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]

• Support - This user has knowingly violated multiple policies, multiple times. TCN7JM 01:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose indefinite block. I would support a block of specific duration not to exceed 90 days. My76Strat (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Indefinite is not permanent. An injection of clue a few months down the line is always possible. For now, this is pretty open and shut. Opposes could scarcely be less convincing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand that "Indefinite is not permanent". I also understand that many would object to an un-block request based on their own perception of what constitutes "too soon"; irrespective of any assertion of clue. I stand on my belief that 90 days is commensurate to the misdeeds I have observed. My76Strat (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems to make it de facto a punitive block, however - 'he's done X, Y and Z, the sentence is 90 days'. Blocks are at least supposed to be preventative, not punitive - the thing to ask is, if we imposed (say) a 90 day block, would we be right back here on day 91? Signs point to yes - which is why indef is appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[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, long overdue. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This voting section should be closed immediately as pointless. Risker stated above the block is being reviewed by Arbcom so the arguments and supports and opposes here are not needed. Arbcom will make the determination. Kumioko (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, a community-ban and an ArbCom block/ban are two different things. Why do you bizarrely believe that the two are mutually exclusive? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• ArbCom is reviewing a block based on "canvassing/outing". This discussion is about a block for "repeated flouting of a topic-ban". The two are seperate issues. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[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 will probably comment on the bogus topic ban here later (you can find some discussion on my talk page). (I'd prefer to get a decision from ArbCom on the issues involved). The discussions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 21#Template:Google RS are also related and so may also be of interest. LittleBen (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[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]

• I should note that my original call for an indef made absolutely no mention of outing anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[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]

• I see that you are continuing to stalk me and harass other users, and you blanked your talk page to remove all the warnings that you have been given. LittleBen (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair, you are allowed to blank your own talk page. Read WP:BLANKING. TCN7JM 05:26, 27 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]

• This is one of the most ridiculous attempts to ban a user. Creating a template that helps to search for The Economist and New York Times etc. is disruptive? Really? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it isn't. Flagrantly flaunting a topic ban therefore indicating he has no respect for the community? That is disruptive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[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]

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]

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

• With respect, and let's leave ANN out of this, how is this proposal harsh on Msoamu? If anything, it's lenient - as this sort of thing has been going on since 2007. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[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 want you to look at my edits.i dont deserve that.
• please get comments from Msoamu (talk · contribs)Dil e Muslim talk 17:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]

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

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

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

• Yes, an investigation which was not started by me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:06, 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 provided some authentic sources on Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadris talk page that he is a barelvi.)
• user mezzomezzo is a major part of these dispute from years
• user mezzomezzo is envolved in enforcement from 7 years
• user mezzomezzo is engaged in edit war from years
• as related with behaviour of mezzomezzo.mr admin only people associated with it think that he is right.many of users think that he always try to show negitive side on these article barelvi and related articles.his edits are not constructive and often doesnt let anyone to add constructive edits.
• user luken94 is major part of this dispute.
• user lukeno94 is envolved in enforcement wether it is from years or months.
• use lukeno94 work hand to hand with user mezzomezzo wether he is right or wrong.
• user lukeno94 is engaged in edit war from months.

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

• Talk:K._P._Yohannan#Keeping_the_controversy_Section_in_this_article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No, I wasn't, it was on the talk page. [40] It's not a legal threat per-se, but it is meant to chill. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Flying visit this, as I'm off duty for the weekend; I'd appreciate it if someone could look into it. It's been brought to my attention that an anonymous user, operating dynamic IPs, has been systematically proposing for deletion articles created by User:Hijiri88 (who as you may recall was hounded off Wikipedia through real-life intervention a couple of months ago by User:JoshuSasori). Given that bit of history, this latest slew of nominations strikes me as suspect to say the least. Some examples: [41], [42], [43] (admins only, that one's been deleted), [44] (content blanking). Some of these are justifiable (I'd probably have accepted the CSD tag on Utsunomiya Yoritsuna myself, given what was there), but the pattern is pretty unmistakable. In light of this, I'd like to propose semi-protection of Hijiri88's remaining created articles - I know that pre-emptive protection isn't exactly smiled upon, but to me it seems like the most expedient solution. Any other suggestions gratefully received.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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

