Misplaced Pages

Wow, I wouldn't have expected that you'd present yourself as such a clique so openly here. --Joy (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I find your lack of good faith disturbing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me??? "The harassment community"? You're defending someone who violates topic bans, canvasses supporters, threatens to out users, and tries to sneak his personal opinions into official policy by cleverly nested template inclusion. You are blatantly mischaracterising the underlying dispute, as well as importing it here. This discussion is not about diacritics, but about LBW's conduct. So please refrain from personal attacks, and keep the content dispute out of here. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

In fact I have noticed that the anti-diacritic crowd does indeed get more sanctions. This is not because of unfair application, but because, on average, the members of that crowd exhibit a greater degree of battleground mentality than the pro-diacritics crowd. Indeed, Kauffner's own comment pretty clearly exhibits much the same, suggesting that those in favour of diacritics don't want to write an English encyclopedia and calling them the harassment community. And openly strategizing to keep them busy. So when he says his side is getting more sanctions, he can just look at his own comments and see why. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• As if anti-English crusaders don't violate any rules, or I don't who these people are. In any case, writing an article that English speakers can read should take precedence over expressing national pride by introducing non-English words and spellings. Kauffner (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Just listen to yourself! Do you really think that those who are in favour of correct use of diacritics are anti-English crusaders? For what little it's worth, I am English, and I favour sensible use of diacritics. To suggest that anyone who takes such a position is motivated by 'national pride' is a wild allegation of poor faith. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Kauffner, you make my point far better than I ever could. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

  That seems to make it de facto a punitive block, however - 'he's done X, Y and Z, the sentence is 90 days'. Blocks are at least supposed to be preventative, not punitive - the thing to ask is, if we imposed (say) a 90 day block, would we be right back here on day 91? Signs point to yes - which is why indef is appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It might also be pointed out that LBW has never once formally appealed a block. He silently accepts his "punishment", waits for it to run out, and then goes right back to exactly what he was doing. We shouldn't let him get away with this a third time. Konjakupoet (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, long overdue. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - This voting section should be closed immediately as pointless. Risker stated above the block is being reviewed by Arbcom so the arguments and supports and opposes here are not needed. Arbcom will make the determination. Kumioko (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Um, a community-ban and an ArbCom block/ban are two different things. Why do you bizarrely believe that the two are mutually exclusive? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• ArbCom is reviewing a block based on "canvassing/outing". This discussion is about a block for "repeated flouting of a topic-ban". The two are seperate issues. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support has already violated his topic ban two times and has been blocked twice for it. Short blocks haven't been working so an indefinite block is the only option left. -DJSasso (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The issue isn't that he thinks diacritics don't belong to an English publication, but how he manifests this with his behaviour. He is already subject to a topic ban which he considers unjust and has happily ignored on more than one occasion, and he continues to treat WP as a battleground. His statements above, the recent latent TB violations not sanctioned and his declaration that he intends to appeal the TB shortly without having demonstrated any sign of contrition are highly disconcerting. Going around accusing editors who oppose him "ultra-nationalists" and raising of an ANI complaint "bullying" are uncivil and unhelpful respectively. -- Ohconfucius  01:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This may be moot, since LBW has been indeffed for outing, but I'll add my voice to the chorus. Unlike some of the others here, who have been waging a pitched battle against LBW for some time now, I have little to no interaction over this issue, but I generally support LBW's position on diacritics. However, this position appears to be a minority view, and I recognize that community consensus has primacy over my personal views. LBW's editing surrounding this topic has been clearly tendentious and disruptive, and it's obvious that he is either unable or unwilling to abide by the restrictions of the existing topic ban. An indefinite block is the next logical step, with the understanding that indefinite does not mean permanent. Horologium (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Kick it to ArbCom While I would definitely support on an indef, I find it pointless to try and impose blocks and/or sanctions here while ArbCom is already trying to work on a solution. Herr Kommisar 02:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

