Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:06, 11 February 2015

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Chaheel Riens (that's me) and Ghmyrtle being accused of both being the same user - sockpuppets.

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

There was a bit of an editing brouhaha over at Casual (subculture), and an IP editor seems to have now registered under the name of Richie bedfellows.

During the exchange he has accused GhMyrtle and myself of being the same editor twice in different edits.

I objected to this each time and gave him the chance to redact - his response is here, however, he invites me to not "be waiting around for the weekend to finish, my friend" - so I'm not. Both involved editors informed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Richie bedfellows: I have plenty of legitimate reasons for suspicion. Please do share these reasons, as accusations of sockpuppetry are serious, and not showing any kind of support behind them is concidered harassment, and can get you blocked. Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. Please take care. -- Orduin 22:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

He's posted provocatively on my talk page again, exactly one minute after doing so on his own page - inviting @Orduin: to message him, whereupon he will reveal his suspicions. I've replied, asking him to post here instead. His reply seems to suggest that he thinks Orduin is watching his talkpage (which may be the case - but also may not). Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking deeper, it seems that Richie and the IP editor are not the same - Richie was just duplicating the errors made by said IP editor, so I've struck that particular comment. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This is getting to me, as the user has yet to supply us with his evidence, and seems to be putting this on hold. -- Orduin 20:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks too - inviting me (twice) to stick my head up my arse. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, that 'special' comment was added by an IP editor, but it could have been by the same person, but logged out. I removed the comment.

It does not seem to fit in with the later comment added by Richie bedfellows. -- Orduin 18:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, given the latest posts on your talk page, the editor in question has pretty much confirmed that it is him editing while logged out. This also casts doubt on the previous IP edits to the Casuals page, which are not only similar in tone, but geolocate to the same region. That (somewhat ironically) suggests that Richie is in fact a long time sock puppet himself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Either he's stupid enough to do so. Or he did it accidentally. Whatever it is, you cannot know for sure without a CheckUser, so there's no point accusing. They might IPs in the same region but who's to say Richie's related. I'm just giving Richie the benefit of doubt. And tone's is something which only experts in linguistics can comprehend, definitely not us. The accusation was of course a grave offense. I believe his failure in providing evidence and not showing up here is of great concern. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 13:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair point - I was just drawing attention to the fact that the duck test - if applied - would be more likely to pass Richie and the IP addresses, than GHMyrtle and myself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Transcluding the discussion on my page here. -- Orduin 21:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Backtracking about what, exactly? You seem to be under some misapprehension here. As much as you would clearly love this to be something else, this has now become nothing more than a slightly inconvenient, mildly amusing sideshow to the real issue for me... Which is unreferenced, personal subjective opinion, purposely undermining long standing appropriately cited contributions. Given the behaviour from both user-pages and the pattern of events, I made the accusation(which i still stand by). I then told you to do your worst after you 'gave' me the weekend to think about it before issuing me with a 'warning'. Unfortunately, you then decided to undermine the whole 'procedure' when hijacking Orduin's talk page with the kind of bizarre, semi-relevant self posturing that only serves to turn the whole thing into an absurdity . Now, obviously seeing as I'm a big believer in 'if a big mouth has something to say, let them speak', I simply ran with it. I have no qualms about 'showing up here' and presenting my evidence. If, as I have stated already, the accusations turn out to be unsubstantiated, then i'll also have no qualms over retracting the accusation before appropriately editing the posts in question. I'll then (if allowed) get back to the real issue. Also, Just for clarification, i may well have responded to Gymrtle over this issue then logged out before noticing the edit, then reverted the page without logging back in. There was no malicious intention.,Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The article itself is a completely different issue that has no bearing to this particular topic. You may edit there to your hearts content, provided said edits meet Misplaced Pages's standards. The issue here is one of repeated accusations of sock puppetry, and then a refusal to prevent evidence when requested. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't refused to to pre(s)ent anything of the sort. As i have already explained, Orduin gave me the choice of submitting the evidence either here or on on his talk page. You chose to hijack that page and i simply went along for the ride.

Hi Orduin. here is the evidence as leading to my suspicions as requested. The following conversation took place between myself and Grmytle: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ghmyrtle#Casual_.28subculture.29_.E2.80.8E

In between this conversation there were also intermittent contributions from Chaheel over on his talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Chaheel_Riens

This conversation above also ran along side intermittent changes from Chaheel here. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Casual_%28subculture%29&action=history

This is presented this way because I am no longer able to access the 'highlighted comparison' changes. My suspicions were then felt to be unsubstantiated when Ghmrtle informed me he was now happy with the wording here: I wasn't "arguing a point about someone else not bothering to cite some dubious info". I was removing words which you added that made no sense. You've now come up with a better wording. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Then proceeded to argue Chaheel's subsequent change here: Your wording said, in effect, that something else happened before something that happened at the same time. It didn't make any sense at all. And, you ought to be aware that accusing two editors of being the same person is accusing them of sockpuppetry - which is a serious allegation. You might like to withdraw it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)This seemed strange to me at the time simply because he had now started to argue previous points already covered with Chaeel's exact same points after telling me he was happy with the wording just moments before. I had no choice here but to highlight the whole conversation with Ghmyrtle simply because of the sheer amount of changes since the exchange and the highlighted changes from Chaheel are no longer obvious in their availability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talk • contribs) 15:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, my comment here that "Your wording said, in effect, that something else happened before something that happened at the same time. It didn't make any sense at all...." was a response to RB's comment here that "They made sense right from the start." It was not a comment on any of CR's edits. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes but neither arguments made sense. Both separate pages were posting at myself simultaneously with both pages paraphrasing each others sentiment, with both of you coming from the exact same miss-informed angle because neither of you could understand the full context of the whole piece. I explained to you about the two separate aspects, which had you understood, would have seen my edit did actually make sense, but you simply refused to acknowledge. You just simply said 'your wording now makes sense', then proceeded to argue CR'S contradictory point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talk • contribs) 08:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem was simply that (1) you failed to see that the wording you used was illogical, and (2) two different editors saw the same thing at the same time, and responded to you the same way. You really should have dropped this argument a long time ago, to save yourself embarrassment and stop wasting others' time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "both of you" suggests that the editor now accepts that he has been dealing with two editors, not one editor and a sockpuppet. So can we expect a clear apology to both of the editors who have been falsely accused? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's face it. If someone is going backwards and forwards on talk page 'A', with 'A' generally failing to grasp the context and specifically passing comment about 'pissing off other editors', anyone would begin to have suspicions If suddenly, right on cue talk 'B' intervenes to seemingly 'shore up' the sentiment on what appears to be a new non archived userpage using the exact same one specific, out of context argument as user 'A'. Still, 'good will' obviously would always be shown but those suspicions would always re-surface when 'A' then clams up about 'pissing other editors off' when the irony of a fourth contributor turning up on the talkpage asking 'A' for an explanation fails to be acknowledged, but then resurfaces when B starts expressing the same sentiment about other editors over on his page. Still suspicions would be unsubstantiated, but when i then go across to respond on B's talkpage, only to find 'A' addressing that response back on his own talkpage just moments later, those suspicions would obviously become more and more prominent for anyone. Add to that 'A' seemingly allowing the accusations to then take their course while 'B' spends the next five days purposely disrupting and undermining the very process he claims takes such accusations so seriously...Then as i say, anyone would legitimately have those very same suspicions. Anyway, and again as previously stated. I'll simply wait for Orduin's decision and take it from there, for now. Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's already been pointed out that "moments later" wasn't in fact moments later, but a good 20 minutes or so. And it's entirely reasonable for two editors - who were watching and actively involved in the page - to find the term "Although the start of the trend beginning in Liverpool is well documented, it was already well under way elsewhere at around the same time" to be a logical fallacy (how can a trend start in location "A", when it's already underway in location "B"?) and take you to task over it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

My experience is that such "suspicions" are wholly unreasonable. Many editors will raise similar objections over new additions. That doesn't make them sockpuppets. Editors are under no obligation to space their edits so many minutes or hours apart. Edit conflicts happen all the time. You should face up to the fact you were wrong and apologise unreservedly. I'm really not sure what you are waiting for. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know either. I told that supporting his accusations is his own problem. He has to get, and provide the evidence. Just because Chaheel Riens put 'evidence' on my talk page does not mean it is supportive of the accusations. Richie has to support his case by himself. I can only guide him, not think for him. And trust me, I've shown him to several pages that should help him file an SPI. If there is going to be an SPI, it should have already happened. Either open one soon, or apologise now. -- Orduin 18:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The wording doesn't make sense because there are two separate aspects to the whole article. The first aspect being Liverpool fans were the first to wear designer continental labels, the second aspect being the precursor to that 'look'. It is separately referenced within the article that Liverpool fans were involved in both aspects. Both the designer clothing aspect and the precursor. If someone writes 'it is acknowledged that Liverpool fans started the CONTINENTAL DESIGNER ASPECT but it was already well underway elsewhere',..Then that's misleading. It gives the casual reader the false impression they were involved in one but not the other. Adding 'as well as in Liverpool' redresses that misrepresentation. "Although the start of the trend beginning in Liverpool is well documented, it was already well underway elsewhere at around the same time" is just a better worded variation that was agreed with by 'G', wrongly reverted by 'CR' then strangely argued against by 'G' just '20 minutes' after his initial agreement. The original suspicions were legitimate as far as I'm concerned, Not just for editors raising similar objection, because sometimes that's to be expected. The overall suspicions being present were simply down to the overall, general pattern of events, sentiment and timings outlined above. That said, it has now become obvious to me that these two contributors are two separate people and not one and the same, as i alleged. For this i have absolutely no qualms in retracting the allegation and issuing an apology as appropriate. Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Hi Orduin, no-one was asking you to think for me, least of all myself. The reason it took so long was because CR found it appropriate to disrupt and undermine the whole process, and you seemingly found it appropriate to let him. For my part, i simply waited until he stopped thinking he was centre stage, performing to a live audience. Just to confirm they will be no SPI submission as an apology has already been issued. Cheers. Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You can't issue accusations, refuse to back them up, then act surprised and affronted when the accused party decides to defend himself prior to your own efforts. Moreover, considering you were directly accusing me of being a sock puppet, I rather think that I was centre stage - wasn't that the point of your accusation? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

What apology? Removing a few words from an old talk page post isn't an "apology". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you should apologise to each of the editors personally. You don't seem to realise the distressing effect that such accusations have for some editors. But I'd not be surprised if you were sanctioned for wasting so much of people's time. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Conduct of Dan56

Dan56 (talk · contribs)

User repeatedly violates WP:POINT, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, is stubbornly Wikilawyering, and repeatedly edit wars in the process as he willfully pushes his view without considering other editors' input.

• AGF: , , ,
• Recent edit warring, & WP:POINT in article editing (in the first diff, he disruptively removes reviews I'd added from the album ratings box) - chronologically: + my response: + ; + ; + + + ; + + + (←linked to Wikiproject discussion in which he said himself recently it was only a guide)

I'd addressed his behavior in article and talk page with a cordial message on his page, asking him to stop disrupting and start working collaboratively.

I know I have a disadvantage here as Dan56 has promoted many GAs or FAs (reading over ANI, that apparently tends to give you automatic pardon of Wiki guideline violations), but this user has a history of eschewing collaboration, of disruptive and tendentious editing, pushing POV, OWN attitudes, WP:battleground, disrupting editing to make a point, not assuming good faith, genre warring, accusing others of what he is exactly doing or has done, and many editors have called him out on his behavior and editing practices in the past, on various article talk pages (particularly RfCs). Dan56 evidently is not interested in changing his behavior as he feels his promotion of GAs absolves him of any responsibility for his actions and that he's potentially answerable to no one (as his unsanctioned acts would lead him to believe), evidenced, recently, here and here. Most of my encounters with him have been on the band Garbage's articles, at which he arrived about 7 months ago after being canvassed by another editor (who possibly didn't know about the policy then) in a content discussion, and where he willfully employed the same editing tactics and violations he's still willfully and freely employing.

Please see see this relevant RfC here, which is the (recent) source of this dispute, and where much of the aforementioned is evident further. Dan56 does not appear to want to contribute to a collaborative, disruption-free environment at this band's pages, where he has quarreled with me and engaged in all the aforementioned countless times. My request is a topic ban for this band's articles. What he's contributed (e.g., copy edit of reviews, date formats) (by essentially shutting out others, really) can just as easily be and have been contributed by myself or any of the other editors watching the article. And, as I pointed out in the RfC, If Dan56 had actually bothered to give me a minute or two to copy edit and fix issues and continue improving and augmenting the article, as opposed to just reverting and disrupting constructive edits none of that would occur. Of course, that appears to not be in his nature, particularly for these Garbage articles, for which he, going by all prior indication, has a bias against. --Lapadite (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Lapadite77 is personalizing a dispute which stems from my involvement at Talk:Garbage (album)#Album genres and the subsequent RfC for those genres, which didn't go Lapadite's way exactly, partly because I was invited by Andrzejbanas to weigh in and sided with him. Last October (), I began cleaning up and expanding a section at Version 2.0 and have been involved there since. My recent revisions to Lapadite's edits were justified by guidelines I don't feel he can fully grasp at the on-going RfC, where he canvassed two of his recent collaborators at other "Garbage" articles to weigh in. Lapadite argued for his version of the article by drawing comparisons to other stuff in the RfC, so I dont believe he had any intention to drastically trim and properly paraphrase the quote farm he added to the article in question. The section in question is essentially complete, considering the notability of the reviewers and the viewpoints researched, so this is appears to be another attempt at creative control. Dan56 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Did I mention Dan56 had a history of accusing people of things, never admitting he has done anything wrong, and creating striking lies and misleading statements which are easily refuted by the actual, readable evidence? In that Garbage album RfC, which one can readily see, toward the end, editors called him out on his intentionally misleading tactics (for which he took 0 responsibility for and ignored the comments, and which he again similarly employed in this recent RfC, which I commented on). I created a new poll, because the other was corrupted by Dan56's tactics and lies and more useful content had also been included in the article, with an updated proposal based on recent article edits, and it went smooth and successfully. Exactly the opposite of what he claims here. This accusation - "this is appears to be another attempt at creative control" - and the hypocrisy is utterly laughable. As you can see, in accordance with my report, Dan56 does not believe he does anything wrong. All of the aforementioned, articles and diffs linked, speaks for itself, regardless of how Dan disregards and reinterprets his actions and assumes of others'. If one were to bring all the editors that have called out Dan56 on his disruptive behavior and editing practices throughout various articles they would all agree with this. I don't link to past talk discussions not directly pertaining to this dispute because it may be tacky and doing so might be interpreted negatively but I have no problem doing so if asked. This is far from a personal dispute or vendetta, which I don't care for. You can see my cordial message on his page, and after that Garbage album content dispute he linked, I had very amicably discussed with him on his page some content matters on another article; unlike him, I don't hold grudges and I'm not here for battlegrounds and disruptive practices, only to improve articles. Dan56's presence at this band's articles has been continually disruptive as his POINTy, POV-pushing, OWN, Wikilawyering, NPOV/Stick to sources-eschewal, genre warring (a significant issue during that album article discussion he linked) and lack of collaboration inhibits progress. For instance, If he hadn't disrupted improvement of that article's section (specifically the start of my constructive edits which, as I said in the RfC were far from finished) that section would've been completed right soon and without the need of all that came after it. Of course he credits the current version (which needs a checking of sources and copyediting for POV, cherry picking, sticking to source) to his mighty self, since, liked I stated above, he shut editors out and steamrolled his edits, and while RfC had just started. Again, this isn't the first time here Dan56 inhibits or significantly slows down progress here, takes ownership of an article and disregards collaboration, in the process perpetuating an environment of only disputes (as I remarked near the end of the current RfC I linked: "Is there an RfC that's not a battleground with you? To which he replied, "that's cute and all".). I strongly believe a topic ban is best. --Lapadite (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to file a report here. I recommend including only good evidence in the form of diffs. This thread will likely be closed, by someone else, accordingly. Or do you expect an admin to jump in and block the user per this report? Doc talk 08:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I expected admins to comment on ANI and consider the irrefutable content in all the links provided. Why do you think I should file a report there instead? That page says it is inactive, and the topic dispute isn't limited to RfC conduct, it also, and primarily, regards editor conduct on this band's articles, hence my request of a topic ban, and not another kind; WP:TBAN →"The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Misplaced Pages.". --Lapadite (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Another tendentious edit, which I partially restored. --Lapadite (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Another tendentious edit and reversal of copyedit/improvements, demonstrating again WP:OWN, POV, and Wikilawyering issues:

I copyedited, as edit summary details:

He wrote, in another section on the talk page, at 10:08: and 2 minutes later, made the following revert (including restoring of his tendentious, NPOV, undue weight-violating ratings replacement ): . The pre-copyediting version (his) that he restored is in many respects cherry picking, giving undue weight, and not sticking to source.

My response to his talk page post: )

I sincerely hope what has been provided and continues to be provided (obviously, again Dan56 has no plans to change his habits here) is more than enough to see why I, with reason, request a topic ban for Dan56, due to his considerable, disruptive OWN issues on this band's article, his complete disregard for collaboration, his consistent tendentious editing, knee-jerk reverts of improvements he disagrees with, violations of WP:PRESERVE and all else aforementioned.

Can any admins bother to tend to this thread? All that continues to happen is disruptive and more disruptive editing from Dan56. Lapadite (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Pinging a couple of editors, spotted while skimming ANI, that I believe are admins, to see if maybe this could start getting some attention (sorry if you're not one): Drmies, Stalwart111

I understand what Lapadite is saying, as some of my debates with Dan56 were similar in the past, but unfortunately, I think he's one of those editors that treads the line carefully, where he can come off as rude or abrasive, not its not really bad enough to warrant a block. Unless it starts escalating to personal attacks or hounding, I think a better approach would be to just keep starting discussions or RFC's, to come to a consensus that combats the WP:OWN issues. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the disruptive editing guideline mentions some "tread the line" behaviors these kinds of editors may engage in such as: "Their edits often avoid gross breaches of civility, by refraining from personal attacks, while still interfering with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article". Dan56 doesn't do blunt personal attacks, although others may disagree, and this isn't a report on personal attacks nor a proposal to ban him from editing Misplaced Pages but a request for a topic ban, to rid of his considerable, still ongoing (after 7 months) pattern of disruption at this band's articles, his considerable OWN and WP:POINTy behavior, and considerable disregard for collaboration. He's still doing it, still reverting. And presumably this guy has many editors not wanting to speak against him, perhaps admins. Pretty much every other thread at ANI has several comments. This is just ridiculous. --Lapadite (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

More tendentious editing: --Lapadite (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Part of Dan56's tendentious edits, is (first mentioned above) the constant replacing of a positive score with a negative score in the album ratings box (which already contains 10 review scores). It has been called out and explained multiple times on the talk page, noted how it's not only tendentious, but violates WP:UNDUE and WP:PRESERVE, but Dan56 keeps restoring it. There's also the persistent claim that reviews that agree on some element of an album are virtually incompatible in that regard in a reception section; summaries of reviews can't include similar opinions, unless of course for something that contradicts positive notions. Any admin's care about this pattern of disruption, OWN and tendentious editing? Seriously, this article would've been completely improved by now if Dan56 hadn't gone (and still continue) on a disruptive, tendentious crusade. --Lapadite (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this thread still open? Dan56 does like to ram a point home when he thinks he's right, the problem with that of course is that sometimes he is right. He's been very helpfully sorting out the "critical response" sections to numerous album articles to the extent that when I start improving one for WP:ALBUMS/500 I look at that and think, "good stuff, Dan's done it". With that in mind I'm just reluctant to come down like a ton of bricks on him. As others have said, he's never crossed the line into personal attacks, so all I can really advise is to just stick to the article and forget about who's saying what. It's the only sane method. Ritchie333 12:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I won't pretend I've read all of this thread, but I'm not at all surprised to see Dan56's behaviour become the subject of another discussion. Just over a year ago, I talked GabeMc out of opening an RFC/U on this user, when Gabe and several others were fed up with him, and, although I could be wrong, I believe this was the near-miss referred to in a subsequent RfC on Dan56, in August 2014. I chose not to have any input into that discussion either, but the references there to Dan56 being so obviously pro-Robert Christgau and overly controlling of article content were all too familiar. My direct contact with Dan56 has been limited mainly to tedious discussions about album genres at Talk:All Things Must Pass and Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#"Heavy metal album"; I've seen numerous, similar discussions going on over the last year or two – for instance, at Talk:Crime of the Century, Talk:Are You Experienced (can't access the archive for that page), Talk:Sgt. Pepper's – but, quite honestly, just the sight of his username is enough to ward me off, unless I consider speaking up really important. Ritchie's correct when he says that "sometimes he is right", but at the same time, Dan56 behaves as if, by divine right, he must be so at all times – there's no element of compromise, nor any awareness that he might be making working on music articles a miserable experience for others. He drives editors away from the encyclopaedia, I'm convinced of it – and I can't help thinking that's fine by him, if he alone is left working on album articles here.

Doc commented above that Lapadite needed to supply specific diffs rather than launching an unsupported attack. I don't doubt that that's the correct way to proceed, but I sympathise with the frustration that Lapadite seems to be expressing. As Sergecross73 says about Dan 56: "unfortunately, I think he's one of those editors that treads the line carefully …" So, by and large, everything appears correct per the letter of the law but (I think) at the same time he's continually falling foul of the spirit of Misplaced Pages – pillars four and five, as I understand them.

Dan56 is the only editor I've ever felt the need to watch, and for all the wrong reasons. I see him constantly laying down the law with new editors and regularly removing the protests that arrive on his talk page, when those editors are not time-wasters but have a case to present. He initiated the removal of terms such as "favourable", "mixed", "unfavourable" from the album reviewer ratings template without (as far as I can see) posting any notice at all on relevant project pages such as Albums or Rock; if those terms have to go in favour of recognised scores and ratings, then fine, but anyone proposing such far-reaching changes, you'd think, would want as broad a consensus as possible. A select few were similarly invited to a proposal on alphabetising album articles' personnel sections (after which Mudwater and I put the word out to a wider audience). To me, along with the other actions mentioned, these are examples of how this user wants to – and does, unfortunately – dominate album articles on the encyclopedia. I don't have bad feelings towards anyone on Misplaced Pages but I think admins need to address this behaviour. I said to John around the time of an episode in March 2014, it's not just about looking at diffs and specifics, it's about the entire way this user conducts himself on Misplaced Pages. That's the problem, that's why a thread like this gets opened, and it's why there'll be another one about him within six months. And as I've mentioned, there are other conflicts concerning Dan56 (the January 2014 episode) that don't even get the attention they deserve. JG66 (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you hit the nail on the head JG66. That is precisely the grand problem. My frustration is exactly because this concerns a longstanding pattern and is far from the first time Dan56 does this on this band’s articles - which I discussed above. Dan56 certainly has had numerous disputes with other editors on other articles regarding this kind of behavior, and he does immediately delete all objections and warnings he gets from his page, sometimes mocking the editor that leaves a message or asserting his ‘status' (e.g., here and when I left him a disruptive editing notice in September of 2014. I’d actually mentioned a few of those past disputes, admittedly inappropriately, out of frustration, in that Garbage album talk page (inside the “off topic” shell) he linked in his post here. If what admins need is more proof of Dan56’s pattern of disruption I personally and perhaps others would have no problem linking several examples there and elsewhere. But like I said before, this is a topic ban proposal for this bands’ articles as my own interactions with Dan56 have mostly been there, and his constant disruption, disregard for collaboration, and POV pushing there is intolerable at this point. The problem is Dan56, as usual, might temporarily stop his overtly tendentious disruption and then start up later after ANI thread is closed, but especially if objecting editors leave the article. Like JG66 said, It will certainly reemerge, again (like it did months after the last album dispute); editors like Dan56 who don’t get sanctioned for their disruptive actions never learn and change; obviously they'd have nothing to learn from since, as they mask POINTy, OWN and tendentious behavior largely through Wikilawyering and 'status', hiding behind it and professing no wrong doing (others are at fault and personalizing), they normally don't see consequences, beyond a ‘don’t do it again’ slap on the wrist. In fact, the lack of consequences only reinforces that behavior. I’ve personally stopped improving this particular article, at least temporarily, as I find it futile; only thing I'm still doing is restoring Dan56's tendentious, POV edits/his inability to stick to source when it doesn't suit his bias. Like JG66 mentioned, Dan56 likes to appropriate an article, shutting out others who object to his editing practices, wanting to be left to his own devices. Other editors in the past have noted how he edits tendentiously on articles of artists he does not like, but he also edits tendentiously on artists he does like (for example, the reception section of this album - an article he wrote, and fixed after much FA dispute ). You can see this in his comments in both talk pages initially linked here. I don’t know how many more diffs from this particular article are needed; figured I’d linked enough and was already tired of linking as the thread received no comments. The page history is plenty evidence of how much revert/restoring happened there as a result. Much of that has been linked here, as well as the talk page discussion. 