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

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

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

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]

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. Mkdw^talk 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. Mkdw^talk 04:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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 [50] 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]

• Good block. I was looking into this whole "new religious movements" debacle tonight (Fladrif was disruptive at the WT:BASC discussion) and found that Fladrif appears to have a long history of unprofessionalism. He deletes everything from his talkpage with no archive, so getting a complete picture may be relatively tricky, and though he's been blocked a few times he seems to have mostly evaded blocks. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Fladrif lists over a dozen diffs, some of which are not well-selected (see this diff for a decent example promising a "final warning"). But really, this appears to be a routine thing, continuing without much change or acknowledgment. The other day I tried to engage him on his behavior at my talkpage and he basically refused to discuss it. II | (t - c) 07:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[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?

--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):

• Diff of User talk:Dreadstar
• Diff of User:Dreadstar/FDIFFS
• Diff of User:Littleolive oil/Evidence SexieSadie
• Diff of User:Littleolive oil/Will Beback
• Diff of User:TimidGuy/rebuttals
• Diff of User:Littleolive oil/Rebuttals
• Diff of User:Littleolive oil/ AE diffs
• Diff of User:TimidGuy/COIN
• Diff of User:TimidGuy/Will
• Diff of User:Dreadstar/Rebuttal post TM
• Diff of User:Dreadstar/here
• Diff of User:Dreadstar/Sock analysis
• Diff of User:Dreadstar/FDIFFS
• Diff of User:Keithbob/SexySadieDiffs
• (Stopped including diffs of db-attack tags – too many of them)
• Diff of User:Dreadstar/FDIFFS
• Diff of User talk:Ched
• Diff of User talk:Ched
• Diff of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
• Diff of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

Aha so Doc James has a history with this user, may be worth investigating by someone. Here's a start to that investigation: [51] --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:

• • Condescending comments like the above are typical from you, and are personal attacks on other editors beyond the bounds of this project
  • at this point, there should be consequences to continued disruptive editing and personal attacks per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
  • A topic ban will not suffice. An indefinite block, after which, if he deigns to grace us with reasons why his erudition should be shared with we peons, and he might then be allowed to soil his shoes walking among the unwashed heathens of Wikipedia, is the only reasonable solution

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

• • Risker and Dreadstar are getting their panties in a twist over their misreading of Doc's statement
  • one helpful comment, that I am quite certain you will ignore, just as you ignore all advice from more experienced editors. It took you 41 revisions, and counting, to write this pathetic, self-serving, nonsensical, delusional polemic? I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You are in complete denial as to your own serious misconduct, and your protests of innocence and provocation are ludicrous. You want to impress people that you've learned your lesson? Shut up about it and do positive, non-disruptinv work. No wonder you have nearly 50K posts - at the rate you revise your own posts, it's equivalent to 1500 posts by an editor who actually reads what they write before they hit "Save Page". That's nothing to brag about. What an utter waste of bandwidth. With any luck, our paths will never cross again on Wikipedia. Have a nice life, kid
  • Fladrif calls Dreadstar: “Olive's and TimidGuy's most loyal yapping lapdog”
  • AN/I should slap Penbat on the wrist and send him to bed without his supper
  • Fladrif taunts Dreadstar on his talk page: that your July 2010 retirement -not to be confused with your November 2011 retirement or your April 2013 retirement- involved you pitching a hissy-fit over WBB not immediately deleting an evidence page after an ArbCom was completed, your maintaining multiple attack pages against other editors on your personal hit list is more than a little hypocritical