As the user he "outed", I should point out that whether "outing" actually took place is sort of up-for-grabs. As I already pointed out above, LBW did not directly state my personal information in public. What he did was directly attempt to tie my new WP:CLEANSTART account to a previous account that had been outed. By a user LBW was colluding closely with. LBW, knowing all of this, posted the claim that this account is linked with my old one on about six separate forums (those are the redacted edits). While LBW's actions here make it obvious that he is basically malicious and did intend to cause me harm/out me, it is entirely possible that ArbCom won't accept this as falling within the standard definition of "outing". Therefore, this discussion needs to continue: no point letting him off the hook for all his other violations just because his harassment of me didn't technically qualify as outing. Konjakupoet (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that does technically qualify as outing, actually. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Is ArbCom reviewsing the whole kit and kaboodle, or just the current block he's currently under for 'canvassing/outing'? Because 'flagrant topic ban violations' is a whole 'nother kettle of hagfish. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Our review is limited to the alleged outing. T. Canens (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Bug in undeleting 2 pages with many edits

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

user:Dippoldtheoptician

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BF101 sock, once again

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

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

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

Personal attack / insult by user:Mouh2jijel

Hello,

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

I ask for an immediate block of this user!

Regards,

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

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

Ongoing harassment of User:Alan Liefting by User:CBM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see three issues here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh great, this discussion doesn't have enough drama already you need to come along and snipe your usual stupid comments! Kumioko (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP: NPA, Kumioko. It would be best if you dropped the WP: BATTLEGROUND mentality. We're all just trying to do what's best for the 'pedia. Herr Kommisar 00:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Alan Liefting is under a community-imposed topic ban because a sufficient portion of the community found Alan's category changes to be disruptive. As explained above, the only harassment occurring is from a small circle of dissenters, with CBM as their target. This topic has been discussed on many previous occasions, with numerous appeals to have the topic ban removed—appeals which have been rejected by the community. Instead of attacking CBM, the OP should attempt to explain a few facts of life to Alan: this is a collaborative project, and an editor who repeatedly irritates others by making unwelcome changes is going to end up with a topic ban, and will be blocked for escalating periods if the ban is violated. Thank you CBM for having the perseverance to monitor the situation for the community. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I for one am glad that so many people are validating my fears here that admins are not subject to the rules of harassment and involved. I feared it already but this solidifies it for me. What a shame. Now we are even thanking admins for stalking other editors they don't like. That's wonderful. Kumioko (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose - I like Alan, and think he's generally a productive editor, but I see no reason why his inability or unwillingness to abide by a valid community ban should be a justification for overturning the ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Question - Can the ban be enforced by an edit filter. It might be difficult, but if we (Wikipedians) can ensure that the ban won't be broken, then there's no reason for the block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes it can, but it might be hard to code. Kumioko (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you Arthur. That's the first really constructive comment on this thread. At which point I suppose the thread will be hurriedly closed. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Please close this thread

Per the near-unanimous decision above to oppose lifting Alan's topic ban, along with a clear consensus that CBM was not WP: HOUNDING, I propose that an uninvolved admin close this thread, which seems to be causing much more heat than light. Herr Kommisar 00:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Ten_Lost_Tribes#Replaced_criticism_on_in_opening_statement_to_separate_deserving_section

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

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

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

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

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

This filling is not about the content dispute, rather it is about the POV pushing including the misrepresentation of sources, the failure to provide sources, and a moralizing ad hominem personal attack by an experienced editor.

If you and other administrators don't have the time to read the thread, that's a problem that exceeds the scope of this filing. As I said, this is intended as a preventative measure, as I do not intend to waste any more of my time arguing with POV-pushing editors that continually show up on the series of articles related to this topic and attempt to promote a cluster of beliefs they suppose are based on their religion, apparently, which they argue for without presenting RS and try to support with pseudo-historical claims while suppressing the relevant academic sources on the actual history, including studies on genetics.

I do not find anything productive in the accusations of being manipulative and unethical leveled against me by the editor in question; moreover, the editor could be characterized as being delusional on the basis of his edits and explanations (e.g., "universally accepted history"), and that doesn't even address the condescending moralizing nature of the personal attack. If there is manipulation involved, it can be seen in the various fallacious claims in the explanation the editor left on the Talk page, along with the moralizing tone of the personal attack.