In the recent RfC that I'd linked, the three editors that responded clearly want nothing to do with the dispute, understandably. At the start of the RfC you can see that one editor noted the inappropriateness of removing the initial reviews I’d added from the album ratings box ("simply removing everything Lapadite added seems drastic").  I'd be shocked that anyone would agree with Dan56’s egregious behavior unless they’ve agreed with Dan’s POV editing in the past. That he may be “sometimes right” - everyone is at least “sometimes right” at some point - does not remotely null or invalidate his history of disputes and disruption, disruption at this band’s articles, or any he makes in the future there and elsewhere. --Lapadite (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

More, under false pretexts: , . For how long would this need to go on? 5, 10 revision history pages? Lapadite (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan56 apparently went on overdrive instead; More again, this being the first of multiple edits largely of the same nature as previous ones and as described above (his edit summary merely repeating what I stated in the previous edit): . Restored by me here, with some fixes and additions on further edits. --Lapadite (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Action needed here; proposal

• Dan56 was the subject of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Dan56 in October 2014, which (despite the stricken participation of a sock) was closed by Beeblebrox with findings that Dan56 be reminded of WP:COPYVIO, WP:BITE, and WP:OWN.
• AN/I threads involving Dan26 after his RFC: ,

This is a complex case that I think is headed to ArbCom if it doesn't get resolved here. I have observed Dan56 in many places (he's difficult to miss if you work on any music articles) but I assert that the primary sources of his conflicts on Misplaced Pages are: plagiarism, music reviews, and music genres. I will attempt to concisely demonstrate that Dan has continued to exhibit problems with WP:COPYVIO, WP:BITE, and WP:OWN pursuant to these three items since his RFC, and then propose a remedy in an attempt to avoid ArbCom.

You haven't concisely demonstrated anything. If anything, you've barely inspected what flimsy evidence you provided below. Also, the second AN/I thread you cited above was opened by a frustrated, genre-warring IP, since blocked for being the sock I suspected. You're building a flimsy case just to draw more attention to me, simply to have some action done to me. Also, since my RfC, I fixed the close paraphrasing issues at Talk:Of Human Feelings and performed source checks before I reopened its FAC. I haven't exhibited any problems with WP:COPYVIO since then. Dan56 (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I last interacted with Dan56 directly at this FAC where 3 different editors expressed concern about plagiarism and close paraphrasing in his writing. I was surprised by his aggressive and uncivil response to such concerns, and to my own concerns. By the second nomination, I had given up dealing with him and so had anyone else who initially offered constructive criticism. He then asked for it to be withdrawn, saying it was "tainted" because he believed one of the objectors to be a sock. Rather than conceding that Rationalobserver had any legitimate objections to his nomination, he accused her of being a sock with a grudge against him who was only opposing his nomination out of spite. He succeeding in getting Rationalobserver blocked as a sock of Jazzerino (talk · contribs), which was later demonstrated incorrect. However, Dan56 edit warred to maintain a note in the second FAC nomination calling Rationalobserver a sock. I will note that Rationalobserver will not be commenting here because she actually agreed to an interaction ban with Dan56 to demonstrate that she wasn't here just to harass him. I will also add that I thought it was sneaky that Dan56 opened this second nomination and notified several editors, but specifically did not notify the editors who opposed the first one.

The situation at Xx (album) demonstrates that the plagiarism problem has continued despite the RFC, and demonstrates how Dan56 reacts to normal constructive criticism in this realm.

I stand %100 by my suspicions and what I had to say on that matter, a matter which I did not provide the deciding evidence but @Mike V: had, who then offered this cryptic explanation as to why that decision was overturned--it'd be great for the purposes of this insulting thread that you get your facts straight about the situations and disputes you decide to use as "evidence" here, because I feel you're painting an inaccurate picture of that situation in broad strokes. I find it equally dubious that you pretend to forget I responded to what you claim as finding "sneaky" at that FAC page. You're forcing me to explain and discuss a dispute I've been warned not to, so it's incumbent upon you not to misrepresent it. Btw, you do realize I have an open FAC for Of Human Feelings where I "reacted to normal constructive criticism"? Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Music reviews

One of the constant sources of conflict for Dan56 is his interminable addition and removal of music album ratings and reviews to suit his personal opinion, many times with a fixation on Robert Christgau. Lapadite77 provided diffs above for recent conflicts involving reviews and ratings at Garbage-related articles. I'm concerned that Dan cherry-picks and promotes/demotes sources to back up his preferred vision for how the reviews and rating should be reflected. Here is a good example of his removing a source he doesn't like under an unclear and disingenuous edit summary. You would think he was simply adding Newsweek and NME, but he is also removing a source he has argued against without clear rationale or consensus. These are clear WP:OWN violations post-RFC.

I'm tired of having to defend myself against this type of nonsense. Being as active and involved as I am means you're going to butt heads with some fancruft and POV-driven editors from time to time, but I'm offended by your accusation that I add or remove ratings or reviews based on my personal opinion--on one hand you say I'm fixated on Robert Christgau, yet support Lapadite77's assertion that I have a negative opinion of an album (article) which Christgau gave a positive review of? I addressed and explained my role in this "Garbage-related" dispute already in my comment above on 3 February. Furthermore, your above example demonstrates what a flimsy case you are making--did you bother to read anything at the article's talk page where the review sources were being discussed?... because that edit was made when I made a case for a source I had originally added be removed in favor of obviously more notable sources per MOS:ALBUM#Critical reception. Either make a close inspection of this dispute--that article's talk page, each editor's edit summaries and arguments--or don't bother slinging vague accusations of ownership at me when the same could and should be said about the other guy (WP:BOOMERANG). The burden is on you to read through Talk:Version 2.0#Revisions to Critical reception and the corresponding revisions made to the article during that discussion, if you're to introduce it here as some kind of evidence of disruptive editing made on my part. Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This, for the record, is emblematic of the ownership issues exhibited by Lapadite77 on Garbage-related articles, articles I hardly care about, with the exception of Version 2.0, whose Critical reception I took upon myself to improve and expand starting last October, with (take a guess)... positive reviews! () But then I continued my research and found reviews not to the liking of Lapadite77. Dan56 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Music genres

Again for anyone editing music articles, you will see Dan56 all over your watchlist because he reverts anonymous and established editors who attempt to alter the genres on any article he watches, without any rationale or explanation. This is well-documented in his RFC, and he has continued the behavior despite the RFC findings. You needn't go further than the first page of his contributions to find him reverting genre changes calling them vandalism ("rvv"). Most of the time he's changing one unsourced genre to another. This violates WP:BITE (calling people's good-faith contributions vandalism) and WP:OWN (attempting to control the genres on large selections of articles without sources or discussion).

Untrue. Also, the link you provided is my revision restoring the genre sourced in the body of the article. With what I've contributed to Misplaced Pages, including the improvements I stand by at Version 2.0, I deserve for my accusers to get their facts straight rather than relying on their impression of isolated disputes I've been involved in. Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed solutions

We need some help here. Beeblebrox, since you closed the RFC, perhaps you can be of some assistance in putting this to bed. I don't think any progress has been made since the RFC. Therefore, I propose the following:

1. Dan56 is required to solicit an independent plagiarism review for any article he's developing before nominating it for either GA or FA status.
2. Dan56 is prohibited from editing reviews or ratings on music articles unless he is specifically preparing that article for GA or FA status.
3. Dan56 is prohibited from adding, removing, or changing genres on music articles unless he is specifically preparing that article for GA or FA status. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - The genre warring too characteristic of past dispute at the album Garbage article. I support the proposed solutions, especially the second and third. However, Dan56 could just use the 'preparing article' as a pretext, augmenting the OWN and WP:POINT issues. --Lapadite (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Dan56 characterizes the aforementioned as "isolated disputes". Let's see, a scan through the ANI archives of the past year also brings up: ; ; , where an editor who initially disagreed with the OP of the report said:

"All that said, I do not think Dan's hands are clean here. Some of his reverts are questionable: Reverting here to revert Harmelodix's "unexplained removal", for instance struck me as odd; it's not an "unexplained removal" in the content blanking sense. Harmelodix merely restructured the first two sentences. If Dan's intent was to invoke WP:BRD, he should have explained it and started a discussion. This revert, which the edit summary says was in order to revert an unexplained reversion... is just weird. I believe that Dan's behavior in these articles is a bit controlling; I'm not prepared to invoke WP:OWN just yet, but it's what I'd call petty. Misplaced Pages doesn't need to have the exact verbiage that Dan prefers ... I think Dan's inscrutable edit summaries, picky reasons for reverting, and curious unwillingness to engage in discussion at article talk pages serve to violate WP:BITE. While I don't think a sanction is needed at this point, Dan needs to try to work with Harmelodix rather than revert when he sees something he disagrees. Misplaced Pages is a group project, not an adversarial proceeding; work needs to take the form of a collaboration, not a negotiation with offers and counter-offers. Finally, I would formally warn Dan that WP:TEDIOUS is a redirect for "tendentious editing": if his intent is to suggest that another editor's edits are tedious, he should not be putting that link in his edit summaries (I would also argue that calling another editor's edits "tedious" is not particularly friendly)."

and , where Dan56 is reminded: "I see the changes as improvements, albeit minor ones. Just because the article is an FA, does not mean that it cannot be improved or changed for the better. Please remember it is a collaborative project, repeatedly templating good faith editors is just not good practice and often invites a hostile response." --Lapadite (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Both the report and the ANI threads you are referring to involve editors who were found to be sock puppets or IPs evading a block--Harmelodix and 5.81.225.225. Just like in your research for the articles you edit, you haven't critically assessed the sources for the case you are trying to make and instead are relying on making a lot of noise with weak evidence in hopes that whoever makes a decision on this matter wont carefully look through it. Dan56 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan's insubstantial, retaliation claims shtick was addressed in the talk page here, where he first professed them. On that note, again the start of more disruption and WP:TE of the same from Dan56, likewise just mimicking my previous restore edit summary (mentioned in above section). Does he care, think he's at fault in anything, or believe he will see any real consequences? Clearly not. He is still reverting what has already been called out for multiple guideline-violations or cleared up on the talk page. Given the nature of some of the content in this subsection created by Spike Wilbury, I'd remind that after the first disagreement and dispute with Dan56 at this article he too accused me of Wikihounding (addressed here), as previously noted in the first post of this ANI thread. --Lapadite (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User:73.11.72.255

User:73.11.72.255 has repeatedly changed sourced information on the pages of Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and Organizational Structure of Jehovah's Witnesses despite reversions by myself, User:Blackcab and User:Jeffro77. Upon being warned by BlackCab and myself on their talk page to discontinue their disruptive editing, User:73.11.72.255 deleted our warnings and put our names on a list of "Known Apostates" they created (since reverted by BlackCab with an additional warning by both myself and him). While I realize this is a quick request for a block, as they have only been editing for a few days, the reversions with no attempt at discussion and in particular the creation of the "Known Apostates" section I believe is warranted of an immediate block.

Diffs at User's talk page

1 2 3

Diffs at pages mentioned

Organizational Structure-4 5 6 7 8

Governing Body-9 10 11 12

Vyselink (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I did a copyedit after the editor's initial edits on the two articles indicated above. I retained some parts of the editor's initial changes where the changes did not misrepresent the cited sources. Since then, the IP editor restored their other changes and falsely claimed those changes were according to "consensus", but the editor has not made any attempt to discuss any changes. The editor's subsequent personal attacks on BlackCab and Vyselink strongly suggests that the IP editor is unlikely to make any reasonable effort to work collaboratively on articles related to the religious denomination that is the subject of the articles above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

A silly dispute about nothing. "User:73.11.72.255 has repeatedly changed sourced information on the pages of Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and Organizational Structure of Jehovah's Witnesses despite reversions by myself, User:Blackcab and User:Jeffro77." It is called editing, and is in the nature of developing articles at Misplaced Pages. Is the HQ in New York HQ for JW, Governing Body or "the Society"? Could it be both, or even all three? I've followed this topic for several years, and Jeffro77's and BlackCab's oneminded critical view of all aspects of the religion is way undercommunicated. To state the views of former members well known for their highly critical view of the topic, like the IP has done, as "claims" rather than "states", is may very fair. Dr. Penton have clearly stated the prosecution of JW during WWII was their own mistake, or at least a result of Rutherford's critic of the Nazi regime, a classic technique used by historical revisionists and right wing extremists about Jews. Further dr. Penton have, in the sourced book, expressed strong sympathy and long time correspondence for/with a mentioned Swedish historical revisionist. JW had disassociated with the revisionist because of his extreme views, while dr. Penton failed to communicate that the Swedish historical revisionist being one, and forgotten to mention the Swede's past as a former convict in Sweden (a modern, democratic country) for his extreme right wing Holocaust denial expressions. To use dr. Penton as a source for statements about JW, represents same quality of source selections as using nazists as a source for statements about the Jews: It is may worth mentioning his view, but as a view rather than a statement. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor has made no attempt to discuss their changes despite being asked. They are edit warring against a consensus view, which can be dealt with at the appropriate notice board, but it is unacceptable behaviour to label two editors with whom one disagrees as "known apostates". This is mindless hate behaviour and pretty extreme. BlackCab (TALK) 20:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Grrahnbahr's claim that I have a "one minded critical view" of the religion is demonstrated to be false by the many times I have also removed negative information about the religion. Additionally, far from being "undercommunicated", various editors—particularly Grrahnbahr himself—have frequently attempted to malign my motives (and those of BlackCab) when disputes arise about articles related to JWs. In fact, Grrahnbahr has previously reported me for supposed "edit warring" in regard to four words in one sentence that was the subject of discussion at Talk. (In that protracted ordeal, I actually restored the sentence to the same version that Grrahnbahr had restored five days prior, which had been the stable version for many months; yet Grrahnbahr still attempted to impugn me by claiming that I had introduced an 'unsourced claim'. Clearly Grrahnbahr has an axe to grind. The article Talk discussion is at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_59#Biblical_Christianity; the discussion resulting from Grrahnbahr's frivolous accusation is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive236#User:Jeffro77 reported by User:Grrahnbahr (Result: Fully-protected).)

Regarding Grrahnbahr's assessment of the content of the IP editor's changes, this can be discussed at the article's Talk page, and per WP:BRD, the IP editor should have done exactly that after their edits were initially changed (though they were not completely reverted). But the IP editor has made no attempt to discuss anything, despite the editor's false claim of restoring "consensus". Grrahnbahr's description of the IP editor's persistent reversions without any discussion as simply "editing" is quite dishonest. The IP editor's initial edit was "editing", but the subsequent repeated reversions without discussion is "edit-warring". Grrahnbahr is well aware that disputed changes should be discussed at the article Talk page.

In an attempt to distract from various distortions introduced by the IP editor about what the cited sources actually say, Grrahnbahr has attempted to highlight some of the minor semantic changes instead, such as the IP editor's less accurate description of the headquarters. Additionally, Grrahnbahr's deviation into Penton's supposed views of the Holocaust has no relevance to any of the disputed changes. Most of the changes are to text that isn't even sourced to Penton, and none relate to the Holocaust.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Several editors have been trying to straighten out articles in certain religious areas from pervasive bias. There are 2 or 3 editors who have userboxes proclaiming themselves to be formerly of a certain religion, and these same editors persist in re-adding negative information about that religion to certain lightly-viewed articles. There is a strong feeling of ownership over these articles by these few critics, and a reading of the talk page will show their continued attempts to overcome well-intentioned and clearly-sourced corrections. Jeffro, BlackCab, and to a lesser extent Vyselink have been editing these religious articles continuously for many years, and their apparent negative personal experiences with the religious group affect their edits. Perhaps they should step back and let fresh eyes wash away any unintentional bias. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The claim about "2 or 3 editors who have userboxes proclaiming themselves to be formerly of a certain religion" is a lie. Only BlackCab has such a Userbox. As I have previously stated when falsely accused by pro-JW editors on Misplaced Pages, I have never personally accepted JW beliefs, though I have relatives in the religion.

It is not clear what "negative information" has been added to the articles being discussed, and this is the first time the IP editor has made any attempt to discuss any of their changes. The editor is still yet to engage in any discussion about the specific content at the article's Talk page.

For several years, I have edited Misplaced Pages articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. The pro-JW editors call me 'anti-JW' and the anti-JW editors call me 'pro-JW'. Overall, it's a pretty good sign that my edits on the subject are neutral.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor has also added a bogus warning about supposedly 'biased content' at Vyselink's User Talk page, but Vyselink has only restored the stable version of the article that was already supported by existing sources.

When the IP editor initially made their changes, I removed only the parts of their changes that did not properly represent the cited sources, as well some mundane issues such as wordiness. Other elements of the IP editor's changes were retained. However, the IP editor has shown no desire to work collaboratively, or to discuss any element of article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that BlackCab has such a userbox, while Vyselink states the same in the text of his user page. It appears that your close coordination with them in attempting to override clear consensus caused me to lump you in with them unfairly. I thank you for your attempts to be unbiased, however after extensive discussion we have decided to move forward with the proposed changes. If you have any concerns, you are welcome to explain them in the usual manner. 2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that's as close to an apology as I will get from you in regard to the lie about the Userbox and religious affiliation.

There has not been any discussion of the proposed changes. If you believe there are problems with bias in the articles, you should start a relevant section at the articles' Talk pages raising your specific concerns.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop saying I lied. You were working with two editors who had a disclosed bias against a certain religious group; I somehow got it in my head that you had the same bias. It was a mistake that was quickly uncovered. The repeated undesirable edits are more of a problem. 2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been 'working with' the other editors any more than I've been 'working with' you. Except that you refuse to discuss your changes. You haven't indicated anything about what is supposedly 'undesirable'. As an example, you've claimed in your edit summary that referring to the Watch Tower Society's publications as "Watch Tower Society literature" and calling their headquarters their headquarters and saying the Governing Body don't call themselves "leaders" are all "inappropriate". You need to articulate why you believe those things to be "inappropriate", since they are plain statements of fact that are more accurate than the wording you keep asserting. You should do so at the articles' Talk pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - the editor User:2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0, who has been making the same edits in tandem with the other IP editor named above, is now playing tedious games. After I advised the editor that the changes they are seeking to introduce to the stable version of the article should be explained at Talk after they've been disputed, the editor is childishly claiming that it's actually me who introduced changes to the article. With this kind of behaviour, it seems unlikely that the editor will ever be able to meaningfully contribute to Misplaced Pages. See User_talk:2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (only one Talk section).--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Grrahnbahr has the correct view above. Jeffro and 1 or 2 others have been editing these articles for many years, and seem to strongly resist any changes not made by them. However, we have been working to resolve all the disputes, but Jeffro has not yet shown any willingness to work collaboratively. Instead, he and one of his associates have repeatedly made threats of blocking and banning rather than discussing using normal Misplaced Pages processes - processes I have used for over 5 years. He may need a preventative block for 24 hours to regain perspective if he does not stop the disruptive editing. 2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no 'associates' on Misplaced Pages.

It remains contingent on you as the editor who is insisting on changes to the stable version of the article to indicate why you believe them to be improvements.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the sort of "I didn't hear that" behavior that has become troubling and makes me feel Jeffro has developed ownership feelings toward the article. He insists on his preferred version as the "good version", and pretends not to understand that by "associates" I mean "the 1 or 2 other people who are making the same types of edits you are - edits against the consensus" 73.11.72.255 (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have not insisted on 'my' version of the article at all, but simply the stable version of the article from before you began making changes and then refusing to discuss them. No 'consensus' whatsoever has been established for your edits. Based on the principles at WP:BRD, after your initial edits were challenged, it is contingent on you to discuss your changes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment The IP editor has finally begun 'discussing' at article Talk, in a highly combative manner and apparently under duress after repeated warnings of their inappropriate conduct. The editor is continuing to misrepresent their changes to the article as the stable version. It seems unlikely that it will be possible to work with the editor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Block of Jeffro77 possibly needed - Jeffro77 continues making personal attacks above despite repeated warnings. He is dismissive of any views other than his own, and is determined to force through his preferred versions over the versions supported by sources and the other IP editors. I remain very open to discussion once he stops making attacks and threats and is ready to move forward in a collaborative fashion. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Now he's just lying outright about alleged personal attacks. There have been no personal attacks. The editors continue to misrepresent their recent changes as the 'stable version', which is another lie. It is not possible to work with these two IP editors, who are clearly working in collusion. (Earlier in this thread, one of the editors said "extensive discussion we have decided", but no on-Wiki discussion exists, so they are collaborating off-site.) I'm going to leave the article for a while until admins have addressed the edit-warring and belligerent behaviour of the IP editors involved here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppet alert: It is still unclear whether identical edits from the two IP addresses are being made by one person or two. This edit, however, from an IPv6 address, was signed as the IP editor 73.11.72.255. That same IPv6 address was later used to continue the edit war at Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses, using precisely the same edit as IP editor 73.11.72.255. (See and the whole edit-warring sequence at that article). In any case 73.11.72.255 on his own is on the verge of breaching 3RR.

It is also highly amusing that the declaration on my user page that I am ex-JW proves "bias", while the IP editor whose edits bear all the hallmarks of a JW member is just trying to, you know, "straighten out" the article. Let's not lose sight of the fact that this thread began with a complaint that the IP editor had decided on his user page to brand me and another editor as "known apostates". That sort of cranky religious hate language, a term widely used by JWs to denigrate former members, is a fairly good indicator of the motives of this editor in trying to "straighten out" the article and, indeed, have a long-standing editor blocked. BlackCab (TALK) 12:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:73.11.72.255's "warning" on my talk page is interesting, as I have (as has been stated by other editors above) not INSERTED any new information, but reverted to the original information which, at the time of my revert, had not been discussed. I see that they have now, belatedly, started discussions in a very contentious manner on those pages, while attempting to shift the blame to myself and other editors for "changing" information, which is categorically false and verifiable by anyone who looks at the pages edit history. As for being in collusion with "1 or 2" other editors (I assume BlackCab and Jeffro77) this claim has been made in the past and it is false. I do not know BlackCab or Jeffro77, and my talk page clearly states that I was raised a JW, but have never believed, and that I rarely edit those articles except in the cases of obvious vandalism, such as the IP editors are currently engaged in. I have no bias against JW's, as (current IP editors aside) they have been nothing but great to me personally, and have changed my mother's life very much for the better, allowing her to stop smoking and drinking and generally be a much better and happier person because of it. I have made exactly 4 edits to the "Governing Body" page, all in response to vandalism, and until the recent vandalism, the one I had made before that was in 2012, which was also in response to vandalsim. As for the "Organizational Structure" page, the only edits I have ever made to that page have been to reverse the current IP editors vandalism. Both editors have mistakenly asserted that there is "consensus" for their changes, and I agree with BlackCab's sock puppet warning as being something that an admin should take a closer look into. Vyselink (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Time to close? - This complaint can probably be closed now. Jeffro has calmed down, and the other two editors on his side, BlackCab and Vyselink, are acting in a less militant fashion. The bit about sockpuppetry is a diversion. My IP address changes between IPv4 and IPv6, I don't know why as it is the same connection. There are some edits from an IP that are not me, so I think there are at least 2 IP editors, perhaps 3, editing under dynamic addresses. 2601:7:1980:5B5:21C2:E1D6:3861:74AB (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Er, no. The suggestion that the complaint "can probably be closed now" comes from the subject of the complaint himself who, after removing from his talk page warnings for 3RR and sock-puppetry continues to edit-war under dual IP accounts. . The user admits he is behind both IP addresses but disingenuously suggests other editors are sharing his IP address, presumably to reinstate his own material. BlackCab (TALK) 22:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, what? You and I have both been the subject of recent "complaints" and I want to encourage you to stop personal attacks and focus on the articles. I have said for some time that my IP address sometimes shows up as IPv4 and sometimes as IPv6, I don't know why. However, there are other IP addresses editing these articles that I have nothing to do with. There is nothing odd or suspicious about any of this... 2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any other IP edits in other ranges that have been editing the articles recently, and certainly not in support of your edits. Of recent edits to the articles you've been editing, which IP edits are you claiming are not your edits? There has actually been only one other IP edit on only one of the articles you've edited. That editor introduced a copyright violation, which you persist in restoring when I've tried to remove it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There have been edits from seven separate IPv6 addresses on the relevant articles. All of the addresses begin with "2601:7:1980:5B5", confirming that they are all on the same network. If they are not the same person, they are different persons on the same network colluding together.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Jeffro77, BlackCab, and Vyselink conspiring - I have tried at great length to deal with you in a kind manner. However, additional efforts may be necessary to overcome the apparent schemes that involve conspiring and colluding to produce lies. I will no longer be editing any of these articles. But you are put on warning that you will have to answer for your error. 2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, now I'm "evil" for pointing out that you lied about IP addresses being unrelated. You've edit warred for several days and only attempted to superficially engage in discussion after you were reported to admins. You have lied about the stable version of the article. You have lied about consensus for your changes. You have lied about providing new sources. I'm not sure what is intended by "harsher chastisement", but I certainly hope its not intended as a legal threat.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Lies by anti-religious activist Jeffro77 - I have never lied about anything. I told you from the beginning that my IP kept changing. Another IP posted some things about creationism in one of the articles that you reverted at the same time, so I didn't want to take credit for all IP contributions. You sure know how to play the Misplaced Pages game with your NLT accusations.2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Ho hum... now I'm an "activist". Where do I find the time!

So your threat about "harsher chastisement" it was just a meaningless assertion about an irrelevant theological opinion? Rightio. You're most welcome to imagine whatever scenario you like where I'm tortured and killed by your preferred deity. Enjoy. (Who even says "chastisement" anymore?)