• Giving abuse to Arbitration Committee members in April 2013:
  • Fladrif says to AGK: I'm not the least bit surprised that a mere child lacks the judgment and maturity to do this job. You leveled a specious charge (doubly specious, because (i) there is absolutely no reason why an editor could or should not communicate with other editors off Wiki and (ii) the fact is that, although there would be nothing wrong with it whatsoever, there was no off-wiki coordination of this appeal) without any basis other than your suspicions. When the accusation is shown to be utterly specious and untrue, you try to hide behind SilkTork's skirts, and repeat it in a brazen effort to bluff your way through. Implicitly, you accuse WBB and unnamed editors of lying about this to the Community. If you are "aware" of off-wiki coordination, when the editors you imply are involved in that coordination have stated there is none, I suggest you owe it to the Community to either post your proof and be prepared to defend it. Otherwise retract your statement and issue an apology as the last thing you do before resigning ArbCom, surrendering all your tools, and permanently retiring as an editor.
  • Fladrif says to Roger Davies: @Roger Davies: The sense of lèse-majesté emanating from some of the members who imagine themselves to have been forced to descend from the throne and peer out over the battlements at the howling mob at the outer gate to discern where the noise is coming from is disturbing. Who do you think you are?
  • Fladrif says to AGK: @AGK. What you claim to be your core concern is inconceivably misconceived and wrong-headed.
  • Fladrif says to Silk Tork: SilkTork, I wish you'd warned us so we could have put on our hip waders before reading that. Really? Asking ArbCom to reconsider and for other editors to support reconsideration is, in and of itself, battleground behavior. What kind of Catch-22 nonsense is this?..... If this is an example of ArbCom's thinking in this process, it's no wonder you wanted it kept secret, because this level of dissembling and sophistry couldn't survive the light of day. I'm looking so forward to the rationale offered by the other ArbCom members, should they dare to post anything so absurd.

*Battleground editing

• • 2013 I've hand enough of Welner and his employees and flack weasels who insist on rewriting this article as a hagiography. I've taken a meat-axe to the self-published and self-serving piles of BS, and cut this down to what a normal Wikipedia article on a self-promoting hired gun witness would look like.
  • 2012 at ANI [52]

*Warnings and feedback given to Fladrif just in 2013:

• • Why did you delete my question? I am not looking to cause trouble or start an argument. I was simply making a request. Couldn't you have at least shown me enough respect to reply?
  • He may have his shortcomings, but that sort of condescending commentary isn't helping anyone. Please refrain from that sort of advice, if you're going to lace it with that sort of negativity, the meaning is lost, and everyone's time is wasted.
  • It is also unhelpful that you immediately delete any comments on your talk page which makes scrutiny of your past activities less obvious and makes it more difficult to conduct a current discussion about your activities. That can be seen as obstructive.
  • If I see ANY more posts like this then I will block you without another warning, and without a moment's hesitation.…. If I see ANY more posts like this then I will block you without another warning, and without a moment's hesitation.
  • I came here to protest against its nastiness. I suppose you were angry and upset, but still. Anyway, I saw Ched had got here before me, and you had promptly removed his warning. You're formally perfectly entitled to do that, but don't you think it's a little embarrassing, for somebody so strong on openness and transparency, to be so quick to hide criticism of yourself?
  • Dude, please take a break: I don't want to see you get blocked.
  • have reverted your edits to User talk:Dreadstar. Given how you do maintenance to your talk page, I'm sure you don't mind if your comments on others' talk pages are summarily reverted. Also, I couldn't rightly decide between calling it trolling and personal attack, so I'll leave that to you. Do consider this a warning--let's say level-3 NPA.
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• Gerda Arndt says: Every editor is a human being and we need to consider regularly whether our view/approach to an issue brings out the best of humanity or not.
• Reaper Eternal says: I have reverted your recent mass-tagging of various userspace pages as {tlx|db-attack}, which does not apply to those pages. If you want them deleted, take them to WP:MFD as per WP:POLEMIC or as abandoned drafts of RFCs.
• Ched's block comment: I've thought about this for some time, .... and no. Your editing here is not conducive to a collaborative environment. You have been sanctioned in the past for your approach by the arbitration committee, and you continue to attack editors in an unacceptable manner. No Fladrif, enough is enough. If you want some "unblock me" template, .. ask. But your behavior is far beyond acceptable.
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 [53]. --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.[54][55] 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.[56] 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 [57] [58] that got Dreadstar a 1 week block (on 15 November 2011 [59]). Also, it is several years since Fladrif's last block, which was 72 hours [60]. 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]