This is an attempt at dispute resolution related to conduct, not content. The conduct is, of course, related to the content. I'm not necessarily looking for the user to be blocked, as I don't know whether that would solve the problem, which seems to recur. Both the POV pushing and the personal attack are unacceptable policy violations, so I would expect at least warnings to be issued to the editor, particularly with respect to the POV pushing. Maybe there should be a remedial training course set up that would verify such editors are aware of the fact that they have to support their edits with RS.Ubikwit _{見学/迷惑} 01:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• It is noteworthy that User:Johndheathcote removed his signature from the Talk page entry , apparently in an attempt to conceal his identity. For someone that has apparently been on Misplaced Pages since 2007, such behavior would seem to be beyond bizarre. The content of his Talk page, however, is rather one-dimensional and he has less than 500 edits in approximately 6 years.--Ubikwit _{見学/迷惑} 06:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Long term problems with WP:VERIFY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

obvious socks

User:Asishillickal

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

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

IP attacks on User:Pks1142

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

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

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

Attacks and threats made by Bearman998

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User talk:Dave Bowman - Discovery Won

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'm a liberal, non-American, non-Republican, atheist asshole (TParis, I checked almost all the right boxes) and I revoked their talk page access. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Worth pointing out he claims (plausibly imo) to be American himself - it's just a domestic. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Wilkinsons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Kuyi123w

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

I agree with Andy. Although I don't see many attempts to actually talk to the editor, the history is dreadful. The editor's deleted contribution history is miles long. Even some of the pages created that were not deleted were redirected. The only time the editor has ever "talked" is when they contest a speedy deletion () or when they moved a talk page (), which isn't really talking. User:Jac16888, who blocked the editor, tried to get the user to respond but to no avail ().--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I haven't got much experience with this editor but even my limited observations are in line with Andy's. This editor seems to be adding all kinds of junk to the encyclopedia, a real hodgepodge of marginal and sometimes harmful edits (e.g. substituting a generic "school" portal for Michigan at the University of Michigan, here), and despite repeated suggestions, comments and warnings by other editors, fails to give any indication that they perceive any problem at all. They just - keep going, and with determination. And - more than 1400 edits (live and deleted) and just 10 to any Talk page. They seem just as determined not to discuss these issues - JohnInDC (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Further questionable editing: this paragraph is a direct Google Translate version of the source cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I intend to take a look at this later today, but in the absence of any comments against, with no input from the editor, and with a continuing pattern of disruption, I will probably indef the user. Although I know little about the Italian Misplaced Pages, some of the editor's habits here may be in line with customs there, e.g., portal bars on every page, but I could be wrong as I haven't looked at enough articles at the Italian Misplaced Pages, just the ones that the editor has essentially transferred here (that appears to be part of their agenda).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with an indef block, Kuyi123w is (intentionally or not) causing a good deal of disruption and either unwilling to listen to, or unable to understand, the numerous attempts made to reach out to them - WP:CIR--Jac16888 17:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nepal–Papua New Guinea relations

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

• I've gone ahead and closed it. Normally, I wouldn't worry if it is just a little overdue, like this one was. We admin don't jump on them the minute it hits 7 days, we are sometimes off doing other things, but someone will usually get to it within a day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone should probably block me for this comment

The Invisible War

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

The user's attempts to delete sourced content with the cop-out edit summary "false information", their inability to understand WP:UNDUE when moving the criticism section, and the fact that they have referred you to the talk page despite the fact they've never once edited the talk page make me think this user is trying to push a PoV on this article. We should enforce WP:BRD and discuss with the user more thoroughly just how they are disrupting Misplaced Pages while dissuading them from edit warring. – Richard BB 11:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Cblambert

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

Called user an "abusive SOB" ]

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

Makes the ABF more clear ]

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

Miscellaneous more insults and attacks ]

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

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

Now he attempts to archive all discussion on page]

After restoring he archives talk page agin]

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

Another editwar edit archiving despite warning in history summary ]

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

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

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

Re: This user seems to attempt to taunt me on several electrical articles.

