, I suggest this thread be closed. If you have concerns regarding how the checkuser tool was used in this instance, you should contact WP:AUSC. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under what authority was this CU preformed? That is the policy-based reason why a CU was preformed on two editors in good standing? There must be a good reason why their private information was queried. Simply because a bad act was uncovered does not give justification to a warrant-less inquiry. Exclusionary rule, anyone? 134.241.58.251 (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Range block evasion of 190.111.10.32/27

    The range block of 190.111.10.32/27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is under a block for disrupting Wikipedia by linking dates despite repeated warnings not to do so. Now these IPs, once again traced from Guatemala, 190.106.222.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 190.106.222.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 190.106.222.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 190.106.222.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 190.106.222.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 190.106.222.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 190.106.222.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 190.106.222.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are still adding links to album pages. The fact that whoever is behind these IPs is refusing to talk or compromise is extremely frustrating despite repeated blocks and warnings. Erick (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You listed 190.106.222.22 twice. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was rushing when I made this report. Erick (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, whoever this person is obviously doing something to have their IP keep changing. I found two more IPs doing the same thing from the same country: 190.106.222.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 190.106.222.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Erick (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I thank you very much. Erick (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Lightspeedx WP:OWN at Erica Andrews

    Summary of notice

    Lightspeedx has taken ownership of the Erica Andrews article and has since engaged in an extended edit war with editors who are trying to maintain biography of living persons citation standards. Lightspeedx has engaged in edit wars, battlefield tactics, forum shopping, assumptions of bad faith, and when the other editors attempted to engage them in discussion they refuse to acknowledge the BLP citation standards. They have since tagged three editors for edit Waring (none of them have made more than 2 edits in the last two weeks on that page).

    Coffeepusher: Narrative of events (TL:DR explanation with differences)

    Howdy! I was brought to the Erica Andrews page from a notice posted by Little green rosetta on the Biographies of living persons noticeboard requesting some editors take a look at the page. Erica Andrews was recently deceased and Little green rosetta stated that "An editor appears to want to make this article a tribute page with puffery and dubious (Read MySpace) sourcing." When I got there I saw that there were entire chunks of information sourced exclusively by myspace and local bar's playbills. I removed some of the worst of it, and was immediately reverted by User:lightspeedx. I came back ten min. later, did a second revert to remove the porely sourced section, and brought my concerns up to the talk page. I was greeted by an accusation on my own talk page that "you have clearly decided to engage in an edit war without civil discussions about sources...I can see on your talk page that you frequently engage in edit wars with people" (I asked them to provide differences or strike the comment, they struck the comment). This was my introduction to the page. Soon Qworty answered Little green rosetta's call to take a look at the page, and preceded to clean up youtube links, peacock terms, lists of minor events, and unsourced additions. This whole time we are trying to engage lightspeedx in discussion about proper citations. Their reaction was WP:IDHT. They have forumshopped to try and get the youtube videoes given official status on both the WT:V#YouTube Videos as a source citation and Wikipedia talk:Videos#YouTube videos as a source citation. When a brand new user came into the discussion with the exact same viewpoint as Lightspeedx, they were informed of the Sock policy by Qworty which prompted an exchange. Both users stopped editing the Andrews article, and they both disappeared for several days. On returning, each of their first edits were to blank the warnings that they were given [162] [163] but there has been no other interactions between the two users.

    Lightspeedx has since engaged in an edit war against consensus with myself, LGR, and Qworty over poorly sourced trivia being added to the article. When I tagged them for 3RR (after their third revert today), they proceeded to tag all three of our accounts with the same warning [164], [165], [166], even though none of us had come close to 3RR. They have brought this up at both The dispute resolution noticeboard as well as the Requests for mediation. They are accusing Qworty, LGR, and myself of having collaborated in the past and thus we are not impartial so our agreement about sourcing is void(this is the first article I can remember working on with either of these editors), and Edit warring. Please advise. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    All editors mentioned have received notice Lightspeedx, Little green rosetta, Qworty. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent placing of banners by a suspected sockpuppet

    Socks taken out to dry. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:AnnieLess is persisting in placing an "Importance section" banner across the article Metric system in spite of my requesting him/her to engage in a proper dispute resolution process. I have formally warned him/her that persistent placing of unjustified banners, tags etc amounts to vandalism. My requests are here and here. For the record, I believe that User:AnnieLess is a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto. I have filed a WP:SPI request and an awaiting a response from the SPI team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 04:52, 30 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

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

    Reporting vandalism on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preposition_and_postposition

    Resolved
     – Thank you. Reverted Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not a regular editor/user and do not have the patience to figure out how it works.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preposition_and_postposition Just wanted to report that last sentence under 'definitional issues' there is an offensive line stating someone's phone number to call for a bj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.202.75 (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    "Cease and desist notice on this paragraph"

    Per WP:LEGAL, just flagging a vague but possibly seriously-intended legal threat on the Brock Pierce article. The original article creator cut well-sourced details of some arrests and lawsuits last July, saying "The controversy section has been removed as it is slanderous to the person and can prevent him from getting hired. There is no prove.". It crept back and they cut it again last week, upping their game to "Defamation. Cease and desist notice on this paragraph.". --McGeddon (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Orange Mike has indef blocked Consciousbuyer. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That BLP looks too thinly sourced in its allegations of child sex trafficking. Deli nk (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Where no charges were ever pursued at all (as far as I can tell) the "allegations" are too thin to be in a BLP. I also depuffed it a bit - the rest looks like it was written by a PR person. Collect (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sainath Dukkipati

    Wikiassociate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and a small army of IP accounts are currently engaged in a massive and long-running campaign to insert spurious references to a child named Sainath Dukkipati into as many Bollywood articles as possible. Further details are available at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiassociate and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiassociate/Archive. In the meantime, it would be helpful if we could get someone with the requisite knowledge and permissions to investigate and apply the appropriate technical measures for dealing with this disruption (such as an IP range block). Or if there's not much we can do at this point other than blocking the main account, then at least this message will serve to publicize the problem so that others know to revert the false information and report further socks. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeffed, for spamming (as good a reason as any, I'd say). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The range looks pretty wide; a rangeblock covering all but the latest IP might be feasible. I'll ask a CheckUser to investigate later (I'm currently away from home). Alternatively, seeing as the pattern of abuse is quite specific, an edit filter boffin might be able to help. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've placed an anon-only block on 122.169.128.0/19. I'm not very experienced with such things and will ask a CU to check on collateral damage later; if anyone who knows what they're doing better than me sees this and thinks it's ridiculous then feel free to unblock. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and I've unblocked again, after consulting a CU. The edit filter option could still be explored. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=552917338"