You claimed there "there are some edits from an IP that are not me" and that there were "at least 2 IP editors, perhaps 3". The only other IP editor has only made one edit (pasting an entire article form the source, which is a copyright violation) on one article, and that article isn't one of the two that generated this discussion. You suggested that "they" are "editing under dynamic addresses", which is a conclusion no one could draw from a single edit by one editor. Your new claim that you only referred to that one editor is therefore false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I see there's been some historical revisionism of the IP editor's 'kindness'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Admins Please Take Notice: At this point I believe that the block on both the IP originally addressed in the complaint and also for the other IP he has been using (2601:7 etc just above) is called for immediately and permanently. While he may insist that he will no longer be editing it is irrelevant at this point. His latest edit at my talk page, as well as I believe at Jeffro77's, clearly shows he has absolutely no intention of attempting to reach consensus and having a reasonable debate about his changes. The veiled threat of being "put on warning that you will answer for your error" (mentioned above here) and the veiled threat at my talk page (see link, but it reads "you may face serious consequences for your actions") while obviously the ramblings of a disgruntled IP user who can't get his own way, seal the deal as far as a permanent block is concerned. The history of the IP users edits, his original personal attack on myself and BlackCab by naming us a "Known Apostates", and his complete refusal to even tell the truth about what he himself has said is getting absurd, and taking valuable time from myself, BlackCab, and Jeffro77 to continually attempt to mitigate the damage, as well as wasting space on this ANI noticeboard. Vyselink (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Vyselink may need preventative block - Like Jeffro and BlackCab, Vyselink is part of a group trying to invent reasons to block people who disagree with him. I suggest a topic ban for the three of them from this area. 2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

After making bizarre religious threats to editors who have reverted him, IP editor has since gone on a rampage of blatant POV editing on a range of JW articles. EdJohnston has blocked IP access to some articles he has already tampered with, but he continues to find others, including Charles Taze Russell, Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and Jehovah's Witnesses practices. Some prompt blocking action would be appreciated. BlackCab (TALK) 09:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Tell us more about "religious threats"... what does that mean to you exactly? I tried to disengage from the two of you but you have taken to following me around to revert my edits on sight. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of events - BlackCab has been editing articles related to certain religious denominations in a way that reflects bias in favor of the denomination. Perhaps he is a member? In any event, Jeffro77 has a similar ownership tendency along a different POV. All the new editors to these articles are being chased away by their automatic reverts going back 5+ years - look at the article histories. I told them they would need to discuss matters rather than just ignore earnest efforts to improve neutrality and sourcing. BlackCab and Jeffro now stalk me and revert my edits on other articles. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

IP 73.11 has clear POV issues with this area e.g. this amongst many others - I would suggest a topic ban initially, followed by blocks if that does not work. GiantSnowman 11:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP have no more POV issues than some of the other users contributing to the topic. The IP may need to adjust and adapt to be a productive editor, but the ban proposal seems to be based on the IP's views rather than behave. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor's behaviour is indeed certainly a significant problem. The editor has lied about consensus, about sources (none of the editor's changes provide additional sources), about who has introduced changes, and about his identify as other IPs (says multiple IPs weren't him; says all but one were him). Subsequently, the editor has engaged in retributive editing, refusing to comment on content instead of contributors, and bizarre threats about 'judgement by god'.

It is also telling that at the outset of this discussion you characterised the editor's repeated reversions to their preferred version of significant changes to multiple articles as merely "editing", but you have previously reported me for changing four words in one sentence (diffs supplied earlier in discussion). As such, there are indeed some POV problems to be addressed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

To lie about anything is not a reason for imposing bans, even less if it is not intentional ("lie" imply it is done on purpose). Presenting "religious threaths" is may not good conduct, but probably no reason for a ban, while legal threaths are. Making use of puppets could be a reason. User:GiantSnowman introduced users with clear POV issues, while I can't see the IP being in a more POV positions than other users editing topic-related articles. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Here are the userlinks:

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

I've blocked 73.11.72.255 (talk · contribs) for engaging in a long-term pattern of edit warring about the Jehovah's Witnesses and being unwilling to wait for consensus. This editor appear to be switching between this IP and 2601:7:1980:5b5:0::/64 in conducting these wars. Consensus can change, and nothing prevents our articles about the Jehovah's Witnesses from being updated by reaching agreement on talk pages, using the normal steps of WP:Dispute resolution when needed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:, can you also give closer consideration to Grrahnbahr's behaviour in this matter, along with his history of attacking my edits? He has characterised this IP editor's edit-warring as simply "editing"; he's claimed that the IPs editor's dishonest assertions about consensus, sources, stable article versions and IPs were not "done on purpose"; he has previously reported me for much less (as indicated above and with full details in the earlier linked discussion—that was for restoring the same edit he did, and he admitted during that debacle that he had a separate agenda). It is evident that Grrahnbahr has an agenda to support pro-JW editors and argue against editors who provide a more neutral view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

1) I am not the subject for this AN/I 2) @Jeffro77: havent discussed his concern on my talk page ("Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page") 3) Jeffro77 is suggesting an investigation of me, without notyfying me, or even pinging me ("When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page"). The IP was blocked, and it was not given I would return to this discussion. I was not a subject of any discussion until Jeffro77's last post. 4) The reasons for a suggested investigation was me alleged having an agenda of supporting "pro-JW" editors. I find any allegations of me arguing against editors who provide a neutral view of any topic, the mentioned one included, as ridiculous. 5) I've produced tens of thousands edits in several wikimedia projects, and have started a four digit articles in several languages, and a number of featured articles and lists in the same projects, including one directly related to this topic. It is not an excuse for anything related to conduct, but, a couple of editors from English JW-related articles are the only editors complaining about my conduct. 6) It is not a violation against anything to support a new editor at wikipedia. The IP will probably never return for editing now, so good work! I'll leave this discussion, since this isn't my AN/I. Any investigations or actions against me will be taken seriously, and would thus require a proper notification on my userpage. Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have simply responded to the comments that you have already made in this ANI. Your claim that you haven't been advised is therefore disingenuous, as is your claim that your actions had not been called into question until my immediately previous comment. In the scope of this ANI, I first raised the problems with your ongoing bias on 6 February after your response at this ANI on 5 February. It is incredibly dogmatic to insist that I 'advise' you about a discussion in which you're already involved.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Gaming the outcome of a requested move

I have just closed the requested move at Talk:2014 Odessa clashes. RGloucester (talk · contribs) was against the move, and is apparently trying to game the outcome of the RM by removing all article content at the new title and turning it into a DAB page, presumably ending up with the other page being back at his preferred title.

I reverted his edit to restore the article, and asked him not to do so, but he immediately reverted back to his DAB page.

Some action is clearly needed here, so can some other admins please intervene. Locking the article might be a start. Cheers, Number 57 23:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The scope of the article has changed. The move is fine, as the editors involved must've wanted an article on the other Odessa incidents of 2014. Therefore, I'm happy to oblige, as I said in the move discussion. This is now a summary article, and the individual incidents will get their own articles. There is no other way to move forward. The RM participants decided they wanted an increased scope, and I'm granting them that wish. If they did not want to broaden the scope of the article, they should not've have voiced support for this proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 23:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Can I have administrator assistance please? I've just finished writing the new summary article on the 2014 Odessa clashes, in line with the RM result. I now need the old edit history transferred to 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes, so that article can be restored. I'll start working on the December clashes article shortly. RGloucester — ☎ 01:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • As I requested, the history logs were moved to May 2014 Odessa clashes from 2014 Odessa clashes. --George Ho (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho and Anthony Appleyard: Can I ask why you have moved the pages? The 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes article was moved to 2014 Odessa clashes as the result of an RM now located at Talk:2014 Odessa clashes#Requested move 30 December 2014. The claim above that the summary article was written " in line with the RM result" is a blatant falsehood, and I'm not sure why anyone has fallen for it. This is a clear gaming of the system – an article which there was clear consensus to move has now ended up back at the title preferred by the sole opposer. Number 57 21:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The scope of the article changed with the move to "2014 Odessa clashes", to encompass all 2014 clashes in Odessa. I've done this expansion, wrote a new article on the subject to match the RM result. The 2 May clashes have their own article, and a summary section in the 2014 clashes article. RGloucester — ☎ 21:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Back then, I probably would have been aware of the December bombings in Odessa. However, I was uncertain about its notability because no mainstream media have reported such event. Also, voters were not aware of it, and RGloucester neglected to notify us about the bombings. I requested that the mess be cleaned up, but I see that consensus must be adhered. Unfortunately, the discussion has become useless and void since the mess. George Ho (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• See (A) User talk:Anthony Appleyard#!!!! and (B) this edit of the history-merge request page. In (B) I realize that I may have misunderstood what "the proposed article" and "that article" meant :: that is another reason for people writing instructions to repeat names and avoid elegant variation. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I told RGloucester that, if he can't create a separate "May 2014 Odessa clashes" soon, I'll re-propose a page move on the same article with only one name, and that's final. George Ho (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• What a mess! Where is the move discussion? I can't find it in the links above... Cavarrone 22:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

How long must a given IP address stay suspected of being a so-called "sockpuppet"?

When any given IP user gets accused of being a sockpuppet of a named user (which should only be done if the IP user was abusing the system at the time of their writing, but is unfortunately sometimes done even without abuse from that IP user), and then if, for some dumb reason, that IP user is given the suspected-sockpuppet label, how long must it stay there--even if that IP user was never blocked, and regardless of how long, if for any time, the named user the IP is accused of socking was blocked? Is it just like that for the remainder of the Misplaced Pages's existence, or... what, exactly? And whose decision is that supposed to be, anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Remainder of Misplaced Pages's existence would be more like it. It's the decision of SPI clerks entirely. And they can only be over-ruled by ArbCom. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 08:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, QEDK. But why, if most IP addresses are shared, and so a new person using that address then has to hold onto that label, as well as the named user never being let go of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Shared IP addresses are blocked for a short period of time (the maximum can be ~2 months) - keeping in mind that it's shared. However, if we find a LTA from such an IP for years, admins will indef block the IP. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 08:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe IPs are almost never indef blocked - static ones are blocked for long definite periods. By the way, I think the relevant term is dynamic (vs static) rather than shared - dynamic ones are re-allocated at intervals, sometimes very short ones, and I don't think sock tags would be left on those for very long. Squinge (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

By shared, he does mean "shared" i.e. when one IP is used by a number of people. For example, intranets which have only one exit point to the internet have one external IP address only and a WHOIS will only point to that intranet and not be able to pinpoint a specific computer in it, since all have the same IP address. Since, institutions and work places have a lot of computers, shared IP addresses save resources (i.e. hardware load and money) because only one or a few addresses need to be allocated. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe he did mean "shared" (and yep, I know what it means, thanks), but I think the difference between dynamic and static is also relevant here, especially when people are suggesting IP address are indef blocked (they should almost never be), and it's really only static IPs (shared or not) that get long blocks. Squinge (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well guys, I don't mean "blocked" necessarily, but even just being suspected of sockpuppetry. How long must an IP user hold the "suspected of sockpuppetry" label as slapped on by an assuming admin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Template:IPsock or another template like it can be removed by anyone at any time (assuming it is not checkuser confirmed sockpuppetry, which for an IP is unlikely). That is, they are not listed at WP:UP#CMT as needing to remain on the user talk page so removal is only subject to the edit warring and blocking (edits by blocked users) policies.

@QEDK: just to clarify something you said SPI clerks are just like any other user except they are trained and trusted by the checkusers to keep SPI functioning. Blocks (and other actions) by SPI clerks can be appealed and overturned by any administrator. Blocks made by checkusers (and marked as a checkuser block - see WP:CUBL) can only be overturned by another checkuser or the Arbitration Committee because they rely on private evidence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, @Callanecc:. Only a few SPI clerks have the CU right and coincidentally all CUs are admins AFAIK, right? --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 11:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, QEDK, then why is it that when I have once had another IP address and I went to remove that stupid notice from IP editors I know, those admins think it's their duty to keep replacing that notice and also add me as one of the sock suspects? When does that stupid practice die, and after how long do those addresses get to go back to normal (they'll stop insisting that those are permanently marked)? Do we have to have admins that just keep adding those back as well as adding new ones indefinitely? Do they not have better things to do than maintain those indefinitely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Would I be considered too impatient if reasked now if anyone has an update to my latest paragraph here now? Autosigned by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC).

If you are on a suspected sockmaster's shared IP, your recourse would be to make an account and file an appeal to BASC citing that your IP is shared. And well, your account and IP will be either freed from the sockpuppet trademark or you'll gain IPBlockExempt status. But then, you seem to be on a static and clean IP till now. What's the problem? --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 10:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

My IP address hasn't changed for now. But I bet if I use it to go remove those accusations again, they will just replace them again and then add this address to their stupid list.

I'm just annoyed that if I go remove the accusation from my old IP addresses, those admins think they have to return it to those addresses and then add the one I was using to that, too. I just wonder how long they think they'd have to keep that up even if someone keeps removing those things. I wonder how long until they will just let those things stay removed and not add each new IP address of someone who removes them. That's why I asked here. It's really lame, ya know?

75.162.166.13 (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

My respectful suggestion to someone who was blocked and then evaded their block by editing as an IP is to stop evading the block - request an unblock and move on. The reason for tagging is simply to keep track of a user's continued block evasion, which will be considered when an unblock is requested. Keeping the old IPs tagged helps accumulate these block evasions, as the category is maintained. However, WP's history function works well enough. Regardless, the focus for such a user should be to stop block evading. User:IDriveAStickShift is one example that springs to mind, who used IPs not only to blank tags from IPs used for WP:DE, but also vandalized - just two examples are , . JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

So, Joe, for the example you gave, even if that main user was never unblocked (let's say if he or she were to request unblock and the admins declined--well, I assume you are one because of how you knew of that example), but then a non-admin (where you just assume that every new address is a sock too just because they were trying to help those other IPs not stay marked, although you don't know that) kept clearing those tags from the new IPs that you assume are that same blocked person, how much longer would you replace the tags? Let's say you're an admin. You'd never get tired of returning them and then adding the new one for the rest of the time you were an admin here (probably the rest of your working life or longer)?

75.162.166.13 (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we should delete the whole "suspected sockpuppets" categories. We don't allow speculation elsewhere but if people suspect that others are sockpuppets, they should file an SPI and have it confirmed (the WP:DUCK exception and how admins deal with them with another matter). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Darkstar1st on a site-wide purge of any mention of "libertarian socialism"

Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has declared on the Libertarianism talk page that libertarians should like capitalism and that libertarian socialism, libertarian communism and libertarian marxism are (apparently) some kind of myth. The editor has chosen to expunge that myth from WP by starting up edit wars on just about any page describing libertarian socialist politics:

• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff

None of these mentions of libsoc are the least bit controversial, to my knowledge, and the political groups in question all describe themselves as libertarian, as typically confirmed by native-language articles. Offering citations doesn't seem to make any difference at all, so I don't know how to proceed. fi (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Looked at the ref for PPK and Darkstar1st appears to be correct. All references to liberarianism are in reference to Öcalan, not PPK. Can't comment on others, but the user does seem to be editing specifically on this issue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The reference on PKK describes it as communalist, which is a strain of libertartarian socialism, and aligns it with Murray Bookchin, a prominent libertarian socialist. fi (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

We need an RS that says specifically that it's libertarian socialist. Otherwise it's OR. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand. That document does specifically identify it as libertarian socialist unambiguously, in exactly the same way that a manifesto proclaiming Maoism would identify a group as Marxist-Leninist. Bookchin's communalism is a form of libertarian socialism, just like a lemon is a type citrus fruit. B ⊃ A fi (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you're assuming the result you want. You say a lemon is a citrus fruit, but another editor objects, unless you have a citation from a reliable source that says that a lemon is a citrus fruit, you can't use that in an article. If someone disputes it, you need a citation from a reliable source that says Maoism is a form of Marxist-Leninism, or you can't use it. Does your source say specifically that "Bookchin's communalism is a form of libertarian socialism" (or words to that effect)? If it doesn't, then it's not the source you need. Your prior knowledge is not sufficient, you need a source. BMK (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't specifically say it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that's just patently silly. Misplaced Pages (on the articles for communalism, Murray Bookchin, libertarian socialism, for example) is absolutely plastered in references confirming that Bookchin's communalism is uncontroversially a type of libertarian socialism. What you're saying is like saying it's OR to call a "poet" a "writer" because a source explicitly called him a "poet" and there's no reference literally saying "writer." I'm not offering my personal knowledge as a reference; it's just documented all over Misplaced Pages that one is a superset of the other. A square is a rectangle, so we don't need a reference on something being a rectangle if we have a source saying it's a square. More importantly, the editor has not objected as you say and has brought no credible objection or dispute to the discussion. This is just a continuation of the abuse already on the editor's rap sheet. fi (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

"Common sense", for want of a better word, tells us that a lemon is a citrus fruit, and a poet is a writer. It tells us no such thing about the relationship between Bookchin's communalism and libertarian socialism. It is way outside the bounds of common knowledge, and therefore needs a source. BMK (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Then "common sense" tells us, in the exact same way, that a Maoist is a Marxist-Leninist, especially when there's dozens of citations, all over WP, saying B ⊃ A -- same as references describing Bookchin, communalism and (shockingly) libertarian municipalism as libertarian. You can pick your favorite reference, but you're the first person to challenge this, as User:Darkstar1st did not. So, I don't even understand why we're talking about it. fi (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

How does common sense tell us that the World Socialist Party of the United States is libertarian socialist? Contrary to your claim upthread, I'm not aware of them ever having described themselves as such. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

WSPUS was the US contingent of the World Socialist Movement, which was described as libertarian socialist, for example, in Anarchy Magazine, Volume 3, 1963, page 178 (can't link directly, so search for "World Socialist Movement" and "non-state libertarian socialists"), among numerous other sources. "Common sense" would just be transitive logic. If we know where a superset belongs, we know how to describe a subset. fi (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Transitive logic works only if you accept the premise. Perhaps you're not aware of just how contentious political labels can be? I'd advise you to find multiple reliable sources before slapping labels on political organizations, especially when (as in the current case) the organization itself rejects or has never used that label. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether a premise is wrong is another thing, while this is about validity: if A and B then also C. If someone's arguing that it's valid but unsound, could you please link me to the discussion? Like I said though, I am aware of zero controversy and I rather doubt WSPUS would have rejected being called libertarian Marxist (had the term been more widely used in the early 20th century) or libertarian socialist (had the term not been associated almost exclusively with anarchist communism then). It's just the most accurate description of their politics and it's not considered pejorative... not that it particularly matters if they *had* rejected it. Whether a group likes the label they're given or not is hardly the one criterion for verifiability. Anyway, I still don't understand why we're talking about this when Darkstar1st's only stated contention was that he doesn't like how libsoc exists, historically. fi (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, it seems you're just making stuff up. Darkstar1st's stated contention for the removal in question was the reliability of the source, not with his distaste for the idea of libertarian socialism in general. You even linked to his edit summary upthread. (And as a matter of fact, your doubts about the label are without merit; the WSP(US) denies that it is "Marxist" so it's a safe bet it would also take issue with "libertarian Marxist".) Of course, disputes about our categorizations of parties are best resolved on article talk pages, not here. There's already a talk page discussion about the categorization of this particular party, to which you're welcome to contribute. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What on earth are you even talking about? WSM and WSPUS were founded by anti-Bolshevik Classical Marxists. It's pretty much the first thing both articles say. So far as the editor in question and that editor's POV crusade, I can back up everything I've said with diffs, like the user's insistence that libertarian socialism isn't real libertarianism, refusal to enter into discussion and the removal of perfectly legitimate sources on statements contradicting that POV. I'm here to talk about that editor's conduct. fi (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're trying to build a case for Darkstar1st's POV, then it help if you got the facts of your complaint straight, and demonstrated a modicum of familiarity with the examples you're invoking. First you stated upthread that Darkstar1st removed the "libertarian socialist" label from the WSP(US) article, even though you claim they "describe themselves as libertarian". However, the WSP(US) has never referred to itself as libertarian. Then you said that "Darkstar1st's only stated contention was that he doesn't like how libsoc exists" (my emphasis), though your own diffs show a variety of stated contentions on his part, including objections to the reliability of one citation (a perfectly reasonable argument, even though it proved to be mistaken) and to another's language (much less reasonable grounds, but still nothing to do with political ideology). Then you claim that the WSP(US) would refer to itself as Marxist, when in fact they have always quite vocally rejected this label. In short, I'd be taking your complaint a lot more seriously if it wasn't so easy to poke holes in your evidence. —Psychonaut (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

WSM is commonly labeled libertarian socialist and describes itself as Marxist, which takes all of ten seconds to verify. If you have some reason to believe both the WSM and WSPUS articles are 100% wrong in their descriptions of these groups, please fully rewrite these articles accordingly: articles presently describing anti-Leninist Classical Marxists. So far as Darkstar1st's removal of the source for being unreliable, that source was a pamphlet published by WSPUS, so I find it difficult to believe that the WSPUS is not a relevant source on the topic. There may be a worthwhile discussion to be had about whether this Marxist group (according to every source available on all relevant WP articles) is more accurately described as impossiblist, libsoc, both or neither, but the editor was not interested in having one. I encourage you to take your own advise and stay on topic. fi (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The topic is your failure to present a coherent argument about Darkstar1st's disruptive editing. Neither the document you just cited nor the one Darkstar1st originally objected to say what you claim they say, and in this thread you continue to argue against strawmen. (I never said that the WSP(US) is not Marxist or libertarian socialist, and I never said that our articles shouldn't describe them as such.) I think I've seen enough of your line of reasoning (such as it is) to come to a conclusion as to what needs to be done here. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't backpedal. Nearly everything you've tried to derail this with has been total nonsense and just factually wrong; e.g. apparently WSPUS is so adamant about rejecting allegations of Marxism that they devoted a quarter of their website to a "Study Guide to Marxism." I'm sorry you tried to grandstand and got called on it. Good call on bailing out. fi (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• In one edit Darkstar reverts the addition of a Spanish language source (in an article on a Chilean political party) with the edit summary "Engligh language sources only please". That is unjustified. We have no requirement for sources to be in English. For writing about political parties in non-English speaking countries particularly it would seem a particularly silly requirement.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• User:Finx may well be wrong, that is a content issue for discussion. However, if, as they claim, User:Darkstar1st is not discussing the disagreement, we have a behaviour issue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
  
  • A quick look shows that, for example, this edit by Darkstar1st does have an edit summary that points to the a discussion section on the talk page. I think, therefore, that it would be a better plan to engage on the article talk pages than pursue this AN/I. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
    

On the face of it, this certainly appears to be a behavioural issue - and if Darkstar1st thinks that it is appropriate to remove all mention of a significant trend in the historical development of socialist thought from Misplaced Pages, as appears to be his/her objective, we need to do something about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that, as of now, the user is still edit warring and Wikilawyering all over the place. I don't feel like getting into fifteen separate games of revert pong, so I'll just let this roll on until someone wants to do something about the continuing pattern of disruptive behavior. fi (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Recommend admin action. Well there is some pretty obvious POV pushing. It's a systematic removal of references to left wing libertarianism, presumably to POV push that it does not exist, and only right-wing libertarianism exists. So in effect it is vandalism, as a clear pattern has emerged. If left unhindered he may remove all mentions of left-wing libertarianism. --Mrjulesd (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: there's a larger problem involving libertarian editors and articles. For an example, look what's happened to our article on free society. This kind of assimiliation of a non-libertarian topic, takeover, and OR is going on everywhere. Darkstar1st is only one of many editors engaging in this kind of behavior. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I think part of the problem is that User:Finx is a bit clueless about citations and original research. (See example.) In the example, Citation A, did not support the statement, but Citation B did. User:Finx did not understand that Citation B needed to be by the statement, not Citation A. Regarding original research, User:Finx seems to think that if a party is socialist, and says it has liberal/libertarian values, that makes it a libertarian-socialist party. What Darkstar1st seems to be trying to do is to clean up this kind of thing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I don't stoop to personal attacks, but if you want to charge me with being "clueless" on ANI, let's review the absolutely mind-boggling level of incompetence you have displayed on the Freedom and Solidarity Party article. First of all, the citation already present before the titular POV warrior arrived used the word "özgürlükçü" which, beyond any reasonable doubt (as was explained), translates to "libertarian" in this context. So, no further citation was even needed. Assuming good faith, however, (and way beyond what is reasonable) the very first thing I did was add an inline English-language citation from a respected authority on the subject with a quote that just could not possibly be any clearer: "the ODP, or Freedom and Solidarity Party, is a Turkish socialist libertarian party founded in 1996." This was removed and ignored. When I pointed this out, it was ignored again by both yourself and the POV warrior, followed by complaints about the original reference using "özgürlükçü" instead of "liberter" -- which are synonyms, as can be seen here. When that objection clearly fell apart, the Wikilawyering moved on to ridiculous claims of OR: it's OR to assume that political groups claiming to be libertarian are... libertarian. I mean, this is just comedy. "Liberal" and "libertarian" are mutually exclusive groups: one is capitalist, the other, in this (and practically any) context, anticapitalist. That is also not original research. It's the most basic level of comprehension you can have on the topic. Libertarian, outside of its isolated use in the US as another word for advocacy of laissez faire "free market" capitalism, universally means socialist. The libertarian qualifier in libsoc qualifies the type of socialism (to distinguish from state-socialism), not the other way around, i.e. the type of libertarianism. When a socialist political organization declares itself libertarian, that means one thing only: libertarian socialism. If you are this confused or just know absolutely nothing about these topics, why not ask for clarification instead of calling others "clueless"? And, speaking of clueless, I invite you to find me one article on Misplaced Pages -- or anywhere else for that matter -- where "özgürlükçü" translates to liberal, let alone where that's a reasonable translation in the context of describing far-left socialist groups. The only thing in your contributions so far that would have even vaguely resembled a rational thought -- had it been concerning a non-socialist party -- is based off a funny Google translation error which you couldn't be bothered to verify when it produced an obvious absurdity. fi (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Site ban proposal for User:Darkstar1st