Cblambert: This is patently not true.Cblambert (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: He makes ad hominem remarks when edits are reverted and editwars continually reverting to his text or his diagrams despite satisfactory diagrams, from others, already in the articles.

Cblambert: This is not true. This is normal dispute.Cblambert (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: He will not stop despite talk page discussions, where he ignores lack of consensus.

cblambert: Accuser does not use 5 pillars approach well. Nobody else has editor this problem.Cblambert (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: I edited the article Transformer and shortly he returned, after about ten days of no editing, to revert almost every edit injected by myself and other editors involved.

cblambert: This copy-editing was done in good faith.Cblambert (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: When I moved to another article Dot Convention he followed, changed the name of the article, removed much of my work, place diagrams created by himself that conflict with the original diagram done by a senior editor, years ago.

cblambert: The diagram is still in dispute.Cblambert (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: In the new article talk page he indicates he doesn't understand the technology, after many reverts of other editors text concerning the same subject matter, in various articles.

cblambert: This is a valid question, which is still being disputed because the diagram is still wrong and dispute in good faith.Cblambert (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: His latest trick is to move talk page text, where he used insulting ad hominem comments, to the top of the talk page, hide them with closure and collapse edits and then archive them, despite being current topics active in edit. His latest trick is to move talk page text, where he used insulting ad hominem comments, to the top of the talk page, hide them with closure and collapse edits and then archive them, despite being current topics active in edit.

cblambert: See Talk section in question, which was closed because of abusive language. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Transformer/Archive_8&action=edit&section=1

Re: This user seems to attempt to taunt me on several electrical articles.

Cblambert: This is patently not true.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: He makes ad hominem remarks when edits are reverted and editwars continually reverting to his text or his diagrams despite satisfactory diagrams, from others, already in the articles.

Cblambert: This is not true. This is normal dispute.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: He will not stop despite talk page discussions, where he ignores lack of consensus.

cblambert: Accuser does not use 5 pillars approach well. No other editor has this problem. This was an extensive discussion to build consensus in http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Transformer/Archive_8#Turn_ratio & http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Transformer/Archive_8#Improvement_of_explanation_for_the_non-expert. Note in particular in former section(Turn ratio) accuser assertion that ':Ratios are never referred to as "n". This is incorrect mathematically and original research by you and is not welcome in WP article.', which was very well known to be untrue and was indeed in Talk substantiated beyond any doubt whatsoever. Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: I edited the article Transformer and shortly he returned, after about ten days of no editing, to revert almost every edit injected by myself and other editors involved.

cblambert: This copy-editing was done in good faith.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: When I moved to another article Dot Convention he followed, changed the name of the article, removed much of my work, place diagrams created by himself that conflict with the original diagram done by a senior editor, years ago.

cblambert: The diagram is still in dispute. In connection with changed name of the article, accuser complimented me on the change. See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Polarity_(Mutual_inductance)&action=edit&section=7Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: In the new article talk page he indicates he doesn't understand the technology, after many reverts of other editors text concerning the same subject matter, in various articles.

cblambert: This is a valid question, which is still being disputed because the diagram is still wrong and dispute in good faith.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: His latest trick is to move talk page text, where he used insulting ad hominem comments, to the top of the talk page, hide them with closure and collapse edits and then archive them, despite being current topics active in edit. His latest trick is to move talk page text, where he used insulting ad hominem comments, to the top of the talk page, hide them with closure and collapse edits and then archive them, despite being current topics active in edit.

cblambert: See Talk section in question, which was closed because of abusive language.

Re: Called user an "abusive SOB" ]

cblambert: User in question has been abusive to me and many, many other for years, and was particularly abusive in exchange in question. User in question has not commented about this.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Assumes bad faith after my opinion given for his request.

cblambert: See abusive language in exchange in 'Close gaps to get to 'Equivalent circuit' with Heyland factor?' section above.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Labels my edits as "vandalism", etc.