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]

• Editors are free to remove anything they want on their talk page and this would just encourage questionable warnings by random detractors looking to decorate his page with hate. It doesn't solve anything and would be twisting the knife. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per DB. NE Ent 12:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Assuming Fladrif is allowed to continue editing at all, it is important for the community to have a convenient view of any legitimate concerns, without being forced to go to unusual lengths to reconstruct his talk page. Worries over vandalism of Fladrif's talk page can be dealt with by the proposal to allow removal of inappropriate warnings by uninvolved admins. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[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]

User:Jmh649 controversially unblocked a block by another admin User:Ched on User:Fladrif without complying with "Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion.". At the subsequent ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Fladrif_with_their_finger_on_the_trigger on User:Fladrif several editors have commented that User:Jmh649 is not a suitable person to adjudicate in this case because of his past connections with Fladrif, see [61]. Now he has adjudicated on this ANI giving a mere 72 hour ban even though an overwhelming number of editors (about 10) have expressed criticism of Fladrif. He seems blind to the consensus. In my view User:Jmh649 should step away from this dispute. --Penbat (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ched, I don't think you have to worry about any untimeliness on your own part. It looks like MyStrat didn't look very far afield, for instance not at your page. You have been clear enough in calling Doc James' admin action improper, and pointing out that he had not attempted any courtesy discussion before (or, as far as I know, after) unblocking: [62], [63], [64], [65]. "I was not even given the common courtesy of a discussion". (And I'm old, too.) Bishonen | talk 21:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With respect to claims of involvement here is that for Ched and Fradrif [66] and for myself and Fradrif.[67] They come out very similar. We have further involvement here which I consider to be of a significant nature [68]. Anyway I have limited access to Internet right now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'm really surprised to see James defending his misrepresentation of Ched's relationship to Fladrif. At first I thought it was an impulsive error that he would quickly correct but now I see that he is committed to what appears to be an intentional falsehood. He cites above a diff to an RfA that Ched co-sponsored and which was voted on by more than 100 people (of which Fladrif was one), as an example of Ched being "involved" with Fladrif. [69] On his user talk page James cites Fladrif and Ched's votes on the Will Beback psuedo RfC as "involvment". [70] Does anyone really think that casting a vote in public forum makes you "involved" with every other person who has cast a vote on that page? Are these valid examples of Fladrif and Ched being "involved"?

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

1. Fladrif congratulates James on Admin status [71]
2. Fladirf invites James to join him on a topic area he's working on [72]
3. Doc asks Fladrif for his email [73]
4. James and Fladrif are both named parties in an ArbCom case in which Fladrif received a one year NPA restriction. [74]
5. James and Fladrif supported each other in many talk page threads. Here are a few examples:[75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84] There are many more but this is just the ones from a single article talk page archive-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1-day old user account creating related articles Hamish Miller (dowser), Paul A. Broadhurst, and The Sun and the Serpent in praise of Miller and Broadhurst's book. Appears to be some kind of spoof: articles and edit summaries are peppered with joke phrases such as "funky dudes", "super-groovy" and "greedy capitalism", etc. Talk page antics include accusations of religious hatred [87] and WP:ICANTHEARYOU [88]. - 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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• User talk:ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

and

What I Have Taught Wikipedia

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

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

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

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]

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