Normally I would recommend a topic ban from libertarianian-related articles, but the editor's history shows that he has not made a positive contribution anywhere, and has carried out this type of editing in other areas such as the Tea Party movement. He's had years to change, but seems more interested in conflict than improvement of articles. So probably best to ban the editor and avoid having to discuss him at ANI again and again. TFD (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support Site ban for Darkstar1st. This battleground behavior and tendentious editing has been going on for years in many articles related to his interests. He has failed to respond to the many requests and warnings to stop. There's no reason to believe that his behavior will improve in the future. I think he has exhausted the patience that has been extended to him. SPECIFICO talk 04:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose any action against Darkstar1st. The editor who brought this complaint has failed to make a coherent case for any serious disruption by Darkstar1st, willful or otherwise. Most of the edits I've checked seem to be correctly, or at least plausibly, tagging or removing claims which are not supported by citations. And for cases where the edits are disputed he has requested and/or engaged in talk page discussions. He seems to have been confused about the acceptability of non-English sources, though solving that ought to have involved drawing his attention to WP:NONENG rather than dragging him to WP:ANI. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Psychonaut:This disruptive behavior is just the latest in a long history of such conduct in articles on related subjects. This user repeatedly either ignores or fails to understand warnings and guidance as to behavioral and sourcing policy. He's been blocked numerous times for misconduct. Unfortunately, there is no reason to expect things to get any better. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose At worst he got into an edit war on Equality_Party_(Chile), but it was such a slow burning edit war that he never came close to violating WP:3RR (and he wasn't trying to game the system either doing reverts every 24 hours) and he tried to just use tags for the part he thought failed verification but those were removed. He did misunderstand WP:NONENG and removed sources that were not in English. And I should note that when WP:NONENG was pointed out to him on his talk page he said "thank you both for the clarification. Mea culpa" This is far from siteban worthy (I don't think it is even topic ban worthy). --Obsidi (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Like I said below, it made no difference if the sources were in English and it made no difference if they said what the article said, verbatim. Nothing was read or considered. If previous comments on the talk pages of libertarianism, libertarian socialism, etc, are any indication, it's hard to imagine how one can suspend enough disbelief to see this behavior as something done in good faith. Nonsense like this seems to happen all the time and I'm tired of it, for one. fi (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support per clearly WP:NOTHERE "Having a long-term or "extreme" history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods". His editing resembles a WP:SPA purely to WP:POVPUSH his view that libertarian socialism is not a movement, and thus removes references to libertarian socialism from numerous articles, To further his cause he uses edit-warring, pretends he can't translate, and uses the deceitful practices of double-editing (first removing the reference and tagging, then removing the actual statement a few hours later). This whole process causes considerable time wasting and acrimony. This isn't just recent behavior but a long-term problem, just look at his record. WP would be a better place without him. --Mrjulesd (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Restored this section from archive: Request admin attention

I've restored this section from the archive Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive872#User:Darkstar1st_on_a_site-wide_purge_of_any_mention_of_.22libertarian_socialism.22 as he is back to his old tricks: removing references to libertarian socialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Equality_Party_%28Chile%29&diff=prev&oldid=646028069

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Socialist_Party_%28Netherlands,_interbellum%29&diff=prev&oldid=646028553

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=World_Socialist_Party_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=646028899

He previously removed references to these ideologies, put on tags, and now he is removing the socialist libertariansim, pretending that he did not put on these tags.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Equality_Party_%28Chile%29&diff=645713026&oldid=645692112

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Socialist_Party_%28Netherlands,_interbellum%29&diff=645669261&oldid=645538134

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=World_Socialist_Party_of_the_United_States&diff=645518380&oldid=645442331

I've reported him for edit warring, which is pending. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Darkstar1st_reported_by_User:Mrjulesd_.28Result:_.29

Also see the original diffs. Definite POV pattern to his editing, I request admin action.

--Mrjulesd (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've invited Darkstar1st to join this conversation, and let them know that the discussion is currently moving towards their being blocked. -- The Anome (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• I don't care if he is changing 100 articles, if he is doing so for good policy based reasons. To ask for a source for a disputed claim is fine (which is what most of his edits have been). He did get into a bit of an edit war on Equality_Party_(Chile). That was wrong, he should have gone to the talk page after he got reverted. He did remove some content that was sourced to a site in a foreign language, he should have asked for a translation if he disputed it before removing. Other then that I don't see the problem --Obsidi (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Doesn't that suggest a POV pusher? Removing references to "Libertarian" from lots of socialist political parties? And that's all he's been doing. And there are ample references he's ignoring. There is a definite pattern to his editing suggesting heavy POV against libertarian socialism, like he doesn't like that it exists. --Mrjulesd (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:POVPUSHEditing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing. If there are references he is ignoring, first make sure that he is aware of them, and then it becomes behavior issue if he continues. Demanding sources and removing unsourced labels (until a source is provided) even on multiple pages is not quite enough to be a problem. If he was repeatedly adding, especially fringe material or expanding sections beyond what would be due weight that would be far more of a problem which is what POV pushing is. --Obsidi (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor "asked" for sources and then deleted them when they were provided, or when clarification on the correct and already present sources was offered. fi (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I did see a few that he removed even after a source was provided because the source was not in English. That was wrong. And if he persists and keeps removing it, he should be blocked until he acknowledges that he cannot remove sourced material just because it isn't in English. So far I have seen him remove stuff cited in other languages because it wasn't in English, but after it was added back in he doesn't appear to have kept removing it (meaning a block isn't yet appropriate for that). --Obsidi (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

... removed sources in English that stated what the article said word-for-word, as well. There were up to six or seven reverts on about dozen separate articles, each. Indiscriminate mass deletions by political POV warriors call for a complete topic ban, at the very least, IMO, though I'm tempted to agree with TFD that it might be too lenient in this case. Honestly, the editor above who pointed out that US libertarians are a site-wide problem hit the nail right on the head. I don't know of any other political group here that causes so many problems repeatedly, or spends so much time on shameless appropriation and recuperation of absolutely anything that has some imaginary tenuous connection to the USLP marketing campaign. The issue, as far as I can see, is religious fanaticism. fi (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs for those in which he "removed sources in English that stated what the article said word-for-word"? There are a lot of different articles and lots of different edits, I have been through all the diffs posted on this thread so far. --Obsidi (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

sure fi (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

So I followed the link for the source cited in the diff and got "Aradığınız sayfa sistemde kayıtlı değildir" which is Turkish for "System is not registered on the page you are looking for" did you get something different? Oh, I see now, your talking about the ref to the book (he didn't remove any content just the ref to the book) I am not sure why he did that, that doesn't seem right. His edit summary seems to be related to the other two edits he made about the weird Turkish page not found message. --Obsidi (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe he felt that it did not support the statement. The text in Misplaced Pages is "The prominent grouping within the party is Revolutionary Solidarity (former Devrimci Yol (Revolutionary Path) - also known as Dev-Yol) which was formed following the split of Libertarian Socialism Platform in 2007." But the source only says "The remnant of Del Yol, now called the Libertarian Socialism Platform, is also a member of the ODP." Close, but a bit different (or at least doesn't support all the sentence). --Obsidi (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The source explicitly says: "the ODP...is a Turkish socialist libertarian party" -- which was made clear about four or five times, by my count. fi (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes it does, and like I said that is a good source for that. But he removed the reference in the diff above for a different sentence not dealing with if it is a socialist libertarian party. --Obsidi (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter if an editor is following content policy and is not something we can decide here. TFD (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion above about a possible site ban for Darkstar1st. I have just created the heading "Site ban proposal for User:Darkstar1st". Please give your views there. --Mrjulesd (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Historical revisionism and use of an unreliable source

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

Alesgeriy (talk · contribs), a newly registered user, added a problematic section to Akdamar Island. He cites http://www.historyoftruth.com/, a clearly POV website which is devoted to the Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide. Interestingly, he calls the genocide "1915 incidents", which is a widely used phrase in denialist circles.

Furthermore, he uploaded an copyrighted image to the Commons which bears the POV caption "Muslims Protests Armenian Aggression Against Women".

He twice (1, 2) re-added the section. First time he called its removal by me "Vandalism" and the second time his edit summary was "it is a source for the subjekt about the Commemoration in Akdamar island". --Երևանցի 17:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

nonsense and a ridiculous claim from the user Yerevantsi (talk · contribs). the subjekt is clearyly about Commemorated in Akdamar Island. It does not matter if this user like it or not, this commemoration takes place in Akdamar Island, and this topic isn't about genocide etc. Yerevantsi (talk · contribs) should stop his Vandalism, because this entry is comply with the rules Եalesgeriy

First, and most important, this is not vandalism. Also, the image does not belong on wikipedia. It is already tagged with copyvio speedy deletion. As well, this source does not seem to be reliable. Basically, the whole thing does not belong here. If you believe it does, then please link to why you think it belongs. -- Orduin 18:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The image was deleted. -- Orduin 18:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

i have chose this source because is English written. This entry belong here because is strongly associated with Akdamar Island and its about Akdamar ısland's history. the source is reliable because this commemoration is held every year, denial about this fact would be a hypocritical policy which is don't belong to wikipedia terms. btw theire is many such informative entry in wikipedia. and yes, the removal act with his comment "nonsense" of user Yerevantsi (talk · contribs) is vandalism.

I'm not at all concerned with the source, or the information right now. (I have marked the source as unreliable.) I am most concerned that you insist on calling the edits by Yerevantsi vandalism. That is harassment on your part. -- Orduin 19:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

so you trying to white wash of the act of this users as "editing" ? that is hypocritical on your part, at the same time your behavior harassment me with your baseless claimes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesgeriy (talk • contribs) 20:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Alesgeriy: whoever's right, it's not vandalism. I won't comment on what it is, but it isn't vandalism. —George8211 / T 20:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I view this as a content dispute, and was commenting on behavior. I am not saying the content is incorrect or correct, I am merely providing note that your behavior is not proper. -- Orduin 20:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

i indicate the fact which is pretty proper, but your behavior towards this issue is hypocritical and rude which i do not recommend to you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesgeriy (talk • contribs) 21:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of harassing you for me indicating that your behavior is verging on harassment. This will get us nowhere. -- Orduin 21:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Recommend a block of Alesgeriy for competency reasons (including very strange use of links). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Orduin: Can something be already done about this? Is it not clear that this single-purpose user is not here to contribute to Misplaced Pages? --Երևանցի 15:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

can some one immediately pls stop the vandalismus and harassment of the above member ? thanks regards.. Alesgeriy (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Yerevantsi: see this. I recommend a block per WP:NOTHERE and bordering on edit warring.

@Alesgeriy: these removals are cited in wikipedia policy, and are not 'baseless'. Please stop labeling the dispute as vandalism. -- Orduin 18:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Orduin: you don't saying the True WP:HERE , and my entry according this policy is appropriate. this removal are not not cited in wikipedia policy and you vandalising my entry. you should stop immediately your vandalism and harassment . i will report you because of your hypocritical behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesgeriy (talk • contribs) 19:49, 8 February 2015‎

There is already a report going on, unless you have missed the discussion we are having now. I will say no more on the subject, because you are not listening to what we are saying. -- Orduin 20:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Orduin: my sources are reliable, one of them was also a source of Grand National Assembly of Turkey how can you call this source unreliable? you acting hypocritical Alesgeriy (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I've notified Alesgeriy (talk · contribs) of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAA2. Those sanctions cover "pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan or related conflicts". This puts him on notice that he is expected to follow Misplaced Pages policy from now on. If he is uncertain about the reliable sourcing rules, he could ask for feedback at WP:RSN. If you persist in adding material to Misplaced Pages that doesn't follow our sourcing rules, sanctions are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(Strike per above comment)This is in direct violation to a decision from the Arbitration committee. A part of the final decision states: 2) Armenian, Azeri or other local sources are subject to the same requirements of reliability as any other scholarly or journalistic sources. Use of material from propagandistic nationalist sites is unacceptable. These sources are concidered propagandic. Alesgeriy has been warned by an admin over this. Also, you have broken the 3RR.

As well, the sources you have all added, are written completely in Turkish, which means that not everyone on the English wikipedia can verify these sources.

Please consider thoughtful discussion before you call me "hypocrite" again. That is baseless, unlike the comments I have made utilizing wikipedia policy and the article history. When you make an accusation, it must be supported with evidence, or it will be treated as a personal attack. -- Orduin 21:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: one of this sources is also a source of Grand National Assembly of Turkey how can you call this source unreliable? but user Yerevantsi (talk · contribs) vandalising my entry with this comment "Turkish government aggressively denies the genocide; whether or not you cite the Grand Assembly means nothing" wut? my entry is not about genocide at all, and how can call this guy the turkish piarlament "means nothing" seriously ? why you don't stop this troll and vandal? Alesgeriy (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Asking for someone to be blocked because they disagree with your point of view is a very bad practice. -- Orduin 21:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

My point was that Turkish (especially government-affiliated sources) are no less POV than the source you initially provided.

@EdJohnston: Can you please take action? At least two third-party users have explicitly stated their support for blocking this single-purpose account. --Երևանցի 21:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Orduin: so your point? so that you have proven your hypocritical approach. do you think wikipedia based about your own views and intereses? yes, i was right, you vandalising my entry just because of your own political views and this kind behavior do not contradicted with wiki terms. wikipedia is not your own toy. you should immediately stop your approach about this issue because you are not objective — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesgeriy (talk • contribs) 22:12, 8 February 2015‎

I have no political views on this matter. I did not even know about this article and events until I looked into this report. Your considering that I have predetermined thoughts on this event is incorrect. I focus on wiki policy. Your comment is harassment to get me out of this discussion, which I find very offensive. I got involved, now there is nothing you can do to get me to stop being involved. You are attacking everyone you have issue with. This will alienate any support you might have gotten. -- Orduin 22:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Orduin: pls stop your aggressive attitude towards me, you playing with words and move away from the subject. i'm not agree with you, you don't give an proper answer but furthermore insulting me with such vulgar ascriptions

first, my entry is "not" about genocide etc. "is about the Commemoration in Akdamar Island, and sources proves that.

2. the source of the second entry which is about a monument, and is the "original" proposal. and you you call that is POV.? you denying an original source ? how can you do that? you acting just with your personal viewpoint and against the wiki terms this which is unacceptable according to your logic %80 of the comments for Akdamar Island is nonsense , we can not continue in this way at all Alesgeriy (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Boy, do we have a problem here. One of these sources refer to Armenians as "animals" (Turkish: Hayvanlara). The other source claims that Armenians killed Turks between the years 1915-18. That's a ridiculous statement since all Armenians living in the region were obliterated by the Turkish government by early 1915. Interestingly enough, the claim is made by a senior member of an ultra-nationalist Turkish organization called ASIMDER, which stands for the "International Association to Fight Unfounded Armenian Allegations". This organization had at once targeted Armenian schools, churches, foundations and individuals as part of an anti-Armenian hate campaign (see here for more information). The other source is by the Turkish government, the leading propagator of Armenian Genocide denial in the world. I found no neutral source, meaning non-Turkish or non-Armenian prime sources, that says Armenians raped women or that 50 or so women killed themselves. It appears that that story is entirely fabricated. As for the user's conduct, it just keeps getting worse. He has reverted yet again, well surpassing the 3RR mark. And he continues calls other user's edits vandalism. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

what did you think about what Armenian rebels did during the revolt? before genocide or exile? distribute flowers ? btw this incident is happenend on 17 april 1915 and also your debate is off topic, because in my entry i have not mention such "animals" like words. seems you have also your own viewpoints? I repeat, my entry is about memorial and monument in Akdamar Island. with just a little surf on Internet do not be shy, you can also find many article about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesgeriy (talk • contribs) 06:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There was no "rebellion". It was an act of self-defense by the Armenians. The Armenians, in fear of a massacre by their own government, defended themselves from death marches and genocide. Cevdet Bey, the governor of Van, started a campaign of mass murder against Armenians throughout Van. The reports of Clarence Ussher, Ernest Yarrow, Elizabeth Ussher, Grace Knapp, and others all point to the fact that Cevdet Bey wanted to annihilate all Armenians in Van. The "incident" you refer could not have happened on 17 April 1915 because Russian soldiers did not arrive in Van until late May. There's also no evidence that Russian and Armenian soldiers massacred the Turkish population. No primary source makes such a claim. The only people who make such baseless claims are ultra-nationalist Turks whose sole mission is to deny the genocide. And I never said you called Armenians "animals', but I did say that the sources you provide refer to Armenians as such. By the way, it's absolutely pointless to add any information about the monument since it was never built (see here). Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Etienne your claimes is not to taken seriously you talking nonsense and your behavior is hypocritical you are an political propagandist and you are not neutral. i my self don't deny genocide, but you deny what armenian rebels before 1915 did. there is still survived Turkish/Kurdish victims from this massacre. here is no need to debate about this issue. Alesgeriy (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Template:Uninvolvededitor At best, there's a deep WP:COMPETENCE issue here demonstrated in Alesgeriy's inability to acknowledge the reasons others are objecting to his edit. Alesgeriy, if you were prohibited from making these edits, how would you spend your time at Misplaced Pages? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• They're still edit warring. Epic Genius (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note. Fully protected for 24 hours. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• I honestly can't see why. This is one user. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Roscelese is right. Also that one user, Alesgeriy, has now been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring, see WP:AN3 report here so the protection really isn't needed. Please consider unprotecting if you're around, Nyttend. If you're not, I guess I'll do it later. Incidentally, Alesgeriy seems surprisingly well acquainted with Misplaced Pages practice and jargon right from their first edit, if you glance at their edit summaries. Does anybody have a suggestion for a likely sockmaster? Bishonen | talk 15:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC).

• I'll do it momentarily. I didn't see that the other guy had been blocked. Aside from that, protection is reasonable; when we've got an ongoing edit war, either we protect or we block the people involved, and I figured it would be better to protect it than to block three people. Nyttend (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

User Binksternet deleting discussion of his deletions from his talk page

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

Diff

Diff

User Binksternet keeps deleting discussion of his deletions from his talk page, with claims of "vandalism"/ "trolling", in spite of admitting "the truth of what you were inserting". This is not constructive, only obstructive to well-meaning IP-editors editing.

Binksternet deletes WP-content he actually agrees with, according to himself, only to embroil IP-edits in edit warring where he then games the system to exclude the primary edits and their content. That seems unconstructive to WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.22.29 (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

He is free to delete whatever he wants from his own user talk page. You can discuss his edits on the talk page of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

:: Tnx - didn't know that. It still seems an unfactual way of handling attempted constructive criticism, even though acceptable. Sorry to've forgotten signing. 88.88.22.29 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

In the comment you posted on his page, you called him "Binky" and signed yourself "Kris", as if this was a name he would know. Do you have an account on Misplaced Pages, and, if so, why are you editing as an IP? BMK (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Last month, the IP 80.212.111.41 tried to post the same material to Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and left a similar note on Binksternet's talk page. I presume this was you. The material you posted this time has been removed from the article by multiple editors, but not by Binksternet, so your current comment seems like an egregious and unwarranted slap at him. On top of what would appear to be block evasion, I wonder if an admin might consider blocking both of these IPs? BMK (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:88.88.36.157 is you as well, I presume. BMK (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

And User:80.212.4.12. Your edits to John Fogerty and Hoodoo (John Fogerty album) were deleted by a number of editors as being OR, unencyclopedic, unsourced, etc. Didn't stop you from repeatedly restoring, though. That behavior got one article protected, and got one two of your IPs temp blocked. BMK (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That last IP also left disparaging notes to Binksternet on his talk page. There's a pattern here. BMK (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:‎85.164.61.86 joins the group. Editors with accounts are not allowed to use multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny of their edits, but editors without accounts who have dynamic IPs avoid scrutiny just by the nature of the beast. Perhaps we shouldn't allow dynamic IPs to edit, only static ones. BMK (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that would be fair. -- Orduin 22:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, what's not fair is the situation right now. BMK (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, these q's appear too fast to keep up. Tried re names and got an 'edit-clash', and lost the reply. The name, actual, was an attempt at being personal and constructive, acknowledging edits in spite of power-outage changed IP. As I'm not sufficiently familiar with the arcania of WP-rules, and not really interested in time-consuming learning to master it and the intricacies of wp-bickering, I'm outta here. No block evasion, though - rather the contrary by acknowledging by real name. Tnx for the discussion, it's been interesting. Now to real-world issues :-). Good luck to you all, and tnx for replies. * And 'edit-conflict' happened again (!). I'm deluged, sorry. 88.88.22.29 (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No real need for an answer from you, those IPs are obviously all you. And calling a person you don't know by a diminutive version of their name is insulting, which I would guess (from the content of those "constructive" messages) was your intent. You were annoyed that your unsourced, OR, or poorly sourced BLP edits were being deleted, and you lashed out at one of the editors doing it -- but the very fact that multiple editors have removed your contributions from verious articles means that you're not getting it. BMK (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

'Edit conflict' happened again, with entry below. * Your claims and accusations are entirely subjective. E.g. abbreviating a long name according to convention, with first syllable + "y", is no insult. In addition, disparaging my clarification as "no need for an answer" is in itself a condescending attempt at insult - so you're overreacting and being unfactual. I repeat, my edits were/are all about including correct info on WP. E.g. why is the statement "Bootlegs exist" re Fogerty's "Hoodoo" unacceptable to you, when they most certainly do, as amply demonstrated on Youtube? - That's a fact just silly to delete. In spite of whatever pretext of sourcing-faults applied. Let it rest. Or btr yet, improve the ref.s yrself, accomplished WP-editor that you appear to be. (Unless, of course, you have some ulterior motive for deleting verifiable facts - like not liking that smbd tried to keep those facts on WP. But that wouldn't be the case w you, would it? - Sure hope not). - Still trying to get out of here, w/o too many misconstructions left standing.88.88.22.29 (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to remember where I had heard an editor call Binksternet "Binky" before and it was in the course of the hubbub prior to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics with one editor receiving an indefinite block and several others receiving topic blocks. I don't if there is any connection but since Binksternet has stated he doesn't like that nickname, I thought it was curious to see it again. Liz 23:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Question to you all: Is there anywhere some kind of crash-course in WP-editing which doesn't lead to swamping in details and exceptions to rules? Is there some way for sporadic IP-editors to make sure facts remain on WP without biased editors going hunting to keep those facts off WP? Or is this last a currently unsolved problem on WP, where 'fair warning' needs to be presented all prospective IP-editors (or maybe such 'fair warning' is a good idea: a short txt telling of how a simple edit may lead to endless entanglement in disputes and accusations from up to 7.3 billion editors?). Or maybe simply a warning that there may be deep layers of incomprehensible attacks coming if one tries to contribute? Or is this smth one must risk wading into unwittingly, like an invisible quagmire? Maybe a simple, friendly warning that "there be monsters" off the map should be publicized? 88.88.22.29 (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do you need a crash course? You seem to have the mind of a steel trap.- MrX 00:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

^^^^ Priceless. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Haha - good one. Funny - tnx for inserting some much needed humor into this. :-) But not really helpful re issue.88.88.22.29 (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hard to tell why the IP isn't blocked yet, but if he's targeting just a short list of articles, maybe those articles could be semi'd, hopefully precluding the need for a range block. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Targeting nothing, baseball-head - just contributing facts. Check it out. If you dare look at facts. - Gee, WP appears just chock full of people seeking fights not facts. 'Fair warning' should be served. :-)88.88.22.29 (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Right. I always heed the advice of IP-hoppers. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Found smth on it, how to edit WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple + http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide.

Tnx for nothing, Baseball-head et al. As for 'IP-hopper' - say that to the electricity provider, I'm sure they'll thank you for yr input (maybe they'll electrocute you as reward? ;-). 88.88.22.29 (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Guess you also think that calling someone "Baseball-head" is not insulting either.