cblambert: I admit doing this two, exactly same number of times as accuser.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Miscellaneous more insults and attacks

cblambert: No insults made. Never. I have always been respectful to accuser. See abusive language in exchange in 'Close gaps to get to 'Equivalent circuit' with Heyland factor?' section above.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

cblambert: What is he talking about. There is no hiding in Misplaced Pages. I wanted to make a clear point that this kind self-serving escalation was coming to an end with 'Discussion closed' in collapsible section heading.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: After my revert and warning he rearranges and collapses comments again saying "discussion is closed"

cblambert: Yes. I wanted to make a clear point that this kind self-serving escalation was coming to an end with 'Discussion closed' in collapsible section heading.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Now he attempts to archive all discussion on page

cblambert: The discussion was not health for anybody. Good way to de-escalate. Needed archiving.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

cblambert: The discussion was not health for anybody. Good way to de-escalate. Needed archiving. I archived using Misplaced Pages Help.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Frequently uses references to writer's names with links that don't function to support his edits

cblambert: This is simply untrue. Very seldom does this happen. Have a look.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

cblambert: Record will show there is no nonsense prose with meticulously supported reference. See for example Variable-frequency drive, Charles Proteus Steinmetz, Electric motor and of course Transformer. 'The apparently he doesn't understand the concept.' is patently false.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Now what? I understood that archiving is requested and current discussions newer than a week old should be retained.

cblambert: Accuser can refer to Archive to continue the discussion.Cblambert (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, you aren't supposed to continue discussions in archives. You're supposed to continue the discussion by either raising the point back on the main talk page or de-archiving the old thread(s) via copy-paste. FallingGravity (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I admidetdly am not an expert on archive. All the sections had in my view been answered or closed. Accuser appeared to be intent on milking the issue indefinitely, which could only be defused in my view by archiving.Cblambert (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Changed attitude by accuser since archiving and ANI Notice posting has been radically improved in terms of consistency with Misplaced Pages pillars and unusual deference, but the ass-covering is re-double immensely.

I've cleared up the responses here because of the atrocious indenting. Cblambert, learn to indent properly. Your responses are hard enough to make out as it is. Also, you do not need to sign at the end of every response. Just sign at the end. Blackmane (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Further comment: I'd like to see the justification of unilaterally moving 100kb worth of talk page discussion to an archive manually. Also, collapsing article talk page discussion to shut it down is looked upon poorly especially if you and another editor are having a content dispute. I'll leave the other behavourial stuff to the admins to deal with. Blackmane (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've cleared up the responses here because of the atrocious indenting. Cblambert, learn to indent properly.

I don't know what you cleared.

Justification is that Accuser was being abusive. Collapsible discussion what because the discussion had nothing to do with my innocent comment. Read the discussion. You will see.

Archiving was the next step in accuser's abusive escalation. Read the discussion. You will see.

I agree to leave the other behavourial stuff to admins to deal with.

Many thanks.Cblambert (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

-------------------------

When I got into Misplaced Pages, following retirement a few ago, I decided to concentrate in a few key areas that looked to me to need major clean-up as follows:

• First, of key VFD article along with associated vector control (motor) and Direct torque control articles. Eventually, I play a central role in successfully turning VFD into a GA. The article is now stabilized with very very few editing changes being done for the past several months.
• More recently, of the key Electrical motor article including in terms of associated Electric motor template, AC motor, History of the electric motor, Torque and speed of a DC motor and Circle diagram. Though not in as good a shape as VFD, Electrical motor also seems to have stabilized with very very few editing changes being done for the past few months.
• More recently, of the miscellaneous small electrical articles Thevenin's theorem, Norton's theorem and Charles Proteus Steinmetz, which were and remain very stable in terms of editing changes.
• Sporadically during that period, of the most prestigious Transformer article and associated Dot convention (incidently Accuser was not evolved when I first started dabbling with Dot convention) on which I have devoted an extraordinary amount of effort, without however achieved an equivalent degreee of stability in editing changes. Transformer is still very much a work progress but despite a lot of effort on my part and my other editors, it is unclear if the article will stabilize to the same degree as VFD and Electrical motor articles have. This is especially interesting because, on the one hand, Electrical motor and Transformer articles have a lot in common in terms of basic principles, and, on the other hand, the approaches between the two articles could not more difference. Also, in my view, the quality of the Transformer article is clearly superior than that of the Electric motor article.