Admin assistance requested, please This IP doesn't seem to be here to improve the encyclopedia. If the IP is dynamic, and he's not just IP-hopping to avoid scrutiny of his editing, is there nothing that can be done to put him on ice? BMK (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, 'Baseball-head' at least seems no worse than 'Baseball-bugs" (as the editor calls hirself). But if you feel insulted on hir behalf for some humor here, apoplectologies to you. Unless humor is Beyond Yr Ken? Why so aggressive about excluding others from WP? - You sure "seem to be here" to quarrel rather contribute to WP yourself. And you still haven't replied to why you insist the factual info "Bootlegs exist" re Fogerty's "Hoodoo" should be excluded, instead preferring to attack the contributer to be "put on ice" (killed?) - is that constructive? 88.88.22.29 (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the IP's ignorance of the source of my user ID, I can only say this. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC

To answer your question 88.88.22.29, you might want to try Misplaced Pages:The Misplaced Pages Adventure. When someone asks for help we should direct them to a place where they can learn or ask questions like Misplaced Pages:Teahouse. Maybe we can point new or unsure editors in this direction? This conversation above seems unhelpful. Liz 21:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked the IP. Let me do some cleanup. seicer | talk | contribs 02:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Sergei Lukyanenko for one year. seicer | talk | contribs 02:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

In case user MrX's comment was a bit too subtle, it was a user called Steeletrap (talk · contribs) who was calling Binksternet "Binky" in a complaint from last May. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I did miss that. Incidentally, all the IPs listed above are from the same region of Norway, most of them from the same city. BMK (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious correlation between Steeletrap's article editing and that of the IPs listed above, and "Binky" is, unfortunately. probably a fairly obvious choice for someone attempting to bug Binksternet, so I'd say offhand that there's probably no connection there. BMK (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You're probably right. Someone was wondering where they had seen this "Binky" stuff before. I searched the archive for that word, and the Steeletrap item was the first example that came up. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

A good retort would be to call the IP "Bunky", as in the late Eddie Lawrence's schtick. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I advise looking a little closer. I found several unambiguous editing similarities.- MrX 05:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hint? Specific enough similarities to justify an SPI? BMK (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@BMK: Yes, I'm pretty sure that the evidence is strong enough for a duck block. Besides the "Binky" comment, I found six other traits shared by both editors. I'm not sure whether the level of disruption justifies the effort though. I don't want to give hints so the sock learns how to avoid detection. If I pursue it, I will email the evidence to Arbcom or an admin.- MrX 13:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll leave it in your hands. BMK (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This community is a joke! Mister X ublicly accuses me of being a liar and creating a fake account. But he refuses to provide any evidence for this charge. And he ignores the obvious counter-evidence: the fact that I edit from America and this gentleman edits from Norway.

I challenge Mister X to publicly state what his "evidence" against me is. I think the charge is pure speculation, based only on the "binky" connection, and that he lied about having additional evidence. Unlike many users here, I am a serious person with a serious reputation. I would never engage in "socking," which is not only dishonest and immature but attacks the basic integrity of WP. A major problem with WP--and its Revenge of the C Students style culture--is that no one abides by basic standards of evidence before making a change. Steeletrap (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Binksternet, I would be interested in your opinion on the charge against me. Having dealt with me and the other guy who called you "binky," do you believe that we are the same person? Steeletrap (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This community may be a joke, but it's not because of anything I wrote in this thread (which somehow came to your attention in spite of your retirement). What I said was "I found six other traits shared by both editors". I never accused you of being a liar, nor did I accuse you of creating a fake account. I stand by my original statement that if the disruption doesn't continue, I see no reason to expend effort to collect diffs and present evidence. My time is valuable. If someone else familiar with your editing history such as Srich32977 or Sitush decides to file and SPI report, I may add my evidence to it. My preferred outcome would be that, with the IP blocked, we won't see this type of trolling and harassment occur again.- MrX 21:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Listen up, Perry Mason: I have contacts on WP who emailed me about the allegations. How about you present your alleged "evidence" that I am socking as this Norwegian dude? If you make an allegation of socking--one of the most serious charges one can meet on WP--you should back it up. I get the feeling you know you have a flimsy basis for such charges, and that you wouldn't make the allegation if you weren't hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet. Steeletrap (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no need for name calling. Since you obviously refuse to let this go, I will oblige you by opening up an SPI case.- MrX 00:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

As for the charges against Bink- There is no question that drive-by style of "research" and editing are highly problematic, as is his rude treatment of newcomers. Such conduct has led to a long record of blocks, a record that would be even more extensive and damning if not for the weird friendships Bink has made with "like minded" editors. Still, as a general rule, everyone is entitled to remove what she wants to remove from her talk page. So this action should be dismissed. Steeletrap (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Username hard block

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

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

Currently, that username is a blatant violation of our username policy. First, it begins with the prefix "Te-", which is good, but the suffix "-dickey", is not. I suggest that this account be blocked indefinitely.

He was making constructive edits to Misplaced Pages. However, it says that, according to Misplaced Pages:Username policy#Inappropiate usernames and Template:Uw-uhblock, users are not permitted to edit with bad usernames. I think we should not deal with that username. And of course, I should notify this user later on. 2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:BD8C:1E99:DE0A:7A04 (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Or it could be the user's last name, you know. --Kinu /_c 22:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is it curious that this user has edited with no complaints about his username for over eight years, and this complaint is the IP's first edit? I think there's more than meets the eye here. Recommend no action against Tedickey. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion reopened. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Recommend reopening. Dicks are fine, but we don't need any teabaggers here. --NE2 01:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

+1 seicer | talk | contribs 01:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Could as well be someone trying to pick on him. This user is perfectly fine and no one has raised a voice for 8 years. In India, there are names which end with "shit" and here is just someone who chose to have an username ending with "dickey". I recommend keeping this closed. I don't know how on earth could an admin like seicer recommend opening this. Anyway, I'm opening this using my BOLD right to take in community input. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing at all wrong with the username, and I'm usually more sensistive to username problems than the admins who parol UAA.BMK (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'd suggest a quick review of his contributions, and if there is nothing immediately visible, leave it be. -- Orduin 18:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• I see no reason for concern based on looking at a few of the user's contributions, and the name is not inherently problematic because "Dickey" is indeed used as a surname. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• Re-Close Nothing of concern here. -- Orduin 19:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Squeezing this in here to note that the OP has been blocked for trolling. BMK (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Problems on the American Sniper page

After putting it to a vote, the official Misplaced Pages consensus was for the Controversies page to be merged into the main page. I have gone to extremes to put in the work to greatly compress the the articles within it, and to compromise with the other users. However, in spite of this, and multiple warnings, the user MONGO keeps making crude partisan personal attacks on the talk page, and far more significantly, the user DHeyward is attempting to censor all of the additions wholesale, in fragrant violation of the official Misplaced Pages decision, and all the work that I put in to summarise the critical articles into one sentence each, with no compromise whatsoever. I would greatly appreciate an intervention. Thank you very much for any help. Here is the current Talk section. David A (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs for the personal attacks? Having been the subject of MONGO's attacks in the past, I would like to see something done about this. Viriditas (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hum...somebody should remind David A if he's going to level false accusations he needs to learn common courtesy and leave a note on that editor's talkpage. Since I have this page watchlisted no need now, but thanks for nothing. There aren't any personal attacks unless calling it as it is is a personal attack. David A seems to be in severe violation of the undue weight clause of NPOV and is engaged in POV pushing on the aforementioned article. No amount of reasoning about what is and what isn't reliable sources and quality of sources seems to matter. Merge meant that the article mentioned needed to have critical reviews mentioned, but David A and one or two others believe that means the article is to be once again a coatrack of opinion pieces. The article critique was condensed to avoid the coatrack, a POV fork was created (not by David A) and then nominated for deletion and the vote was to merge back, but nothing was ever taken out of the main article in great details until now and I wasn't party to that!--MONGO 06:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have that much of a problem with MONGO, but rather with DHewyard's massive censoring of references, but here are a few quotes from MONGO at the American Sniper Talk page:

“Its kind of fascinating to me that rags like Salon actually pay people of limited journalist integrity and zero ability to do investigative journalism (these tall tales would never hold up in a court of law) to write articles for them....I guess there is a target audience of persons with a predisposed bias that only want to read about things that support their biases.“

“I think it would be fair that if radicals and anti-American bigots and non expert opinions about movie crafting are to have their useless opinions quoted, then there is no reason to not elaborate in a few words to a sentence why each of these non experts likely hold such opinions.”

“Looks like a laundry list of wimps armed with a typewriter. “American Sniper’s” biggest lie: Clint Eastwood has a delusional Fox News problem... is this person insane or something?...nevermind, they "write" for the overtly left wing biased Salon. I think for every pro or con opinion, we should help frame some examples of those person's other viewpoints, to add perspective to their ridiculous biases.”

“I think the Michelle Obama quote is as worthless as the ones that rag on the movie. Who is she anyway, a Presidents wife...big deal. She isn't a movie critic anymore than I am. Look...we really need to stop all this quotefarming. I wouldn't mind seeing very brief quotes from movie critics but otherwise all we have are writers using the movie as an excuse to go off on some pro war, pro soldier or the opposite of that vein to promote their political viewpoints which are not relevant to the movie.”

“He writes for Salon, a left wing rag...of course they are going to obfuscate his firing because he now works for them in their efforts to propagate more biased "reporting" to continue to get their fan base to read their nonsense. Its pretty funny to think that even the Obama administration would have found his tweets and other commentary worrisome enough to pressure that PAC to remove him.” "Bullshit..."

"It won't be much longer before the Democratic Party in the U.S. sees a total abandonment of Jewish support what with the radical left being so antisemitic... (Caution: That's a link to Fox News website and they have fixed it so their cookies can vaporize lefties computers!!! Just wanted to give you a heads up)"

“The "writers" that are busy writing vicious garbage about the movie and Kyle say zero about the beheadings and those being burned alive by ISIS. That is the definition of mental illness. For every lousy opinion piece I'm going to write qualifying comments in the article to help put perspective on why some of these people have such hate.”

“The article is not going to be the new coatrack for every hate filled opinion piece that are primarily from those using the movie as an excuse to unload a barrage of lies and misepresentaruons. “

“this article is not going to be drowned out by every wimps opinion about the movie, provided in long winded quotes that have about as much worth as a dog turd to us, an encyclopedia.” “Well...the thing is that no one really reading the article could care less what some opinions are by anyone. They want to know what the movie is about and the mechanics of it. The sane know that the opinions are just opinions and could care less.”

“I've narrowed it down to 13 critiques...a few more are pretty much just opportunistic rants that discuss the movie only in cursory detail. That's still 13 critiques...I really have no idea what the complaints are about that the article doesn't have a critique section. Even if we eliminated a half dozen more of the most ridiculous opinion pieces it would still be undue weight to have the remaining ones in.”

“The controversy is mainly a stirred up concoction by people that want to use the movie to promote their unvisionary personal opinions about the war, snipers, Kyle and Eastwood and take pop shots and make shitty accusations about rednecks, Americans or gun right supporters. Its some of the lowest low ball bullshit I have ever read and is fascinating to me that while these "writers" get carte blanche to saw some of the most vicious things I have ever read, if people like me call them on their bullshit I'm somehow engaged in personal attacks. I'm going to take down a few more of these "critiques".”

"No one is trying to do anything but keep ranting raving opinions masquerading as movie reviews out of the article."

Personally, I find this kind of language crude and offensive, but unlike DHeyward, he has actually been willing to compromise. David A (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have been pretty active on that and the related Chris Kyle page but the truth is almost all of your last 250 edits spanning the last 2 plus weeks has been on this topic...as shown here...and you wonder why I might view you as a single purpose account with an agenda? Seriously...why wouldn't anyone view it that way? Your purpose at least for this period has been solely to put as much negative bias in that article as you can get away with...please correct me if I am wrong. To be fair here is my last 250 edits...--MONGO 06:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have been active on Misplaced Pages for 9 years running. I am not remotely a single-purpose account. However, I do have OCD, and get fixated on things. My attention has been splintered between different things outside of Misplaced Pages however. David A (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, cannot help you with that, but none of my alleged "personal attacks" were ever at you but about the SOURCES which I can say any thing I please about. You couldn't get all the attacks in the article so a POV fork (which you voted to keep) was created which was discussed at Afd and closed to be merged back but the majority of the most related negativity was still in the article...so when you can't add more and more and more you come here to complain about it? as a lesson plan, view Misplaced Pages:Criticism, which makes it clear that a controversies or criticism section, while not against guidelines, should be cautiously applied or avoided if possible. By creating and maintaining a section devoted solely to controversies or negative critique, we run the risk of it being used as a coatrack.--MONGO 07:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You've provided evidence that MONGO may be misusing the talk page. I say "may" because we don't have all the facts just yet. In the past, MONGO has had difficulty controlling himself on political topics due to his simplistic, black and white way of viewing the world. Reasonable people understand that reality isn't bifurcated between left or right. In any case, you've also shown that MONGO has made personal accusations against you in this thread that lack substance. I can't comment on the other issues without more evidence. If you choose to provide, add diffs instead of quotes. Viriditas (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Edit differences take a lot of time to sift through, but I will check if I can find them. David A (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, as I said, I have far less of a problem with MONGO's crude language than I have with DHeyward's tendency to censor, but here are a few edit differences: David A (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas...you've no room to yack...lets look at your block log and history of warnings shall we?--MONGO 07:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Will that help distract us from looking at your behavior mentioned in this report? Does the talk page require your running commentary about politics? Viriditas (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If the sources are nothing but partisan attacks about politics and not real movie reviews then they should be identified as what they are. If they were legitimate reviews (and some are) then no reason they cannot stay. But honestly, how many disruptive editing blocks have you had ? and you're throwing stones because you have a score to settle? Cute.--MONGO 07:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Having been the subject of your unprovoked attacks before, I can sympathize with the OP. I'm not the type of person who is out to settle scores, so I think you are confusing me with someone else, perhaps yourself. Thankfully, we are very different people. I just want your attacks to stop, that's all. As for your political commentary, I have to say that I don't have very much faith in your critical abilities when it comes to an unbiased opinion. You are probably a little too close to this topic, both on a personal and a professional level. Therefore, it would be sensible if you took a step back and removed yourself from the article. Viriditas (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No, not going to step away from the article until the POV pushing stops. I've made it clear that I think all the critique both pro and con needs to be balanced...but the OP merely removed the negative quotes and left a laundry list of links. As far as partisanship, speak for yourself.--MONGO 07:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have diffs supporting your claim about POV pushing? I'm responding only to the evidence I've seen in this thread, namely, evidence that you've engaged in disruptive editing and levied false accusations. Do you still maintain that the OP is an SPA or will you be issuing an apology? Viriditas (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The wordiness of your complaint without a single diff or actionable item sums up your contribution to American Sniper (film). The consensus was to "merge", not copy the POV fork into a new POV section. This is a content dispute and I trimmed the content of its QUOTEFARM 'controversy

I have never remotely suggested to censor all of the positive responses. There have been a massive amount of articles criticising the film with eloquent well-worded valid arguments, that you attempted to censor wholesale. You just compared said critics with the Ku Klux Klan. I had enormously compressed just what seemed to be the most relevant 9 of all the references from the merged criticism article into one brief summary sentence each, while keeping the section balanced by affording the positive defense of the movie more room than the critics, and I had also accepted to cut away several articles that MONGO took issue with. And there was a Talk page agreement to keep to this compromise. Then out of nowhere, you decided to censor 95% of everything, in an effort to cover up that a controversy even exists, simply out of personal bias. Even the New York Times has written about the controversy in articles. It is definitely very notable. David A (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

David A, ANI can't handle content disputes, only behavior. If the behavior of MONGO and DHeyward has made the editing environment difficult, you'll need to provide diffs to personal attacks, disruptive edits, and other behavioral problems such as reverts. If DHeyward has indeed "censored" an article, that would be a violation of NPOV. Again, we need diffs. Don't focus on content, just behavior. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well here are his latest attempts: David A (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: given this thread, there appears to be much more than a content dispute at work here. I'm seeing personal attacks from MONGO in this thread alone. David A has also offered quotes from the talk page indicating that MONGO takes a battleground approach. Viriditas (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but OP says that his issue is with me and I've not made any personal attacks or any battleground behavior. I've made within police edits that adhere to MOS standards for both general encyclopedic articles and specific MOS standards for films. OP hs not provided a single diff of an edit I've made. I've not censored anything, rather I cut down long rambling quotes and puffery introductions to simple sentences. I merged it into the critical response section. I'm not sure what else I can do here. --DHeyward (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

For a similar movie that had widespread appeal but some controversy, see Avatar (2009 film) for its portrayal of the soldiers and their identification as being U.S. Marines or simply U.S. military in general. Note the lack of a controversy section the OP created in America Sniper (film) or the long drawn out individual quotes by critics. The controversy is summarized in a short paragraph that is according to its proper weight. There is no reason to believe the controversy here should be treated differently. Trim it and integrate to a level that is commensurate with a hugely successful film with large amounts of critical acclaim.. --DHeyward (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Doubtful that Mongo or the other editor discussed here negatively is making any thing other than guideline type of edits. This is a content dispute where a lot of personal animosity is driving it. The Afd discussion said to merge, but the material was already still here in this article. IjonTichyIjonTichy...you are the one that has been blocked and warned multiple times in the past and nothing seems to have changed. You couldn't get what you wanted here, so you created a POV fork that was almost immediately nominated for deletion and you're using your sandbox to stage more stuff. If there is disruptive editing going on here its from you....something you have been blocked for in the past.--MONGO That is a fact IjonTichyIjonTichy was or is topic banned in at least one area for completely ignoring consensus and edit warring over and over and over. Mongo also has been a guideline editing 'type' from my experience. I think toss this one in the garbage. Content dispute with no real personal attacks in that but lots of old fights from other things being hashed out. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing much more than a content dispute at work here; I'm seeing serious behavior problems. As it stands American Sniper falls under the standard discretionary sanctions imposed by the American politics ruling. If the talk page isn't already tagged as such, it should be, and all active editors in this thread should be given the sanction warning. Viriditas (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Huh? That's pretty far off the deep end...you must have an agenda! Wow!--MONGO 08:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll ignore your latest personal attack. Far from being off the deep end, according to WP:ARBAPDS, the Misplaced Pages article on American Sniper, as well as any other articles directly connected to that topic, are currently under arbcom sanctions. Please consider yourself warned. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I typed is a personal attack. The article in question is a movie biography and is not a political article like the Tea Party Movement or similar.--MONGO 08:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Everything you typed falls afoul of our civility and personal attack policies. You may want to read them again to understand why referring to someone and their ideas as crazy is not the right approach. Further, the type of article has no bearing on our arbcom sanctions. Arbcom is very clear: This case relates to behavioural issues from many articles spanning multiple topics. All the involved articles and instances of misconduct relate to political or social issues in the United States...Placing all pages dealing with such a broad subject under sanctions is not desirable, but neither is having continuous disruption of content as the problems move from one area to another. Please read the case pages again. This report highlights a dispute involving American politics and social issues. As such, it falls under the broad remit of arbcom. Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Its an article about a movie biography, the politics are manufactured. There is broadly construed and then there is overly broadly construed. I fail to see how this article has a thing to do with political or social issues related to politics. All this discussion is about is about whether we incorporate real movie reviews or articles pretending to be movie reviews.--MONGO 08:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, it doesn't matter if it's about a film in the slightest; we have plenty of films under similar political and social sanctions. This film in particular falls directly under the American politics sanctions, and your own words about the film (quoted above) prove this to be true. When you say, " I fail to see how this article has a thing to do with political or social issues related to politics", one has to take a step back and wonder if you expect anyone to take you seriously. You yourself said that your singular motivation for participating in this dispute was to prevent political positions you disagree with from appearing the article. You said that. You referred to these American political positions as those of "radicals and anti-American bigots", people with "overtly left wing biased" views, "Michelle Obama", "a Presidents wife", " political viewpoints", a "left wing rag", the "Obama administration", a "PAC", " the Democratic Party in the U.S.", the "radical left", "personal opinions about the war", and "rednecks, Americans or gun right supporters". That's a sample of your own words from the talk page as quoted above, and they represent what arbcom calls "political or social issues in the United States". According to Variety, "the film brutally exposes the unprecedented civil-military divide that exists in America after 9/11." Those are political and social issues in the U.S. Got it? Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Now David A, who didn't bother to inform either myself or DHeyward about this notice, claiming he didn't yet have time, has decided to solicit another editor that has been in agreement with him on the edits to join the discussion here .--MONGO 08:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, I was switching from my notepad to my computer, and having some breakfast. I am a slow-moving individual, and you reacted quicker than I did. I apologise about this, but was going to inform both of you, and as I said on his talk page, I was just going to do so with DHeyward when I noticed that you had already done so. Aside from that, there is nothing wrong with informing the other involved parties as well. David A (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I see, well, I am sure you are being honest but so you know, according to Misplaced Pages:Canvassing, "...canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior."--MONGO 08:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

David A's notice falls under the category of appropriate canvassing and was not disruptive. However, you have once again attempted to change the subject by wikilawyering over an unrelated issues. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

So now you're accusing me of wikilawyering and its not unrelated...he was invited here! Viriditas, I'm watchlisting your talkpage so I can enjoy the next block you get yourself into. Your commentary here, which is not helping solve the dispute will be ignored.--MONGO 08:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, my concern is just that I don't want the section to be completely censored, as I think that some of the cited articles make very valid points. It would be nice if some admins could step in and make a ruling what to do with it. David A (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

An admin isn't going to have any more weight about content than either of us. My asking or pointing or things such as your editing history is not a personal attack, nor is my commentary about the lackluster opinion pieces that are not actually reviews of the movie. If I was POV pushing I could go out and find 200 positive reviews and then badger everyone ad nausea about the need to have them in the article...so all I am doing is trying to keep this mess NPOV.--MONGO 09:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

But I have attempted to keep it NPOV by allowing the positive defense of the movie to be allowed more room than the criticism. In addition, there is the reviews section, which does include lots of positive views about the movie. David A (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

David A, admins won't make a "ruling" about content, only behavior, as you've previously been informed. Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This looks like old animosities revving up a content dispute, and this sure looks like canvassing with an actual introduction to the canvassers opinion instead of a call to edit in good faith. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

We're discussing behavior not content, and it's already been explained that the canvassing was legitimate and appropriate. I see no "old animosities" anywhere in this thread. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please note, several days prior to the creation of this report, MONGO was repeatedly warned about making personal attacks on Talk:American Sniper (film) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/American Sniper (film) controversies. It therefore seems appropriate to ask the community to put an end to this pattern of behavior as the user is unable to control himself. Viriditas (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The main issue here and at the related articles seems to me to be that the over-emphasis on "controversy" is turning the page into a coatrack of complaints about the Iraq war and US foreign policy. Tom Harrison 11:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor in this dispute, I can only recommend that you look at the outcome of the AfD for American_Sniper_(film)_controversies, which found consensus to merge the content into American Sniper (film). It sounds like you are saying that the editors involved in this dispute are preventing the community consensus formed in the recent AfD from being implemented. I would like to recommend a way forward. Any administrator may add an entry for "American_Sniper_(film)" to the enforcement log over at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics#Enforcement_log and tag the article and warn the editors. Viriditas (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not often a good idea to give administrators special powers to influence content. These things are best worked out among editors on the talk page. Tom Harrison 12:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a biographical film about a non-political subject. The politics are manufactured creations. Your definition of "American Politics" would place virtually every article in WP under sanction. Sorry but that's just not the case. This is an apolitical movie with patriotic elements. Patriotism and military service is not political. --DHeyward (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the documented greatly increased hostility towards Arabs and Muslims, and ongoing death, rape, etcetera threats against critics, following the movie, how is it avoiding to make a political statement? David A (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that was in my version. Since I'm against "increased hostility towards Arabs and Muslims," as well as against "death, rape and etcetera" threats against critics - you must be for it if those are conflicting political issues in the United States and you oppose my edits on political grounds? Let me help you: there were both left wing and right winge and middle wing American soldiers in Iraq. There were Jewish and Muslim soldiers in Iraq. "War hero" doesn't mean right wing except in a very, very narrow reading by extreme left and extreme right viewpoints. It's not a political debate currently being waged in the U.S. -DHeyward (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The point is that my impression is that media such as this film seems to greatly incite many viewers in a political/extremely partisan manner. Regardless of that the intentions of the movie seem more benign than that according to Eastwood and the lead actor, many people are reported to feel extremely increased hatred towards Muslims, Arabs, and critics because of it, and as the New York Times reported, part of the far right has seized upon using it as a banner, whereas the left or centrists are either outraged or worried. There is also lots of criticism about how the movie omitted relevant facts about the Iraq war. All of this ended up as political, regardless of intentions. David A (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Your impression is incorrect. It incites partisan political extremists that see it and use it as a vehicle to forward their partisan, politically extreme position. They are a fringe group. Heck, even the marginally political film critic points out the film doesn't explore the politics of the Iraq War and that disappointed them. It's only the most extreme that find it to be political. The mainstream viewer is not affected politically in any way. Patriotic does not equal political. Here's an example: extreme political viewpoint writer decides to tie the movie to "Gun Culture" because she believed Eastwood threatened Moore at a "Bowling for Columbine" award. She uses this hook to get in her "this movie is about guns. Guns are bad." except one slight problem. It was at a "Fahrenheit 911" award and had nothing to do with guns. This was a source you originally provided. Salon did an in-line correction so it reads like a rambling, idiotic piece of derp until the reader reads the correction note and finds she was writing about a completely different topic. Before: After:. She didn't retract the story because in reality she just wanted a reason to write about gun control even when the correction destroyed her argument. Read it with and without the correction. --DHeyward (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, although I agree that this particular writer made a poor point, I respectfully disagree about the overall assessment. My impression of this and similar media is that they greatly increase the feelings tied to politically extreme partisan positions. I think that if this would just have been about fringes there would not be a reported greatly increased downright murderous hostility towards Muslims after it came out. David A (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: A "merge" result does not mean that there was consensus for insertion of the entire article into the other article, the editors at the main article may find consensus to add some parts and not the entirety, especially since there were strong opinions that it was a POV fork to some extent. Collect (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Tom Harrison 12:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify. This is exactly what I was trying to do. After much back and forth Talk page discussion, and several compromises, I had shortened down 8 of the more relevant articles into one brief sentence each. As well as 6 articles more as references following a "Several other articles have also been critical of the movie" at the end. There were lots more articles at the separate controversies page. MONGO was collaborating with this approach, and we were cutting away several articles that he had specific valid complaints about. Then DHeyward decided to completely ignore the Talk page discussion, the 14 votes cast in favour of "merge", as well as hours spent by myself reading and trying to concisely summarise the articles into just one vital sentence each, to just delete virtually all of it, as I illustrated that he has done repeatedly on this page before. That said, I had asked for help to merge together all of the summaries into a more coherent text, as had been suggested by NBauman, to read better within the article, but did not receive any assistance in this endeavour. David A (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The page is fully protected for a week on your version so that gives anyone who cares a baseline to look at and decide if any or all of it stays.--MONGO 15:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Despite numerous warnings on the article talk page and on his user talk page to stop his disruptive editing and tendentious editing, mongo appears to have continued to WikiBully and personally attack users, including David A and myself. And he continued to act like he owns the article, and to edit war in an effort to remove content he just does not like. He also tends to attack sources whose criticism of the film he does not like (Zaid Jilani and even Max Blumenthal, a Jewish journalist and book author and an expert on the middle east) as anti-Semites ... mongo's behavior appears out of control. It was also explained to both mongo and DHeyward numerous times on the article talk page and on the related AfD that WP cares about how the sources interpret the political/ historical/ social aspects of the film, not how mongo or DH (mis)interpret the film. This point was made over and over again to mongo and DH not only by David A and myself, but also by several experienced editors on the AfD, and yet mongo and DH continue to refuse to hear. 'Sniper' has lots of similarities to Triumph of the Will, Birth of a Nation and Zero Dark Thirty, all films which are considered masterpieces of filmmaking but were also criticized heavily by many sources for their political/ historical/ social aspects. IjonTichy (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Warnings from who? You? You were unsuccessful in getting your coatrack established in the article so you created a POV fork which was immediately nominated for Afd and there it was decided to.merge the content since you had created a POV FORK. Just because people call you on your disruptive editing, an issue that has you topic banned and blocked previously, doesn't mean they are attacking you. I think your efforts to present an extreme POV and to do so in a very aggressive manner is disruptive so you are hereby warned to stop being disruptive or face a block and possibly a topic ban.--MONGO 16:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be a major overreaction to a simple controversy section in an article about a fictional film based on an autobiography. Please keep your politics at home. If you aren't this tall, you can't ride Misplaced Pages. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

User:IjonTichyIjonTichy

Even after the POV FORK American Sniper (film) controversies was voted to be redirected and merged User:IjonTichyIjonTichy has persisted in adding more to the coatrack he created... this appears to be little more than disruptive editing and POV pushing.--MONGO 16:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

mongo is continuing his personal attacks, which he has done from the first time I added sourced content to the film article, and from his very first comment on the AfD. When mongo and DH appeared to be willing to abide by the consensus on the AfD, I've added content to the controversies article but immediately reverted myself. When it became obvious mongo and DH had no intention to abide by the community consensus to merge the two articles, I did not revert myself after adding content to the controversies article. Finally, please note that on the AfD discussion, the most thoughtful, insightful, and well-considered arguments came from several independent editors (eg. user:Erik) who made no mention of any fork (especially not a screaming all-capitalized one like mongo has done) but instead focused on logical reasoning in terms of what's best for the project while satisfying WP policies, without even having to mention the policies explicitly - one of the hallmarks of great editors. (And by the way my sandbox has nothing to do with this complaint against mongo's and DH's disruptive behavior and their editing against community consensus and is only a distraction.) IjonTichy (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I said above is a personal attack. You are already topic banned from an entire set of articles and was blocked for violation and disruptive editing. My pointing out these issues is not a personal attack. --MONGO 17:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I've watched this article and the film article since the AfD was created. I think loose accusations of POV-pushing were unnecessary and that there is a lack of cordial discussion about how to deal with all this commentary. At the AfD and on the film article's talk page, I've brought up WP:STRUCTURE as a guideline to follow because the commentary is pooled by POV. For example, the sub-article has "Allegations" section headings that are unnecessarily slanted, where a section heading like "Portrayal of Iraq" could fold the negative criticisms and the counter-criticisms into one section. I think a sub-article can exist, but it started off on the wrong foot, apparently because there was a dispute on the film article itself. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this count.) In terms of trying to work together to structure all this commentary per WP:NPOV, we could start a Draft:Commentary on American Sniper which could be imported to the main article after some collaboration, or if long enough and satisfactory per WP:NPOV, re-established as a sub-article. The current "Controversies" section is lacking in high-level assessment, e.g. a mainstream newspaper basically highlighting the key points of the debate, and has too many one-commentator-after-another sentences. Erik (talk | contrib) 17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Criticism makes it clear that a controversies or criticism section, while not against guidelines, should be cautiously applied or avoided if possible. By creating and maintaining a section devoted solely to controversies or negative critique, we run the risk of it being used as a coatrack...as I stated above.--MONGO 17:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I'm suggesting "Commentary" to encapsulate the back-and-forth that has gone on. It would not be limited to the negative criticism. Even if one disagrees with the negative criticism, it is worthy of reporting since Misplaced Pages describes disputes as detailed in secondary sources. For example, we could focus on commentary that has been reported in high-level assessments. I think The New York Times mentioned a Grantland piece as one sample commentary, so that would be a reasonable threshold to emulate and to avoid throwing everything but the kitchen sink into such a section or a sub-article. Erik (talk | contrib) 17:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem with high level sourcing. The problem is Ijon seems determined to do nothing but coatrack. He has yet to demonstrate any desire to follow our best practices and has instead insisted repeatedly on using any and all sources no matter how circumspect they may be. Just now I reverted back the page at American Sniper (film) controversies that was voted to be merged as he is misusing it after the Afd closed to continue to post more stuff. The page is now properly a redirect and should be full protected by an admin in that version to comply with the Afd closure and to prevent Ijon from persisting in misusing it.--MONGO 17:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems like IjonTichy intended the page as a sandbox, but such a sandbox page should be off the mainspace. Either the draft page can be created from scratch, or the sub-article can be moved to that draft page to preserve page history (while we keep the redirect to the main article). I understand that it is difficult to imagine a proper sub-article about the debate being done, but I think it is doable. Articles like this can be referenced to capture the scope of the debate. If we start the draft page, we can collaborate to structure it appropriately. For example, a "Portrayal of Chris Kyle" section should start off with the reiteration that the film was based on Chris Kyle's autobiography, and then we can start including commentary from commentators, politicians, cast, and crew about whether accuracy matters or not. Erik (talk | contrib) 17:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

He already is using a sandbox for this and was trying to use the redirect page to post the same. I disagree that the alledged controversies needs a standalone article...that was already tried and was voted for a merge. The issue again is such forks are usually just coatracks and Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate list of links. If Ijon wishes to fill a sandbox up with every critique he wants then that's a different story.--MONGO 17:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Now Ijon is again using the redirect to post the same issue and edit warring to do so......how many examples of disruptive editing are needed here?--MONGO 17:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that what Erik suggests is a good idea, but when I asked for help to organise the section in this manner, I did not receive any assistance, and I distrust my competence to do so myself. However, I did write brief summaries for all of the articles that I could repost at the talk if you wish? David A (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Mongo, I find that the agreement at the AfD was that the sub-article was a POV fork. This does not mean a stand-alone article is never possible. WP:POVFORK says, "The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article." It's possible that we would be fine with encapsulating the whole debate in the film article, but a more detailed sub-article can still be warranted provided that it is properly balanced. Erik (talk | contrib) 18:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

IjonTichy, let's move the sub-article to the draft space. The consensus was that we should not have a sub-article at this point, so we should not keep it up currently. Merging does not necessarily mean that all the sub-article's content should find a place in the main article. POV concerns should be addressed first, and we can do that outside the mainspace and then import material that has a proper balance. If we do this, maybe on that draft page we can start in a specific sub-topic and develop coverage of the debate and get others to assess it. Erik (talk | contrib) 18:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I just reminded him of 3RR on the redirect which he continues to misuse as a parking place. An admin needs to protect the redirect. Erik....as.much as I would like to, existing and past behavior by Ijon does not indicate to me that he's going to do anything other than misuse a subarticle as a POV FORK. Good luck.--MONGO 18:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry if I missed anything, but why does IjonTichyIjonTichy think they can override Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/American Sniper (film) controversies days after it closed as "merge"? Drmies (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Is the best thing to protect the redirect? Otherwise there is a likelihood it will be used as a parking place. My last edit there told him to take it to the article talk page.--MONGO 21:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I will fully abide by decisions of the community, whether reached here, or on any article talk page, or anywhere on WP. The problem is mango's behavior, not mine. Drmies, please see the OP. The discussion closed as 'merge'. It did not close as 'delete,' but mango and DH are interpreting it as 'delete.' The consensus did not close as 'emboldening mango and DHeyward to remove practically almost each and every and all sourced criticism of the political/ historical/ social aspects of the film from the American Sniper (film) article because mango and DH do no like it, and emboldening them to attack and WikiBully editors that may disagree with them, and emboldening them to make a mockery of the consensus decision to merge, not to delete.'

In the words of David A: "After putting it to a vote, the official Misplaced Pages consensus was for the Controversies page to be merged into the main page. I have gone to extremes to put in the work to greatly compress the the articles within it, and to compromise with the other users. However, in spite of this, and multiple warnings, the user MONGO keeps making crude partisan personal attacks on the talk page, and far more significantly, the user DHeyward is attempting to censor all of the additions wholesale, in flagrant violation of the official Misplaced Pages decision, and all the work that I put in to summarise the critical articles into one sentence each, with no compromise whatsoever. I would greatly appreciate an intervention. Thank you very much for any help. Here is the current Talk section." David A (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Eh, "merge" does not mean "leave the original article as it was, substantially or otherwise". It means that the original article goes away, regardless of where the content goes. And one more thing: I see a whole bunch of talk of "censorship": there is no censorship going on here. DHeyward does not have the power to censor anything, though they have the opportunity to make well-considered edits. Simply removing something is not censorship unless it is...well, look it up at Censorship; that's not a bad definition. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I fully support all the suggestions and ideas of David A, Erik, Viriditas, TParis and others. But mango and DH have their egos and their belief systems tied to what the sources describe as the ideology of the film and they can't bring themselves to accept that scholars found fatal flaws with that ideology. both mango and DH need to recuse themselves from further editing on these film articles. They contributed nothing except deleting sourced content, personal attacks, wikibullying and other disruptive behavior. And now they are trying to make it appear as if I'm the problem, not them. Please see the discussion on the user talk page of user:TParis. Thanks. IjonTichy (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Its pretty obvious you're trolling when you deliberately misspell my username even though in all other posts you spell it correctly.--MONGO 22:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

In retrospect, I might have used the wrong notice board, as I only wanted an intervention regarding not to censor all of the content, not to block anybody. David A (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no such noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think user IjonTichy is not here to build an encyclopedia and should be permanently blocked from editing Misplaced Pages for tendentiousness. Its not a red herring to mention his topic ban here on another subject. His attitude was exactly the same, he could not see his errors objectively. He used a litany of personal putdowns like he is doing to Mongo to make his points and had no element of recognizing his editing failures. Wiki lawyering guidelines in an extremely negative way. I don't he will change. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, this appears to be a repeat of the last ANI involving earlier harassment by Earl King Jr. Please quit while you are still allowed to edit. Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Why would Earl no longer be allowed to edit? He has never been blocked whereby you have and for BLP violations, disruptive editing, etc. How many disruptive editing blocks do you need to receive before you get the idea that others think you're disruptive?--MONGO 06:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've never made any BLP violation anywhere. You're referring to an erroneous edit summary from an admin that upon review was found to be without merit. Your attempt at once again distracting this discussion away from your documented harassment in this thread is noted. The number of civility violations in this thread from you and the number of personal attacks made against multiple editors is entirely unprecedented in the history of ANI. If you aren't blocked, then the civility policy has no meaning. Viriditas (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

What about the three month (!!) wow block you had after a series of other blocks? How can you justify thinking that Earl King who has never been blocked should no longer be allowed to edit? That's mystifying.--MONGO 06:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I see a lot of heat and anger from MONGO and I think that User:TParis put it well. MONGO needs to learn the art of walking away from areas that upset him and letting calmer heads prevail. Because at the end of the day this sort of plain vanilla content dispute is what Misplaced Pages is best at solving. --John (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I see this sort of sentiment more and more often. It's nonsense and generally serves to exclude persistent objection and create the impression of consensus where one does not exist. If he can come here and invest such an incredible amount of time and energy to coherently defend his position then excluding him because he's upset doesn't serve MONGO or the article, only the people he's in a legitimate content dispute with. MONGO is an adult, it's his prerogative to invest himself in a contentious topic. GraniteSand (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In John's defense he may feel that his advice is sound. But he should know me well enough by now to understand that I don't care what he thinks about anything. I'm surely not upset as John describes it so the usual condescending tone from John is worth about zero to me.--MONGO 01:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors." That's a quote from our core civility policy. I think admins should take close look at the last 50 contributions made by MONGO. They will find that virtually every edit is either a violation of the civility policy or consists of a personal attack of some kind. And this all seems to stem from a dispute over a historical fiction film loosely based on an autobiography. As a result of this demonstrable pattern of disruption, I would like community to consider blocking Mongo until he is able to edit Misplaced Pages in harmony with his fellow editors. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You should learn the difference between "ignore" and "discard." Why you are hounding MONGO is beyond me. You seem compelled to reply to everything he writes. For the record, I didn't "ignore" you so don't get your panties hung up on that. I carefully and rationally read your positions and conclusions and dismissed it as nonsense. Every post you write appears to be a violation of WP:HOUNDING too as you follow every edit. At least John quoted someone when they followed MONGO around like a puppy. --DHeyward (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Its just AN/I. People come here when they can't get their way on an article and make accusations. Even if in the end, the fact is that I never said to take out all the negative critique...just to prune the bad apples from it...but they either didn't hear that or decided that they wanted the whole bamboozle. Those with an axe to grind show up to join the melee. Nothing gets solved. Admins obfuscate because they have little choice since some of the situations are boring since they aren't vested in the particular article. Best not to feed.--MONGO 01:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the civility block for MONGO, I would also like to request a civility warning for DHeyward for making the above comments. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support I support a block for Mongo. One of his arguments linking ordinary Iraqis with the modern anti-Shiite jihadist movements is a plain case of Arabophobic racism. If Mongo does not want to appear to be a anti-Arab racist then he shouldn't link Iraqi nationalistic Ba'athists with global jihadists out of nowhere. I smell something (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

When did that happen.--MONGO 03:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a suspiciously "knowing" comment from an editor with fewer than 10 edits (all of them about incest, of all things.) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I forget what we call that type of editor...--MONGO 03:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Various things, depending on the level of civility. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

And his statement might be smelly, but he is obviously missing the smell of Kurds in a way that don't really care about his distinction. --DHeyward (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No Support Barn-star for Mongo for trying to manage a little and point out IjonTichy's behavior that is out of control tendentious, attacking and pov to his personal interests. Content dispute. Figure it out on the talk page. Ijon is not here to build and encyclopedia in my view. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang block for John and Viriditas that have only posted inflammatory rhetoric. At the very least a One-Way IBAN that prevents them from commenting about MONGO. And an idef for User:I smell socks as obvious sock and trolling account. --DHeyward (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Strong support for immediate civility block on MONGO and a civility warning for DHeyward for continued false accusations. Upon reviewing the facts and evidence in this thread, it becomes immediately clear that the OP, User:David A, as well as complainant User:IjonTichyIjonTichy, have been under an enormous amount of personal attacks and harassment from MONGO, DHeyward, and Earl King Jr., who think that the civility policy does not apply to them. Because of this continued disruption and to prevent future disruption, I would like to see an administrator place the "American Sniper" topic area under the American politics discretionary sanctions as soon as possible. Viriditas (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Since John is here and he was the most recent admin to block you maybe he can block you again to enforce our policy against hounding which you're violating in textbook fashion.--MONGO 05:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an enormous amount of evidence in this thread showing that you have violated and continue to violate the civility policy, to the point where you are disrupting the topic area. Commenting on this evidence and requesting sanctions is not "hounding" by any stretch of the imagination. Viriditas (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The only disruption going in here is by you. I'm not going to be blocked or banned.There are currently no log pages for "American politics". The central DS log page covers only TPM and Gun control.--MONGO 06:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid the evidence says otherwise. The last 50 contributions in your edit history, for example, consist of nothing but personal attacks and civility violations. And this is all over a fictional film based on an autobiography? Please learn to control yourself and keep your politics at home. The American politics arbitration case was designed specifically to enforce discretionary sanctions on exactly this topic, and to sanction editors like yourself. I am an entirely uninvolved editor, as I have neither participated in nor edited any article or AfD related to this discussion. As such, I can safely observe that sanctions are desperately needed to restore order to the topic area and to stop you from editing. It is not "hounding" to say this, nor is it harassment of any kind. Viriditas (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Odd...more than half your last 50 edits indicate you've been hounding for blocks and bans...I'd say that is harassment.--MONGO 06:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Annnnnddddd....that's all folks! Stay tuned tomorrow or the next few days for the latest get wild and crazy episode at one of Misplaced Pages's favorite places to be when you don't want to or can't write an encyclopedia!--MONGO 07:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• But the community agreed the page must go, and IjonTichy edit wars to restore it , while attacking people and saying «I will fully abide by decisions of the community» and «I have not edit warred in years», I think this is dishonest. Spumuq (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Who used a sockpuppet to attack MONGO, can we checkuser? Spumuq (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The number of civility violations in this thread from you and the number of personal attacks made against multiple editors is entirely unprecedented in the history of ANI. If you aren't blocked, then the civility policy has no meaning. Viriditas. Huh! How can that be? That does not really make sense that I can see. I see nothing in that regard just an attempt to get at what is going on. Also, IjonTichy edit wars to restore it , while attacking people and saying «I will fully abide by decisions of the community» and «I have not edit warred in years», I think this is dishonest. end quote from another editor. I have to agree. That is the reality of what IjonTichy is doing. It is a contradiction from what he is saying. It is not even connected to what he is saying he is doing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

User:TParis stated at his talk page that this behavior is not the same as the behavior Ijon demonstrated on the Zeitgeist pages which led to a topic ban there. I disagree. I warned Ijon about 3RR and was greeted with nothing but hostility.--MONGO 14:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support for a block of MONGO. Ironholds (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• OpposeViriditas' ill-founded demand to stop Mongo from editing. Edison (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A question

I just noticed this noticeboard. Given that all I really wanted was to get some outside intervention and NPOV judgement regarding how best to handle the Controversies section, should I take this discussion there instead? David A (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Anywhere but here. Jehochman 12:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. My apologies for the inconvenience. David A (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Need help with complex cut and paste move

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

A user did a cut and past move some time ago of Carlo, Cokxxx, Nutten 2 (2009 album) to Carlo, Cokxxx, Nutten 2. Now they have moved it, again as a cut n paste move, to Carlo Cokxxx Nutten 2. If someone with a flair for history merges could please take a look, I would appreciate it. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this. Please no-one move any of the pages until I've finished. — Mr. Stradivarius 08:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, should be all sorted now. — Mr. Stradivarius 09:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Mr S! -- Diannaa (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

In ictu oculi's disruptive editing (again)

Like he has beein doing it for 2 or 3 years now, In ictu oculi (talk · contribs) (IIO) is, once again, disruptive editing. This time the report is because of 2 reasons listeb below:

• 1) Moving pages and leaving redirects to the moved page and not redirect them to another place.

Kill (album), Popular Songs, Scrambles, Greatest Hits/The Deluxe Edition, Go Crazy!, Negatives (album), The Negatives, Rain in England, Mía, Talk:Screens, SixSixSix, $O$, Y., The Whirlwind, Opus 69, MZW, K.O.D., (if), The Harbinger, Carver City, The Boxer, B.D.D., Ben Adam, Olé, Olé, Charlie Chaplin (song), Autostop, Opa (band), OPA! (band), OPA!, Legenda (song), One Step, Modlitba, 2 Long, The Essential Johnny Cash, Takes 2 to Tango, 1 Life, The New Girl in Town, Ladies' Choice (song), Without Love (album), The Dark Age, 10 Minutes (song), Ten Minutes, Süper Star, Lorraine (song), Love? (song), Las Vegas (song), Cheesecake (song), Eddie Henderson, Pictures at an Exhibition (album), Knife Edge, Knife-Edge, Joe Haywood, Bill Potter, Le Garçon.

All these pages were moved from 1 February to 9 February. The reason why they were moved is due to they are ambiguous titles. The problem is all these titles currently redirect to the former article titles, like Popular Songs redirects to Popular Songs (Yo La Tengo album); Ben Adam redirects to Ben Adam (song), or Give It 2 Me redirects to Give It 2 Me (Madonna song). IIO has made no single attempt to correct the redirects, and per previous experience () these redirects will be there until somebody change them. There is no single attempt made by him to explain the difference between Opa (band) with OPA! (band) with OPA!; or 10 Minutes (song) with Ten Minutes; or Knife Edge with Knife-Edge. Also, there is no explanation why OPA! (band) and OPA! were transformed into Opa (Swedish band) and Opa (Giorgos Alkaios song) (dropping their exclamation point). Also the already redirects Kick Up Your Heels, Nan You're a Window Shopper (Song), Knock 'Em Out, That's How I Go and Fake Friends were moved, without justification, to Kick Up Your Heels (Jessica Mauboy song), Nan You're a Window Shopper (Lily Allen song), Knock 'Em Out (Lily Allen song), That's How I Go (Mario song) and Fake Friends (PTAF EP). Articles like Dalida Canta in Italiano was transformed into Canta in Italiano (Dalida album) (unexplained); Nin9 2 5ive to Nin9 2 5ive (Joey Yung album) (claiming stylization, but it wasn't moved to Nine to Five (Joey Yung album)); Without Love (There Is Nothing) moved to Without Love (Clyde McPhatter song) (with no source or evidence "(There Is Nothing)" is not used in reliable sources); The Essential Johnny Cash 1955–1983 (WP:NATURALLY disambiguated) to The Essential Johnny Cash (1992 album) and D Train (entertainer) was moved to James D-Train Williams (against WP:COMMONAME).

• 2) Persistent lack of usage of WP:MOS in disambiguation pages (and articles in general).

Books, films, album, plays, videogame, or tv series (for example) have their titles written in italics, meanwhile songs and tv episodes have their names between quotation marks. The problem is that IIO rarely includes includes italics, or quotation marks, but also he excludes punctuation in general. For example:

• • Diamond Days. The page begins with "Diamond Day Records The Steepwater Band", unless you visit The Steepwater Band's page, you can't understand the meaning of this line. It should say something like "Diamond Day Records, an American record label, whose among their clients it is included The Steepwater Band", or if the label is theirs "Diamond Day Records, an American record label owned by The Steepwater Band". It also says "Diamond Days (George McCrae album) 1976", when it should be "Diamond Days (George McCrae album), 1976"; the same with "Diamond Days (Eric Bibb album) 2007", "Collection Album Vol.1 Diamond Days Lia (singer) 2007" and "Diamond Days (Bento album), Ben Gillies solo album 2012". Then we have ""Diamond Days" (own composition) Chris Murphy (Australian singer) Australian Idol (season 4)"; I don't know why it says "(own composition)" and "Australian Idol (season 4)" is included.

• • Dirty Business. I have made corrections to the page, but it originally was written like this. It begins with "Books: "Dirty Business", a play by William Mastrosimone". It is listed as book, but it says it is a play; ""Dirty Business" written by John Dawson New Riders of the Purple Sage (album)" (it says it is written by Dawson, but never says it is a song by the New Riders of the Purple Sage); ""Dirty Business", The Relix Bay Rock Shop, No. 1" (The Relix Bay Rock Shop, No. 1 is a compilation album by the New Riders of the Purple Sage, so it is the same song listed above); "Dirty Business (Sara Jorge song) redirects to R3MIX" (I don't understand why any reader must be informed that a title is redirected somewhere else); "Dirty Business" (Dalton) Live at Myrtle Beach" (laks of context , what is "Live at Myrtle Beach", etc.).

• • Amanecer. Created in January: "Awaking from a Dream (redirect from Amanecer de un sueño) 2008 Spanish drama film" or "Amanecer, song by es:Pic-Nic 1968", and in general, almost not a single comma is used throughout.

This is an analysis of three disambiguation pages, but the same repeats over and over again throughout his dab creations (by years now), the dab entries lack of a context that any person other than him can't simply understand (see New Love's song list). For other dab pages see:

• • Just created this month with some issues: Classic Album Collection, Let Me Be Me (disambiguation), Red Lips (disambiguation), Phantasma, Number One Hits, Love Remains, I'm Out (disambiguation), Do Right, Is it Right (disambiguation), Love Me Like You Do (disambiguation), Journaux. The articles he creates also further explanation these situations: , etc.