Possible explanation for conflict between Accuser and me

--------------------------------------------------------

I surmise that this conflict stems to a great extent due to the different backgrounds. My own engineering and management background is in heavy industry, which has built in me a strong affinity for understand basic principles to underlie these major clean-up article efforts.

I'm not sure but my sense is that Accuser's background is more on the practical side and he recently mentioned his experience is in manucturing and government (measurement).

In any case, whereas I am keenly interested in key Transformer article principles such as magnetism, Accuser appears to have a high affinity for practical, hands-on aspects.

For whatever reason, finding common ground has proven somewhat elusive.Cblambert (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sweet mother of TL;DR, is this for real? Basalisk ⁄_berate 12:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I was edit conflicted with CBlambert's inappropriate removal of Basalisk's comment. In reply to your comment, Cblambert, I fixed the indenting of your initial response which was kept completely in line with the IP user's first posting making it very difficult to read. Indenting is done by adding in a colon, if you're not familiar with it. Blackmane (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• A few points:

1. ANI is not the place to have a content dispute
2. It appears that both parties are trying to improve the project
3. Archives should never be edited: that's even what the writing around them says
4. A participant in a discussion should NEVER archive said discussion in order to stop it from continuing
5. We have WP:DR processes for a reason. This includes WP:RFC's and WP:3O - USE THEM
6. Do not ever WP:OWN an article
7. Remember that WP:CONSENSUS rules

Now, everyone go back to the article talkpage with these basic rules in mind (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re:the basic gist is that Cblambert has, over the last several months, significantly reworked transformer to be closer to what would be expected of an academic textbook

Thank you. It should be very clear excerpt higfhlighted here is plain false. There was a lot of effort but their was no attempt to get closer to to what would be expected of an academic textbook. The emphasis is on truth not academic realism. Just like in variable-frequency drive, one of only three electric engineering WP Good Articles. Again thank you for what must surely be a difficult role WP Administrators have to deal with.Cblambert (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Also. There was no editing on my part of archive, all editing having been done in the active Talk pages. Thank you again.Cblambert (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You've missed the point. It's not tat you edited an archived discussion, but that you inappropriately created an archive of the entire talk page and also inappropriately collapsed a discussion you and another editor were having on the pretext of "abusive comments". Beyond that, it would be wise to follow Bwilkins' advice. Blackmane (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Complainers note: Cblambert also moved the text, in question, with your ad hominem attacks out of order, to the top of the talk page] combined with the improper "closing", "collapsing" and "archiving" adds up to what appears to be a clear case of an attempt to hide the history of your comments. A simple apology would have sufficed, for me. (say you were drunk. LOL). If you actually see an abusive comment from me, please list it and point it out. As my text explained, you have used this confusion before to avoid consensus collaboration if the content isn't going your way. I still feel your injection of nonsense technical formulae in articles is very negative to WP project. Since you refuse to discuss this without arising distractive issues, we are here. Many attempts from myself, User:Wtshymanski and others have failed. You have done some good work but you display too much article ownership witnessed by your bragging elsewhere about how Transformer is a perfect example and model of a great article. As I understand it, and have seen mentioned to you previously, in reverts of your flooding articles with math formulae, we already have engineering texts for high tech people and this style is not wanted in WP to that level. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Cblambert I would like to point out this article to you Y-Δ transform. Note the comments at the top of the article warning readers this is about complex mathematical stuff? Perhaps there is a place for engineering textbook level edits, like I feel you want to do. I cannot create articles as an IP, but as an anonymous named editor you can, I believe. This way a long involved article like Transformerscould have the simpler prose explanations with a link to the complex math stuff for people that want the nitty-gritty. I attempted to explain this to you on the talk page but you did the same response I complained about here, and went on the defensive with an attack and distraction about something I didn't say. Again you can do some good stuff and you certainly not a lazy editor, like lot of us, but I think it doesn't belong in certain places. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Content removal at Raymond Gravel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am beginning to get tired of dealing with his personal attacks and his refusal to use talk pages. Can someone help?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Konjakupoet (talk • contribs)