IIO will argue that this thread is solely to disrupt, but for real, anyone can verify that most of his moves () go to articles and not dab pages; or that pages he creates () have the minimal usage of WP:MOS, despite he has been asked to apply it or he has been corrected multiple times for the last 5 years. I simply can't understand how he can get away with this again and again. On a side note, if someone can explain why Jesse James (songwriter) and Tracy (English singer) (as they are written now) satisfy WP:A7 I'd be very thanked. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 06:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - this editor has been following me for some time making threats of something, presumably this. In that period there have been various personal attacks which I have not kept a record of, but the more extreme ones have asked for it not to happen on this user's Talk page so they will be there if anyone wants to work through them. As for the above, yes that's a small selection of the work of "2 or 3 years now" on disambiguation pages. As for edits in the last week, it's good to let edits sit for a few days in case there are talk page objections and allow for WP:BRD, this has been explained to this editor before. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• You say "a few days". This lasted two months, and if I start to search in your log archive I will find pages moved a year ago that still redirecting to the previous title. This is not a "BRD" situation, it's something that simply can't be explained by other person than yourself. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 13:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• On your second point, non-adherence to WP:MOS is irrelevant: the MOS frequently needs to be ignored, and following it is frequently a bad idea. The problem is that non-use or misuse of italics and quotation marks is simply poor use of English, like poor spelling. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
• On your first point, where's the evidence? Kill (album) was moved without explanation; Go Crazy! was moved because there's "no evidence for ! on cover or sources" (and Go Crazy is definitely ambiguous); Charlie Chaplin (song) was moved because "the skipping song"; and The New Girl in Town was moved without explanation. Aside from Go Crazy, IIO, you really need to provide understandable move rationales, but I don't see evidence for the initial assertion. Moreover, why is administrative intervention needed in this situation? It doesn't seem like an incident that needs an administrator. Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• For several years of similar disruptive behaivor, IIO needs to be blocked from editing (or at least his WP:AP tool removed). This is just the tip of the iceberg. If you really want me to include all the disruptive behaviour, including but not limited to disruptive editing to prove his points (for example), personal attacks/bad faith assumptions, persistent copyright violations, lacks of WP:competence (you said it: "simply poor use of English, like poor spelling" in over 5,000 pages with no single attempt to change himself can't be called competence), persistent move of pages without consensus, or a reasonable/justified/coherent reason (5ive to Nin9), creating a lot of backlog work (I just cited 55 problematic redirects and you still asking for "evidence"?), violations of NPOV, unsourced additions, and again ignoring MOS (you say we should "ignore MOS". If we ignored MOS at the Main page, and IIO'd have wrote it, the first entry at ITN would be readen "Boyhood (film) wins three awards, including BAFTA Award for Best Film, at the British Academy Film Awards.", just to cite a single example, and as I said before, it's not only by not "following MOS", it's because the total lack of coherence in what it is written (again refer to New Love). Really, if you want me to post all the evidence I have, I can post it, but don't simply say there's nothing to see here and the evidence above is just trivial. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 13:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I have had one run-in with IIO, in March 2014. He had moved, without discussion, the Jack Spratt article about the fictional detective to what I thought was an unnecessary dab. Worse, it was incorrectly/incompetently dabbed, so I moved it back. IIO then followed up with an RM for what would be a competent dab, we discussed the matter politely—no other editor commented—and eventually an uninvolved third-party closed the discussion, felt IIO made the better argument, and made the requested move. (I still believe it was a "mistake", but I'm not here to "win".) I noticed his work on some other dab page seemed a little off, not quite in accord with MOS:DAB, and fixed it. He told me he was in the middle of things, but he also explained that one of the dab entries really ought to go against the rules, his argument made sense, so I went ahead and self-reverted that change. All-in-all, our exchanges were entirely satisfactory and civil and made in the spirit of what's right for WP, so I'm dubious about the above long-term behavioral accusations. I have not looked at any of the listed complaints, but it's entirely plausible to me that the OP is not trying hard enough. Choor monster (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Timbouctou edit warring and vandalism on Magnum Crimen article

This user keeps reverting the article content for the whole week removing huge portion of the referenced text along the references verifying it. For details see here and specifically here, here, here, here, here

He was warned here after which he reverted the article content again.

He put the http://magnumcrimen.org/ link under External links of the Manum Crimen article. This is a commercial site selling this book, which is against the Misplaced Pages no advertisement policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle Ridomi (talk • contribs) 19:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

He was blocked 6 times in the past for the vandalism, edit warring, and harassment.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing to my past behaviour which has nothing to do with you or the article in question here. For the record, User:Michelle Ridomi seems to be a sock/meat puppet of User:Milos zankov. Both of them have been engaged in censoring edits to Magnum Crimen - a controversial book originally published in 1948 claiming that Catholic clergy was closely related to Croatian fascists during World War II and which seems to have a special place in Serbian nationalists' hearts. They have been doing this in an effort to keep our article word-for-word identical to what has been posted to magnumcrimen.org, an external website set up to promote English-language edition of the book. The text over there is a mirror of a previous version of our Misplaced Pages article, much of which had been added in 2010 by a user blocked since, and which had plagiarised verbatim a 1950 book review, including a few glaring factographical mistakes. Correcting these (or at least rephrasing to avoid obvious plagiarism issues) is virtually impossible due to these two editors' never-ending reverts.

Only after User:Milos zankov (a recently registered account) opened an RfC (which was ciriticised already for overall tone and lack of good faith assumption by a passing by editor) and after Milos reported me here twice did Michelle Ridomi (yet another recently registered account) appear out of the blue to start blowing the same trumpet. I think we would all have to be imbeciles not to assume these two are puppets and not to assume they have a vested interest in this article because of a political axe to grind. Perhaps I should have reported both to WP:SPI. I see now I should have, and I will, once this thread is concluded. Thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"They have been doing this in an effort to keep our article word-for-word identical to what has been posted to magnumcrimen.org, an external website set up to promote English-language edition of the book." It is quite clear that magnumcrimen.org copied most of the text from the Misplaced Pages Magnum Crimen. The time stamp here shows that the word-for-word text existed in the Magnum Crimen as of 27 August 2010. The magnumcrimen.org site claims its copyright as of 2015. If there is a copyright violation, it is on the magnumcrimen.org side. We tried several times to explain that the time does not run backward which this user kept rejecting. Collaborating in a constructive way, which I did when commenting and submitting changes to Magnum Crimen, is not puppeteering.
"and which had plagiarised verbatim a 1950 book review" In 2010 a portion of this text was not referenced. The un-referenced text was reworded by Milos zankov and the reference added which makes no sense to call it a plagiarism now, nor remove the whole section from the article.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I explained what happened quite clearly - an entire 1950 book review was pasted into our article years ago (unattributed). The article was then mirrored at magnumcrimen.org (unattributed to either Misplaced Pages or original source), which claims copyright to it. Milos and Michelle are now edit-warring and speficically reverting any re-wording of the said text, many, many, many, many, many times. They also deleted external link back to magnumcrimen.org (the book's official website) several times, they deleted sections on criticism of the book, and they pretend they don't see factual mistakes in the quoted review itself (the book was not banned by the Catholic church; its author was not a priest, etc, etc.). They even oppose translating the title in English exactly the same way it is printed on its English-language edition cover. Milos and Michelle are just here to revert whatever anyone does on the article. And they have no intention of behaving otherwise since they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Timbouctou (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Timbouctou I'll respond to a few issues mentioned by this user.

• "an entire 1950 book review was pasted into our article years ago (unattributed)" -> the fact is just these two sentences were "unattributed": Viktor Novak, a Croat by birth, has been, since 1924, active among the Serbs. He has held the Chair of Croat History which was founded at the University of Belgrade in order to promote mutual understanding between the two kindred peoples. which I attributed properly. The whole book review is in front of me and has four pages. As a proof that the "entire 1950 book review" is never pasted into Magnum Crimen I'll offer this snippet from the O. Neuman book review: "The invasion and disruption of Jugoslavia in the spring of 1941 has served the author as the dividing line of the period to be covered in the third part of this trilogy. The magnum crimen is not and individual or isolated action: the author uses the the term to designate the activities of that part of the Croat hierarchy which cast their lot with the poglavnik of NDH. Ante Pavelic and endorsed his policy, friendly to the Axis and hostile to the Serbian people, and in general to all those who even after the forceful dismemberment of the country remained faithful to the idea of Yugoslavia. Two long chapters covering over 500 pages, have been reserved for the description of conditions prevailing in the NDH". The Google search will show you this
• "its author was not a priest, not banned by the Catholic church" A Corrupt Tree: An Encyclopaedia of Crimes committed by the Church of Rome against Humanity and the Human Spirit, A.S., Xlibris Corporation, Jan 13, 2014 page 803 Novak, Viktor, ex Catholic priest, professor, historian, anathema pronounced against him, 537 Magnum Crimen ... placed on the Index, 537. See also Autor je Viktor Novak (1889–1977), hrvatski rimokatolički sveštenik i profesor Univerziteta u Beogradu translated as The author, Victor Novak (1889-1977) , is a Croatian Roman Catholic priest and a University of Belgrade professor--Milos zankov (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Milos. Too bad you have no clue where "A Corrupt Tree" got that information from since page 537 is missing from Google Books preview you plucked this from. Also, too bad you don't actually use references when editing the article itself instead of reverting. And reverting. And reverting. And reverting. And then some more reverting. Timbouctou (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You did not add a single reference. Moreover, you added "official site" which is just an advertisement despite the fact that advertising inside Misplaced Pages articles is strictly forbidden to advertise. Milos zankov added eight new references.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Zankov added very little, and the article is still mostly reliant on primary sources (although, oddly enough, things like author's priesthood and prohibition are not). You, on the other hand, had deleted entire sections about the book's criticism and you are still edit-warring over petty crap, such as the book's English-language title, external link (which is its official website), copyedited 1950 review and a myriad of other stuff that has been touched upon in the talk page. The idea that the external link is merely advertisement is pretty interesting since Milos and yours version of the article body is a verbatim copy of what is on that website. Timbouctou (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

User:timbouctou is known to delete any reference s/he does not like, e.g. the image in the article on Extreme right politics in Croatia ( q.v. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Far-right_politics_in_Croatia&diff=645719162&oldid=645701856 )

Seems instead of disciplining and civilising extreme right wing Misplaced Pages in Croatian (which in all discussions calls itself "Croatin wikipedia"), shich was attempted last year, when it escalated so much that Croatian (left wing) government and Misplaced Pages founders were involved, we just got the same pro-Ustashi Croatian extreme right policies promoted on Misplaced Pages in Enlgish now. What User:timbouctou and his/her cohort user:Joy do by removing anything remotely critical of the pro-fascist extreme right wing Croatian worldview or of the Roman Catholic church in Croatia is what people with integrity should abhor and reject and those users should be banned indefinitely.

109.245.135.87 (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Titles of Tvrtko I of Bosnia

Sabahudin9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been involved in an edit war with me on Tvrtko I of Bosnia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), where he wrongfully claimed a royal title which was proven to be false, with the comment "Actually, No. He was king of Bosnia and Serbia not king of Bosnia and Serbs. Cute", which I countered with these edits, which clearly show that the titles Tvrtko I used were (in this particular order) "King of Serbs, Bosnia, ". Next, he did not revert my additions, but changed "Serbs" into "Serbia", with the comment "Two of the three sources provided are Serbian. Of course Serbs are going to Serbianize something Bosnian and twist it. Nationalism runs rampant in Serb culture.". I reverted this, with the comment "Sabahudin9 warned. You have not presented any refutation. misinterpretation of sources reverted.". He did the same edit on another article. He reverted, with the comment You're the one who needs to "take it to the talk page". You're the one who changed "Serbia" to "Serbs" to propagate your Serbian nationalism. And I scoff at your accusation that I'm "misinterpreting" the sources. So, obviously, besides numerous inflammatory comments (including using the word "cute" here and here), this user does not follow Misplaced Pages guidelines.--Zoupan 14:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Ownership issues, undue weight, and soapboxing

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

I request some additional eyes on edits by Dahnshaulis (talk · contribs).

I initially encountered the user at ITT Technical Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where they inserted a long list of sites that were called out by USA Today as having default rates higher than graduation rates. I trimmed the list, and I moved the text of the criticism to the section "Investigations, Lawsuits, and Controversies" where the study results remained visible, just omitting the excessive site listing that overwhelmed the rest of the article.

The material was then restored by the original editor, where they posted on my talk page arguing that the material should not be "whitewashed" and that if I have questions I should email the user. When I then looked at the edits by the user, I noticed that they are adding comparable content to multiple articles, frequently using an edit summary asking that they be contacted first before any changes are made to the content or its inclusion in the articles. I am concerned that this pattern needs additional attention to address. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Barek, I welcome a peer review by people who are familiar with this field. At the same time, I would hope that I would know their names to assess their credibility and trustworthiness. If we could get Suzanne Mettler, for example, a Cornell professor who did six years of research in this area, that would be great.Dahnshaulis (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you want to only allow people whom you feel have appropriate credentials to edit the articles shows you have a misunderstanding of how Misplaced Pages works. The content and who can edit the articles is not determined by user credentials, but by what is stated in third-party reliable sources and structured in a way that meets our content guidelines. One of those, re: due and undue weight, was mentioned when I purged the bulky list of sites, but there are many others as well which you may want to review, such as WP:OWN and WP:SOAPBOXING. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Barek, the problem is bigger than that. This is For-profit higher education in the United States before Dahnshaulis really got to work; this is the "after" version. Note the POV phrasing in the lead, note the many unreliable (or really way too POV-y) references. It seems to me that Dahnshaulis is on a mission here, and while that mission is--in my opinion--a laudable one, Misplaced Pages should not be engaged in what are, for our intents and purposes, crusades. Those ITT edits are of course unacceptable, and there's too much naming and shaming in edits like this and this. The problem is the presentation and the tone, and, as you noted, in addition the editor has a somewhat skewed idea of how we are supposed to work here ("Please talk to me before removing this information", "Please review carefully and talk to me before editing"). I think a topic ban here is in order, unless this editor successfully undergoes reprogramming in our gulag in San Francisco. Seriously, Dahnshaulis, I'm with you, but not inside Misplaced Pages. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think a topic ban would be useful. If the editor wishes to draw attention to problems with these institutions, he has to learn how to make his point without absurd lists, poor sources, and unclear accusations. BTW, I have just been accused of "whitewashing" for removing this uninformative and space-hogging list. However it's nice to know that I "may be an intelligent person". Paul B (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• The more I look at the editor's work the more I am convinced that they are indeed on a crusade of sorts--for instance, on their talk page to another editor, "I'm not here to make friends, but to make entries that will be helpful in the democratization of education. As I have said in other places, your attempt at so-called 'neutrality is actually an act of complicity"--this displays the kind of us vs. them mentality that is counterproductive in a collaborative environment, and WP:NOTHERE seems more relevant by the minute. I am also struck by the comments by Bahooka and ElKevbo (editors with cool heads, experience, and common sense) and Dahnshaulis's response to their comments. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, yeah, El "Whitewasher" Kevbo, that's who I meant: User_talk:ElKevbo#Colorado_Tech_Whitewashing. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Seeming like they have the best of intentions but are unwilling to listen or incapable of understanding, either way an attention getting block might be in order. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I don't believe in those, and it would have to be phrased somewhat differently. An option is indefinite per WP:NOTHERE with an attached offer of "change your ways and we'll unblock you". An hour ago I thought that was way too drastic a measure. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do would be to consult an expert in the field of discussion, such as Cornell Professor Suzanne Mettler, who spent more than six years doing research in this area. Dahnshaulis (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Before you put me in the Misplaced Pages "gulag" as you call it, why not also consult ITT Educational Services (ESI) and ask them about the entries? Dahnshaulis (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Dahnshaulis we cannot be expected to "consult" experts on the whim of an editor. If you wish to draw attention to the shortcomings of commercial universities, do so by quoting scholars and other relevant commentators with due weight. Your current editing comprises listings of often irrelevant material, such as obscure law-suits the content of which is often not even identified. You would be better served looking at good quality articles and learning how to identify key content and arguments. Nor can you expect us to defer to your own alleged superior experitise. Paul B (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Paul, for people doing research regarding higher education in the US, this information is not obscure. Nor is this information trivial for people interested in matriculating to ITT Tech. Please carefully check the USA Today article and see how many ITT campuses are "red flag" schools. ITT Tech dominates the list. If an organization dominates a list, does one just make a small footnote (e.g. years the Yankees won the World Series)?

That's why I am politely asking you to undo your edit.Dahnshaulis (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The best thing to do is to follow established Misplaced Pages policies as well as and content guidelines.

As to contacting ESI directly - that would only provide non-verifiable commentary, which falls under the category of original research - so their comments would not be directly usable within an article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean someone else has to write about the information first, for it to be credible and trustworthy for Misplaced Pages?

Barek, what happens when the media and other organizations systematically censor information? For example, no major news outlet has written about Richard Blum's relationship with for-profit colleges in five years, even as for-profit schools have gained greater public scrutiny. Conservative as well as liberal media outlets haven't touched the subject. Yet Richard Blum is a California Regent and Senator Dianne Feinstein's husband. Does that mean that this story is insignificant? link Dahnshaulis (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• You should read Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, and if you can't figure out how your comments here are completely at odds with what Misplaced Pages is, then you cannot edit here. I feel like I'm flogging a long-dead horse: no original research, and neutrality at all time. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Extra extra, all you Twitterers: you've read by now that Dahnshaulis told the world that "Misplaced Pages editors considering a ban on my activities for presenting too much information". Well, Dahnshaulis, they are not: they are considering a ban for your lousy and non-neutral editing, for your abuse of Misplaced Pages as a soapbox from which to declaim the rights and wrongs of the world. Misplaced Pages was not invented for that--that's what you have Twitter, MySpace, Wikia, and WordPress for. Let me just add that I am highly sympathetic to your cause, but you are going about it totally wrong--if you had had a bit less zeal and more smarts, you could have improved these articles and thereby bring out what some might refer to as the truth of, basically, taxpayer-funded "education" that does no one any service but the CEOs and stockholders. I would never say that; it's not a neutral statement.

  I am this close to blocking you per WP:NOTHERE, so you can ponder the problem with statements like "no major news outlet has written about Richard Blum's relationship with for-profit colleges in five years" (hint: if no reliable source has written about it, it can't be in an encyclopedia). Drmies (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dahnshaulis: You wrote, "Does that mean someone else has to write about the information first, for it to be credible and trustworthy for Misplaced Pages?" Yes, that's exactly what it means. You may have thought you were being ironic, but in fact you've quite accurately paraphrased the formal, written Misplaced Pages policy on this. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Apparently this entire thread was archived--a bit too quickly for my taste, considering, for instance, this edit by Dahnshaulis on my talk page: "The people I named with close ties to for-profit colleges is well documented. Yet you decided to remove all the information. Is this how you work?" It exemplifies, pretty clearly, everything that's wrong here: it's a personal attack, it shows a lack of good faith, it exhibits the fundamental misunderstanding about Misplaced Pages this editor suffers from, and we can throw in WP:IDHT as well. Barek, Paul Barlow, Bahooka, and really everyone else: give me one good reason not to block this editor indefinitely, summarizing it as WP:NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding; I was off-line over the weekend.

From what I can see in Dahnshaulis' continued behavior, including the post you reference on your talk page, the user's primary motivator seems to be their attempt to address WP:GREATWRONGS. The WP:IDHT issues are a direct result, as site policies and guidelines that block that goal seems to be ignored.

At this point, I believe the only thing being accomplished by not blocking the user indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE is to provide them with more WP:ROPE. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:ROPE is a good philosophy when confusion and competency at editing on Misplaced Pages are an issue rather than vandalism. One of the editor's problems was the inability to cite his sources appropriately and his talk page reflects that ignorance. I provided links to referencing and citation help pages and, hopefully, he will take the opportunity to read up on what is expected from all editors. Liz 18:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Simply formatting a ref correctly is the least of the issues here. The much more serious concerns are documented above and revolve around article ownership issues, soapboxing, WP:IDHT, etc. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Frankly I'm surprised they're not indef'd already. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Orchestrated sock-attacks

Yesterday, following a discussion at ANI , user Dr. Feldinger was indefinitely blocked after a serious of personal attacks. Since then, the user has returned with a never-ending number of socks, both registered socks and IP-socks

• 79.183.4.32
• 109.67.170.12
• 79.176.169.95
• 79.182.166.92
• 85.76.74.120
• 85.240.221.26
• 91.153.218.39
• 80.223.7.98
• 92.251.12.101
• Meg2015
• Three Whole Words

Could something more effective be done rather than just continue to block the socks one by one as they appear?Jeppiz (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The talk page has been semi-protected. I like trolling when it's funny, but I'm not keen on being called anti-Semitic in a serious context (my Jewish mother and grandma wouldn't approve) and I doubt the other users, Jewish and gentile, like it either when they're just trying to fix an article that is the target of constant fighting and politically-motivated nonsense. He seems to be on the war-path right now, but hopefully it'll taper off. Also, I think this might belong on WP:SPI if I'm not mistaken. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 20 Shevat 5775 17:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe that someone actually bothered with all that IP-changing and registering. What's even more awkward is that he's cloaked himself with some really nice proxy/VPN because his primary subnet's different so we can't issue a rangeblock. Still a geotrace won't hurt (given respectively):

• Israel Petah Tikva Bezeq International-ltd
• Israel Petah Tikva Bezeq International-ltd
• Israel Tel Aviv Bezeq International-ltd
• Israel Petah Tikva Bezeq International-ltd
• Finland Tampere Sl Cgn
• Portugal Lisbon Pt Comunicacoes S.a.
• Finland Helsinki Elisa Oyj
• Finland Helsinki Broadband Access Pool
• Malta Luqa Melita Plc

Seems like a VPN. Multiple login changes the server everytime. Or, maybe, maybe, a new Tor exit node. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 17:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately it just continues, the latest IP sock (85.23.156.94) was just blocked but there will soon be other ones.Jeppiz (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

And yet another sock (79.180.180.146). The user seem determined to continue.Jeppiz (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You do realize he just bans Israeli IP's which all share the same patterns? Are all Israelis to be blamed because of one? That's a discrimination against the rules of Misplaced Pages. Let Israelis comment and express their thoughts on Talk:Israel. 79.180.180.146 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Israelis are perfectly free to express their thoughts, and all Israeli users who have commented are fed up with you. You are not allowed to, as you're blocked. You could have appealed the block instead of just creating sock after sock, but you chose to be disruptive. That's your issue, it has nothing to do with Israelis, and we have loads of great Israeli contributors.Jeppiz (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly offensive comments at talk pages

There is some edit-warring at Talk:Israel over a comment that some editors consider offensive while some other consider correct and appropriate. Previously there was similar warring over another comment.

Is there a criteria for determining whether an editor's comment is offensive enough to justify the reversion or when editors that do not like the comment (and even consider it uncivil or a personal attack) have nonetheless to restrain from touching it ? “WarKosign” 17:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

In this case it's a moot question. The comment is by a highly disruptive and racist user (see discussion just above this one) who is blocked. The block is for the person, not the account, and so every edit any of the socks make will be removed.Jeppiz (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is in relation to the topic above, and it's basically socks of User: Dr. Feldinger acting up. My personal opinion is that insinuating that multiple users are anti-Semites and racists when they've not done anything that clearly demonstrates such views is beyond the pale and should be rev-deleted. That said, I'm one of the people involved, so I might be biased. I'm also a regular user and not too familiar with what qualifies as rev-deletable material. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 20 Shevat 5775 17:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

My question is not specifically about these two edits, it's about the principle. I was under the impression that the offensive post has to be quite extreme to warrant suppression. There are other messages still on the talk page that I find nearly as offensive. Would I be within my rights to remove them ?“WarKosign” 20:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

But the answer really cannot be given without taking into account the status of the person who made the remarks. The best answer is, really, sure, you can remove what you think needs to be removed (per Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines), but get ready for people to revert you. Also, we're not talking about "suppression" here (as in Misplaced Pages:Oversight), but simple deletion, where the comments are still in the history. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Lazord00d again

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

Previously blocked for some combination of WP:EW/WP:IDHT/refusal to recognize WP:CONSENSUS. Long-term refusal to work constructively with various other editors (for example, explicitly states he is ignoring multiple EW warnings and related comments on his talk-page about his edits). Previous admin-board visits have resulted in a page being locked (he was one of several edit-warriors over image choice) (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive269#User:Lazord00d reported by User:VQuakr .28Result: Page blocked.29) and others commenting on his inability to follow WP:CIVIL/WP:CONSENSUS (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive869#User:Lazord00d disruptive editing). A boomerang at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive870#Harrassment and hounding from users ser:DMacks.2C user:VQuakr.2C user:Leyo.2C user:Ben and others was forestalled because he appeared to be headed towards cooperative/collaborative editing. That appears to have been a short-term change. Since that time, he has restated his rejection of discussion/collaboration with others and that he is treating such attempts (as well as WP behavioral policy in general) as mostly a joke for his own amusement. Most recently at 2-Fluoroamphetamine, he was edit-warring over the same image choice situation with several other editors. In his general statements on this aspect and specific edit-summaries, it boiled down to his belief that his image was not noticeably worse in fact (others dispute this), was better in style (based on precedent that does not have consensus yet on WP). But the "fact" aspect he says are his own use of a computer program that does not have a reputation for being correct in this regard (others have commented that his reliable-sounding precedent is merely embedding other work that has no underlying reliability). I finally found actual WP:RS (published scientific literature) contradicting a very substantial part of the image he created for this article and cited it in my edit-summary. His response was to continue the WP:EW with dismissal of it as his being unable to understand the simple (in the world of chemical-structure and source-citation) explanation I made. WP:CIR and WP:V failure, in addition to the other behavioral problems. I would discuss it with him, but (as part of his pattern of rejecting others' comments out-of-hand) he has prohibited me from writing on his talkpage (likewise, I will leave it to others to notify him of this ANI). DMacks (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@DMacks: If I can't google it, why bother with the citation? Do you think most of our readers are Chemists? Seriously you must be joking. Sad thing is I know you're not, you used some gibberish parlance to screw with me rather than fulfill YOUR burden of proof in a sensible manner. Your post and it's content are joke #1,324 at least since I've been counting. But yeah WP is SERIOUS BUSINESSSSSSS. Lazord00d (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS/WP:V is very clear that google is not the threshold or even a requirement at all. My WP:BURDEN is met by a standard academic citation. But googling that "doi" string actually did just lead me to the journal article too (so it's not some special inaccessible thing I wrote), so maybe you should spend some time practicing google and with a chemistry textbook before you complain that a ref-cite based on chemistry is not correct or that it's wrong because it uses words you don't know (again, they are words that are the same details that others have complained about in your images). DMacks (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Why treat a public encyclopedia as if it's a chemistry textbook? (deja vu) The two are not equal, and neither are their audiences. It is counterproductive to use citation that laypeople will not understand. Lazord00d (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Due to the recurring pattern of behavior (repeated edit warring against consensus) that was not affected by his prior block for doing so, I suggest that there be some type of editing restriction placed on lazord00d (Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions), such as being only permitted to introduce chemical structure images into Misplaced Pages pages if there is explicit consensus to do so on the article's talk page. ChemNerd (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Notified. And his whole talk page looks like nothere. Amortias (T)(C) 19:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh? Another Lazord00d hater committee? You do realize that here in the 21st century you can measure your success in life by the number of haters you have right? So this is awesome actually!!! When your data is proven right and everyone's wittle feelings are hurt this all starts to remind me of my kids daycare lol. I had hoped for more from alleged "chemistry experts" but alas that's what I get for hoping for anything. No hopes, no exquisitely entertaining disappointments hahahahah...

Lazord00d (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody hates you. It's silly to pretend that's what this is about. ChemNerd (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Mmmm no not silly. This is totes personal because I called you ALL out when you began removing my content without citation to back your changes OR the content you provided.. You feel that you (and WP) are above the need to prove yourselves. This started personal over some butthurt 'cause I changed an image, and remains personal right here and right now. There are more of you than me so ultimately you'll get your way regardless of fact.. but don't think for one nanosecond that I won't make you work for every point you try to make each and every moment until then. Or you can ban me now like a pansy without leg to stand on.

Your choice. Lazord00d (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Interesting discussion: user blocked indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This not-so constructive user

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

Who is using the IP 88.106.241.208, and just reverted my counter-vandal edit to the Terraria page, sort of making it counter-counter-vandalizing.

Now I know that I did stuff like this in the past, but I wouldn't undo edits which undid my pranks, which he did. (Also, what he did comes from a long-lasting war between hardcore Minecraft players and hardcore Terraria players, who both pretty much compare a game that you can't.)

I could also just spark an edit war but I guess it would be a better idea to just end it before it starts here. So, hereby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latias1290 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: Oh, never mind, I see he's blicked already, lol. Latias1290 (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Error in your "Composer" article

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

I was unable to successfully edit the picture identification (Nicholas Clérambault):00:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)PLCraig3 (talk) He is composing at the harpsichord, not the piano.

This should go at the WP:HD not here at ANI. Eurodyne (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The Composer page is not protected, so it's hard to know what PLCraig3 (talk · contribs)'s problem is. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly inexperience. We were all there once.  :) I changed the caption. Antandrus (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Could have been some odd blip or error, but appreciate you helping someone new on this, not blowing them off. Ravensfire (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism and BLP-vio

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

Could an Admin please look at this IP: 107.77.87.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

With a history of only 6 edits, s/he has already vandalized an article twice (inserting Banana!!!?) and edit warred on another article to the point of exceeding WP:3RR (at 4 reverts in under 24 hours now). (The most recent 2 edits have re-inserted unsourced defamatory information about a living person into an article — an accusation that a professional journalist has "falsified references").

I haven't crossed the 3RR bright line yet, although I believe I am allowed to if only to remove the BLP-violating material. But there has to be a better solution to this situation. Advice, please. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 259200 seconds. seicer | talk | contribs 03:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, I already spent 3 days working on this, for the benefit of humanity - 259200 seconds = 72 hours = 3 days. :3 --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 12:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Figure8state

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

I need someone to make a block since I'm technically involved here. Long story short, I deleted the article The Resonance Project because it had several issues: notability, copyvio, and it was also a complete and total puff piece for the project. I posted an explanation on Figure8state's talk page explaining why I deleted the page, which prompted them to make some pretty WP:BADFAITH comments about Misplaced Pages, editors, and the guidelines in general. They then came to my talk page and made even more bad faith comments. I'd offered to help them with creating an article if they could provide coverage in reliable sources, but rather than offering sources Figure8state has just given more abuse, which includes creating a bit of a "slam board" on their userpage (User:Figure8state) and making vague threats on Gbawden's talk page to "begin a campaign to discredit and inform of the corruption of Misplaced Pages, the not-so-"free" encyclopedia". If they want to do that then that's fine- there are entire websites devoted to just that purpose, but I think that it's pretty safe to say that they're not here to positively contribute to Misplaced Pages and that they want to use Misplaced Pages to promote the Resonance Project and its lead figure Nassim Haramein. From how quickly this has escalated on my talk page and given their actions, I think that they just need to be permablocked. I'd do it myself but I am technically involved and it'd probably be better to have a third party do the block instead. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is the complete thread from Tokyogirl79's talk page. I would appreciate the opportunity to respond to any attempt to permanently block me from Misplaced Pages, which in my opinion effectively amounts to denying my freedom of speech and freedom of expression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figure8state (talk • contribs) 15:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• First things first, Figure8state: "freedom of speech" does not apply here, on this privately-run website, and "freedom of expression" is just an illusion offered to you by a capitalist system whose sole interest is to sell and spoonfeed you preformatted and easily digested "expressions", in order to make you feel like a "truly unique individual". But that's just by the by. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Freedom of speech always applies...it's a basic human right...you saying that it doesn't apply here is disheartening...and particularly so after looking at your page and the types of articles you have contributed to, how can you have such wide varied intellectual curiosity and at the same time such ignorance of your own ability to affect this reality. I agree with your assessment of "freedom of expression", but knowing what you know you could be making a positive difference, and instead choose cynicism. What you fail to realize friend, is that you perceive to be moving through the world, but in reality the world moves around you. Misplaced Pages has an incredibly powerful influence on reality...all you editors here have immense power and responsiblity, remember that. Peace. Figure8state (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, sorry, but Misplaced Pages:Free speech is how it is. As for the rest of your comments, that's the nicest thing I've heard today. If only Mrs. Drmies realized she ought to revolve around me a bit more. But please, read the comment below, which has a direct bearing on your editorship here. All the best, Drmies (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • What I'm looking for is information on how to delete my User Account? How does one go about accomplishing that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figure8state (talk • contribs) 16:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• OK, Figure8state: I looked at the now-deleted article and it's totally promotional in tone and content. Now, I suggest you have a look at Misplaced Pages:Spam, and if you can't see how your article fell foul of those guidelines, then we're done here. And to clear one more thing up: "spam" here says nothing about your intent, or any possible business interest you might have, or any relation with the subject. You're not being accused of trying to make money off of Misplaced Pages. It's about tone and content of an article. (Also, I deleted your user page: those comments, and the copied conversation taken out of context, that's really not acceptable. Sorry.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• @Tokyogirl79: They're gone.--v/r - TP 17:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Dolheguymckenzie (talk · contribs)

This new user has been creating a string of non notable album articles which when Prodded he de-prods. A lot now sitting at AfD. Can we block him for a few days? I will suggest he understands what makes a notable album on his talk page Gbawden (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

PROD tags can be removed by anyone in this world for absolutely any reason in the world. If at AfD, we'll just await the decisions and then I guess we'll recommend him to Teahouse. Blocking is definitely not for editor retention. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 12:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a block is necessary unless they continue after the warnings from myself and Gbawden. And as QEDK says, they're allowed to remove PROD tags. Sam Walton (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

IP changing "the Beatles"

105.228.18.240 (talk · contribs) is making a large amount of edits to Beatles related articles, changing "the Beatles" to "The Beatles", and (inadvertently or otherwise) going against a long drawn-out request for mediation on the issue. eg: , , . Can somebody help clean up on this? Ritchie333 14:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Also changed United States to USA against guidelines. Good faith or not, these were deliberate actions and this IP did a lot of damage in a very short period of time (about 100 articles in 2 hours). Piriczki (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I posted a 4im and will roll back. -- Sam 14:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sam, while the edits were undeniably disruptive and against consensus, I would not go as far as to call them "vandalism" - you don't know whether they were fixing "wrong" stuff, or deliberately changing caps "for the lulz". Ritchie333 15:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You are right and I have undone that warning, the user stopped editing prior to the message regarding this discussion. -- Sam 15:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've posted a notice to their talkpage explaining the mass reverts per WP:ROLLBACK. Please take care to look at each of their edits before rolling back, because some of them combine correct and useful changes. --Laser brain (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Multiple identical articles about different villages in India

Rajuyadav999 (talk · contribs) has, over the past two days, created almost 50 articles about villages in Bijapur. All of these articles appear to be built on two separate templates, such that the information in the articles is all identical (right down to the geo coordinates and population figures). All articles are unsourced or are vaguely sourced to the Bijapur page at nic.in, which says nothing about the villages in question. It is unclear whether these villages exist or not, but the creation of dozens of article with identical information is not helping. I have asked the user to stop and explain themself, to no avail. I believe a temporary block will allow time to interact with the user to ascertain what is going on with these articles. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 15:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

May be related to Rajkumaryadav123 (talk · contribs). Both accounts appear to have created or recreated Shri M.G.Kori and Dr.B.G.Byakod P U College. --220 of 17:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd say almost definite. The prior account is probably too old to investigate using CU tools at SPI, but perhaps a behavioral call can be made to block as a block-evading sock. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 17:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems pertinent to point out that Rajkumaryadav123 was also brought to this notice board, here. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 20:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think this is probably a competence problem. Just looking at the user's last two article creations, Bramhadevanmadu and Bolachikkalaki are recognized by Google Maps as being legitimate communities—just not at the coordinates specified in the infoboxes of those articles. I suppose that the the user is just copying infoboxes from elsewhere in WP without understanding what he's doing. That doesn't mean that the user shouldn't be blocked, though, if it is judged that his/hers contributions are more trouble than they're worth. Deor (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a thought: Seconding that it's probably just lack of competence. I'm not an admin, but I do think it would be good for the towns to have articles, but with the real information about them... maybe the user plans to fill the articles in? IDK. Anyway, signing off for now... Goldenshimmer (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, more evidence they're possibly the same account: both edited this page.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenshimmer (talk • contribs) 00:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

24 hour block given, along with an explanation of what's going on. Nyttend (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring to conceal that a file has been modified from its original form.

Lecen edited a scaled-down version of File:Portrait of Dom Pedro, Duke of Bragança - Google Art Project.jpg, which was hosted on Commons for some time. It has, after a recent discussion, been deleted from there. Lecen reuploaded it here as File:Dom Pedro I.JPG, with no indication that it was modified. I moved it to File:Dom Pedro I edit.JPG, and added a note.

However, they really, really want to present this as an unmodified file, see for example, .

Quite simply, we can't change the original scan, then attempt to pass it off as the original. That's misleading.

Now, I don't think this is a good edit, and am also concerned about the rationale for it given that Lecen threw out wild accusations of racism against whites in response to defenses of the original images' colours. But, if it's carefully marked as being an edit, with the changes noted, well, it's miseducating the public, but I don't know how much time it's worth spending on this, since Lecen's clearly not going to stop. I mean, they even uploaded a version on Commons with a fake source. See commons:File:Dom Pedro, Duque de Bragança.JPG (now speedy deleted) if you're an admin there, and compare to File:Portrait of Dom Pedro, Duke of Bragança - Google Art Project.jpg - it claimed to be from a 1972 book, but had no evidence of half-toning, and had many of the little unique features of the Google image (same crop, exact same orientation, same spots, etc.), albeit with a rather odd colour shift.

I don't know what Lecen's up to. Frankly, I'm not sure Lecen knows. Adam Cuerden 16:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden seems to be the edit warrior in this case. Having pushed his preference for a certain file used on a featured article to multiple fora without garnering support from other editors, he now brings it here. Notwithstanding the inaccurate claim that any photograph's digital file is somehow more "original" than another, using this forum to raise new arguments seems to be WP:BATTLE behavior when it comes to this subject. • Astynax 18:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) It seems to me that you are forum shopping to win this dispute after you failed to win it at Talk:Pedro I of Brazil. There seems to be healthy disagreement over the true nature of the image, and you are not getting your way. You then tried opening an FAR for the entire article based on the dispute over one image, which was procedurally closed and you were advised to open an RFC and otherwise contain the dispute to where it belongs. So now you are here at yet another venue. Neither the "racist" remark or the edit warring on the image page are excusable, but you've already been advised about how to go about solving the conflict. --Laser brain (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

When we take a file from somewhere else, the default is that its appearance is not modified; it's standard practice to have a comment noting the modifications if any have been made, so users can assume that a file with no such comment has not been modified. When you modify a file and reupload it without such a comment, you've forgotten to include an important piece of information, and it's unambiguously helpful for someone else to add a comment. If you remove that comment, you're suddenly telling reusers that no, it was not modified: you're presenting a hoax, and it would be absurd to sanction someone for fighting a hoaxer. Lecen, if you continue hoaxing on this image, you will be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"...if you continue hoaxing on this image, you will be blocked". I'll be blocked after a single warning? Really? So Adam Cuerden is allowed to enter into an edit war with several editors and nothing happens to him? First he tried to impose his file by edit warring. No one agreed with him. Then he opened a discussion on the article's talk page. No one agreed with him. Then he opened a FAR just because he didn't like the file, and no one agreed with him. After that he tried to upload his version over my file. An administrator stopped him. Then Adam Cuerden tried to get the file erased on Commons. No one agreed with him and the file was kept. Then a friend of his erased the file (that had been in use by all other Misplaced Pages websites) without any discussion. Then he harasses me creating this topic here. He does all that and nothing happens to him. I try to at least maintain the original file and I get threated with a block after a single warning? All I know is that if I get blocked I'll go all the way to the ArbCom. --Lecen (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, hoaxing. Intentionally falsifying a description, including removing an indication that the file has been digitally manipulated, is grounds for rapid blocking. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That is an incredibly inaccurate summary. You've basically cut out everyone who agreed with me from your summary, claiming I had no supporters, and also apparently created a connection between Yann and me from whole cloth. I don't think it's worth engaging with you. Adam Cuerden 02:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

My popcorn stocks say the accessibility folks should get involved here. --NE2 02:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Am I seeing correctly, that the primary complaint boils down to the difference in skin tone between the two versions? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a line here that's frequently difficult to draw. Any photograph of a painting is going to alter the painting in some way, depending on lighting, exposure, etc. There's no real "original" except the painting itself. When this came up recently for me, one version looked distinctly better to me than the Google version, and I initially preferred that version -- until I looked at the version of the painting on the site of the museum where it was located, and the Google version was much, much closer to the museum's version than to the one I had preferred. If the museum staff thought that the photograph on their site best represented the painting, I had to accept that, even though the other version seemed better.

Is there a version in this case that has the imprimatur of the museum in which it is located? BMK (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is the painting hanging on a wall. Compare it to the "google project version". --Lecen (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

British are deleting from Gibraltar Article that this territory is under the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories

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

It is a campaign of deleting from the Gibraltar article that this territory is under United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Then they report the users that try to edit the article. Imposible to insert this very important statement as the colonial power is trying to desinform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pep2co (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This is undue weight, it is not neutral, WP:NPOV Spumuq (talq) 16:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

And Pep2co has seven reverts now, , this must stop Spumuq (talq) 17:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Pep2co was indeed edit warring against multiple editors, so the block was justified, however, Pep2co is also correct that there appears to be a coterie of entrenched editors who control the page to make sure that no fact which could conceivably be considered to show the British in a bad light makes its way into the article. My own attempt to find a compromise placement for what is, after sall, an undisputed fact (that Gilbratar is on the UN's list of non-self-governing territories) was stomped on by Wee Curry Monster without discussion or even, from the timestamps, a lick of forethought.

  That appears to be a content dispute, but when a group of editors works together to control the content of an article, that is a behavioral problem. However, it's one beyond the capacity of AN/I to correct, and would have to be handled by ArbCom.

  In the meantime, I would suggest that uninvolved and neutral editors take a good look at Gilbraltar to make sure that it is written from a WP:NPOV, that the content is fairly presented, and that all viewpoints are given appropriate coverage. BMK (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Constant disruptive editing / Wikihounding by user:Hmei7

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

Hello,

Can someone do sth to make Hmei7 (talk · contribs) refraining from vandalizing WP pages?

To keep it brief:

• He vandalized even the RCU request about him  ;
• Removal of Copyedit template from an article written -by himself- in a challenged English ;
• Unjustified & WP:OR renaming ;
• WP:OR editing ;

Anyways, his contribs' history clearly shows that it is a case of Wikihounding. While awaiting for the RCU case to be accepted, please do sth to prevent this user's vandalism.

--Omar-toons (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop or continue (berberism, sionism and vandalism) ? Good. My contributions does not bother anyone, but you. You contribute anyhow, and you impose wherever you go. For starters, we're on the English Misplaced Pages and not French. While contributing in harmony with us, and do not bring your habits here lol. is in English. This is your contribution. I did that back! Stop hiding behind your fine words, we know you now. Out ! --Hmei7 (North Africa is Arab) 17:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmei7 you appear to be following Omar-toons around and spamming the same message on any pafge he has edited and this is past the point of being disruptive. You do not not to comment the same block of text at SPI's here and half a dozen other pages. Make your comments about this here and please stop ebing disruptive elsewhere. Amortias (T)(C) 17:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Diffs for above

Accusations of Zionism. .

The rest of contributions seem to speak towards hounding. The last 50 edits by this user are all reverts of Omar-toons with quite unhelpful edit summaries. Amortias (T)(C) 17:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editor, possible sock?

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

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

I've been following this user's edits for a little while after I reverted an unsourced addition to an article I was watching back in November. I assumed that the user made a good-faith newbie mistake in not providing a source, and would either learn to add sources or stop editing, as most new users eventually do. However this user has developed a pattern of adding unsourced and frequently blatantly incorrect information to a random assortment of articles, sometimes inserting a reference which is not suitable (i.e. information does not appear in the reference or reference doesn't exist ), always using the mobile editor and always incorrectly using one of the default edit summaries ("fixed grammar", "fixed typo", "adding links" are the favourites) which never actually describe the edit. The user's talk page is full of warnings about unsourced content and misleading edit summaries, and they were recently blocked (short-term, expired). I think this is a case of WP:CIR but I also thought that maybe this is a known sock that someone with more experience might be familiar with. They are active today; posting here for admin attention. Ivanvector (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Note: I'm not watching this page, ping me if needed.

I have no idea if they're a sock or not, but adding unsourced material with bogus edit summaries is disruptive on its own and they've continued after being blocked for it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week but leaning on forever and ever if it's a sock. Looking into it. seicer | talk | contribs 20:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I suspect by a google search that the so-called "2014 Saunders Nurse Handbook" is just a mistake for the "Saunders Nursing Drug Handbook 2014", not actually an invention of the editor... :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

POV pushing on Betfair

Betfair has been targeted since October by a string of SPA's focused on adding every bit of material they can find that casts the subject in a negative light, the latest being Petefox1. A few were blocked in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Betfairmole/Archive, but new ones keep popping up. They are particularly fond of the "Tennis courtsiding" section of the article, a large block of NOTNEWS with violations of UNDUE, NPOV, and sprinklings of BLP. I've tried to replace it with a short neutral description of the relevant facts, but am always reverted. I would suggest that Petefox1 be blocked and the page be semi-protected for at least 3 months. Toohool (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz doesn't let Israelis add comments on Talk:Israel

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

The user Jeppiza doesn't let Israeli posters express and comment freely on the Talk page of Israel. He blames all Israelis to be the same person and bans them one by one, removing their comments and ideas. Please take care of him. That's simply bad. 79.180.180.146 (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The above comment by one of DrFeldinger's many socks is related this issuer . Since being blocked less than 48 hours ago, DrFeldinger has created at least 15 socks, the IP above being the latest. We really need a way to deal with this highly disruptive user.Jeppiz (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

And apparently same accusation goes for NeilN who just reverted all my legit work and additions. What's their problem? Are all Israelis banned from Misplaced Pages for life? I don't know who is banned or not and I've seen a list of Finnish people so maybe he isn't Israeli and just made you ban Israelis on purpose? 79.180.180.146 (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You are indefinitely blocked, no matter how many accounts you use. That has nothing to do with Israelis (or Finns, or Koreans, or Brazilians or whatever).Jeppiz (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Paolowalter

User:Paolowalter has made a personal attack upon me on a public talkpage,while i was making an edit,he reverted my edit based on a reliable source and also took the issue to the talkpage,launching multiple personal attacks and this isn't the first time he launch a personal attack against me,calling for my account to be locked for a year,and calling me a vandal https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War&oldid=646550963#Daraa.3F i urge an admin to deal with his continued harassments against me.Alhanuty (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Skyline201

User:Skyline201 has been blocked twice for not heeding warnings about file uploads, and is still not getting it, maybe a longer block is needed. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

New block levied, effective until the end of the month. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Thank you, Would you have a minute to delete their files I have tagged, as they will not be able to address the issues ? If not no problem, they'll get deleted after the grace period. Thanx for your response. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think not. While going through the user's past uploads, I noticed some (example) that someone else had fixed up. If we wait until the time's up, it won't hurt, but deleting them now would make improvements of this sort impossible. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

please block randkitty

Please would you block Randkitty from editing the following pages: R. Bruce Bury, Stanley E. Trauth, Malcolm L. McCallum, Walter E. Meshaka, Christopher T. McAllister. This individual is applying his own personal opinions regarding content to the pages I have been developing. The opinions of this individual may apply to whatever discipline he/she got their PHD in, but it sure does not apply to my discipline in which I have earned my PHD. IN fact, his comments are largely completely incorrect EXCEPT when it is in regard to technical issues directly related to Misplaced Pages pages. The only alternative that is possible is that this individual is a confrontational adversary (and very well could be) who desires to suppress information about these people. This would be a direct conflict of interest as inappropriate as writing your own bio on here. These pages have been raked over by multiple other editors and the ONLY one who has randomly deleted material without warning is Randkitty. I believe it is an intentional attack and has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages appropriateness. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herpetology2 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Diffs? Erpert 04:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I can't find a user named Randkitty; are you sure you spelled that right, Herpetology2? Erpert 04:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Randykitty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herpetology2 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, you mean Randykitty. I haven't read into the whole dispute yet, but what I can say is this...Randykitty is an admin, so for him/her to be flat-out blocked for a content dispute due to a new user's request would be an extreme thing to happen, imo. Also, please read the instructions directly above this text area:

I did that, however. Erpert 04:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Are you also 71.50.25.97 ,Herpetology2 (talk · contribs) ? seicer | talk | contribs 05:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nope, sorry; I don't sock. BTW, Herpetology2, comments like this are a violation of WP:NPA, so I suggest you start being more courteous. Erpert 05:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't referring to you. seicer | talk | contribs 05:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Herpetology2: I've looked at a couple of these articles, and what I see is Randykitty removing "academic genealogies" that are both redundant - the articles already state where the subject earned the doctorate and in what year - and unencyclopedic. Notability is not inherited, and it does someone no favors to suggest they would be less of a scholar had they studied under someone else, now does it? Also, while we appreciate your writing these articles, and I know how much work it takes, this is a collaborative project and it's important for you to realize that no one "owns" the articles they write to the extent of being able to decree that others may not edit them. If you feel edits are diminishing an article, rather than edit war, you need to discuss the matter - either on the article talk page or, without insults and threats, on the talk page of the editor if the same person is doing something you object to on multiple pages. But you may not be right, and in this instance, so far as the "academic genealogy" goes at least, I fear you are not. We don't have such sections on Misplaced Pages unless, as Randykitty has said, a reliable source has pointed to that as a significant feature of someone's career. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry accusation on Claudia mcHenry

Is there anything I can do without revealing any overly personal information I can do to prove that I am not a so-called sock puppet? PS, if this isn’t the right place, then where is? I want this matter cleared up now.

209.202.5.212 (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Conduct of JzG

Admin User:JzG called a user a "drama whore" after blocking him "preemptively", and attempted to blackmail him into accepting a topic ban involving "all articles related to gamergate (broadly construed), sexual identity and gender politics (broadly construed), editors and media involved in the aforementioned, including on Misplaced Pages noticeboards". I hope we can agree that this sort of cliquish and toxic behavior has not helped stem the hemorrhaging of Misplaced Pages's regular users (there has been a 1/3rd drop in the past few years IIRC).

--ArmyLine (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The block was a week and a half ago.--MONGO 06:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards