Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:33, 12 December 2014

• 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?

Long-term disruptive user Cydevil38

Cydevil38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a long-term disruptive user whose main activity is nationalist POV-pushing and edit-warring. He has been brought to ANI and other forums at least six times by five different editors before, an astonishing record for someone with only about 1000 article edits, but somehow has always managed to evade sanction because of admin inaction:

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive46#User:Cydevil38 reported by User:Komdori (Result:), May 2007
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive252#User:Cydevil38 disruption, reported by Assault11, May 2007
• WP:Articles for deletion/Hwando (fortress) (creating a POV fork), reported by Jiejunkong, August 2007
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive722#Slow edit-warring and refusal to follow WP:BRD, reported by Benlisquare, October 2011, with evidence of virulently racist off-wiki comments
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#Inappropriate WP:CANVASSing by User:Cydevil38, not the first time, reported by Benlisquare, December 2012, with support from several other editors
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive264#User:Cydevil38 reported by User:Cold Season (Result: ), November 2014

In addition, there are many other incidents not reported to ANI, including:

• Long term edit-warring (at least 30 reverts) against multiple users on Template:History of Korea, pushing the nationalistic fringe theory that Dangun is historical and Gojoseon was founded in 2333 BC, even after overwhelming evidence of academic consensus to the contrary was provided on the talk page. , and many more
• Removal of sourced content on Mid-Autumn Festival , , , the last revert by an obvious IP sock
• Inappropriate canvassing (not included in Benlisquare's complaint above)

Most recently, Cold Season filed a complaint on the 3RR noticeboard after Cydevil38 repeatedly deleted content from Gojoseon, claiming it was "North Korean fringe view" even though it was sourced to a book by a well-known University of London professor. His disruptive behaviour was verified by myself, as well as the uninvolved user Legacypac . (I also posted much of the above evidence to Cold Season's 3RR complaint and requested a topic ban, but was told 3RR was the wrong venue.)

Despite the overwhelming evidence and confirmation from multiple users, Cold Season's complaint, like many others before his, was not acted upon by administrators and became archived on December 3. Unsurprisingly, Cydevil38 almost immediately resumed his edit warring , and using an obvious IP sock 121.161.79.35 , after Cold Season warned him of 3RR again. The IP is closely related to 121.161.79.120 used earlier to revert RGloucester on Mid-Autumn Festival.

At the end of Benlisquare's ANI complaint two years ago, another user presciently remarked: "if this ANI thread dies without any activity - he'll continue his disruptive behavior of nationalist edit-warring, blanking, and defacement of articles." And that is exactly what is happening. Cydevil38's disruptive behaviour has gone on for way too long, and I request, yet again, that this user be topic-banned from Korea-related topics. -Zanhe (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I concur that as an uninvolved editor I looked at the situation when I saw the most recent 3RR complaint and found that Cydevil38's behavior was edit warring and completely unjustified by the presented sources. I have no idea what his point is continually reverting 2000 year old history. Legacypac (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban (INVOLVED). That was the first time that I've substantially came in contact with said user but I've seen it before, I found that the user was very Korea-centric/nationalistic in his or her views and it reflects the user's editorial behavioral to such an extend that is disruptive and impossible to work with. The user is certainly stretching what's acceptable behavior: The user will seek every unjustifiable mechanism to impose said user's own will, including edit war until reported to switch over to some other method and blatantly use ducks (unilateral edits and suddenly an IP pops up doing the same edit, right after a second 3RR warning, and a very close timestamp to Cydevil38 ) to further his views at the Gojoseon article. The user was also canvassing at Wikiproject Korea (See: Talk:Gojoseon#RFC on founding legends), while the user should know by now that this is unacceptable (especially considering the user was taken to ANI over it in the past... as shown above), which is an indication of the unchangeable nature of this unacceptable behavior. The user Cydevil38 is a disruptive presence to editors that dare touch Korea-related articles that does not meet his or her own views, even ignoring secondary sources or consensus. --Cold Season (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• First and foremost, I'm very appalled and angered at what Zanhe calls "evidence of virulently racist off-wiki comments". I have clarified in that ANI that I have nothing to do with those comments. I never visited the website, and never made any comments there. It was obviously the work of some other person trying to framing me of being a racist bigot. Also, Zanhe's derogation of my contributions to Misplaced Pages, that I have only "1000" mainspace edits(plus 126 in templates), where as I have more than 650 edits in talks(224 in template talks), only attests to my efforts to dispute resolution. I have dedicated myself to articles on Korean prehistory, history and culture, which often brings me into conflict with Chinese editors, who have conflicting POV with Korean editors, and often so against NPOV. Reflecting this, most of the ANI notices come from topics of controversy between Korea and China, such as Goguryeo. Most articles concerning the ANI notices were eventually resolved through dispute resolution protocols, with two of accusers eventually being decided by consensus for being disruptive editors by WP:RFCU for anti-consensus editing, racist behavior and personal attacks. Zanhe's "prescient editor" who "warned that my disruptive behavior would continue" is himself a very POV editor who attempted to rename Goguryeo's capital, Pyongyang, into "Piarna", a Japopnic-language reconstruction that is rejected by most scholars in the field. I'd also like to refer to to this page, where he and one of my previous ANI accusers were deeply involved in an anti-Korea article that compared Koreans to the Nazis and prompted much anger and made even discussing it repulsive. I strongly suggest that administrators and editors take a look at the ANI, the articles in question and the contentions before making comments to avoid Zanhe's fervent accusations of my disruptive eidting. Zanhe's accusation that I "edit-warred" in Template:History of Korea with multiple users actually involved a sock-puppeteer using four accounts and Zanhe. I've actually made some concessions there in my efforts to resolve the dispute, but Zanhe continued to edit-war until I presented firm evidence of scholarly consensus, based on "official handbook" sources that reflect scholarly consensus. The accusations of WP:CANVASSING comes from alerting WP:Korea in articles that are about Korea. I'd like to also point out that either Zanhe or Cold Season added WP:China project to Gojoseon simply to alert the project page there. My issue with Mid-Autumn Festival was that concerning a hard-earned consensus that has been standing for quite a while, and which of which the arguments made there I believe stands.

As with the recent dispute over Gojoseon, I'd like to mention that this is yet another contention topic between Korea and China, particularly concerning the Gija theory. I've already presented evidence that Cold Season's one and only source, which Zanhe calls "a book by a well-known University of London professor", was heavily distorted by Cold Season. Please also consider the rest of the article, which already addresses Gija, making Cold Season's edit simply repetitive and ignoring the stable structure of the article that was already in place. With regards to the Gija theory, the book basically says that most scholars either evaluate it as "a Chinese fabrication that has nothing to with Gojoseon" or simply just ignores Gija regarding the foudning of Gojoseon. I have cordially asked Legacypac here to reconsidered the detailed evidence I have given, but dishearteningly he simply chose to ignore it and comment here that I was reverting "2000 year history". Also, Zanhe's accusation of my subsequent reverts after ANI:3RR are actually myself adding the NPOV tag to the concerned section, which Cold Season and Zanhe accused of being a continuation of edit-warring. The exception is one edit which I made on the basis of WP:Consensus, that "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." I made the revert concerning WP:Consensus AFTER they reverted my NPOV tag edits, which again, Zanhe distorts the evidence by showing as if I made the WP:Consensus edit first. I'd also like to state that my previous reverts were also based WP:Consensus, in response to Cold Season's very bold edit. The "IP socks" are edits that I made when I forgot to log-in. These are honest mistakes.

This ANI comes at a time when a dispute resolution process is in place. I consider this ANI a disruptive attempt to ignore dispute resolution and attempt to "topic ban" a user that goes against their POV. What I believe is that Cold Season seriously distorted the source at question, and I don't think the "uninvolved" editor Legacypac here haven't gone thoroughly with the source before he made his comment, which is made apparent in his comment that my view is "completely unjustified by the presented sources" when only one source was presented. I again point out that Legacypac ignored my request to consider my detailed presentation of what the source actually says, which he didn't address and ignored and went on to accuse me of disruptive behavior. What this Gojoseon article needs right now is more attention from other editors, not only neutral editors, but also editors with in-depth knowledge of the topic at hand, which is why I alerted WP:Korea. Cydevil38 (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

(1) Regarding the misrepresentation of sources by me, this is untruthful because I literally wrote in the format: ". stated that " (and the book is freely on Google Books to check). Three people are in agreement that it is correct, but only you unilaterally oppose it as it does not meet your view. (2) Regarding your ducking, you had all the time to disclose that but you did not. It also happens that it occurred after a 3RR warning, which is really a coincidence. (3) Your claim that the article Gojoseon was stable is false, because most of the article's talk page comprises of discussions about how the former "Founding legend" sub-section was a misrepresentation. Do not confuse stability with inaction. (4) You adding a NPOV is another mechanism to edit war and make it harder for those that edit thing which is not in your POV (even though it meets sources). Just like how ducking is another mechanism. Also, your partly revert is also applicable to 3RR (strangely enough after an IP from the same region as the one you used to duck with) (5) Wikiproject China applies to to the article Gojoseon, since it covers territory that's within modern China and the most-contemporaneous primary sources are derived from Chinese historiography. If you can't recognize that and are against opinions from said wikiproject, than I have no words. Also, Wikiproject China had been part of the article before you began canvassing and since 2008 (as explained on the RFC on the article talkpage). You also did not notify all the other wikiprojects while canvassing on wikiproject Korea. (6) Regarding you ending statement... I find this statement most worrying. No, all the articles ALWAYS NEEDS NEUTRAL EDITORS. You were taken to ANI for canvassing in the past; you did it again rather than improve on this editorial behavior. You were well aware that this was an issue. --Cold Season (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have provided thorough evidence that Cold Season distorted the literature here. The general structure of Gojoseon was formed in 2005, and eventually State-formation, Gija and its controversy, Wiman Joseon and its fall were divided into subsections, along with the addition of archaeological basis of Gojoseon. Again, your interpretation of the source is distorted, and it is repetitive given that they are all covered in the previous stable version as different periods in Gojoseon's history. Also, I don't think adding a NPOV tag, which alerts readers that the section you wrote is currently under dispute, is a continuation of edit warring. And as for WP:China, Goguryeo, another contentious topic between Korea and China, is not under the purview of WP:China. Both are firmly within Korean historiography, and not considered Chinese by the virtue of present-day borders. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the issues at the article Gojoseon... (1) Your "thorough evidence" has been rejected by three people. I request the admin who will take this case to carefully view the article version diff (the relevant section is under "Founding legend") and source as stated in the opening message of the Gojoseon RFC; this will show Cydevil38's POV. I find it pointless to argue this further against a POV pusher. (2) The general article structure stated "Founding legend" as the sub-header (this can be seen in the article history), the Jizi/Kijia/Qijia myth, Weiman/Wiman myth, and the Tangun/Dangun myth are all founding legends. In fact and ironically, you just changed that structure to give precedence to the Tangun/Dangun myth in your Korea-centric views. (3) Regarding your statement about the Wikiprojects... I know you would say something like that to exemplify how tremendous your Korea-centric POV is. What matters is the scholarly view as reflected in sources; not Korea-centric nor China. Yet, you keep on hammering your Korea-centric POV. You canvassed at Wikiproject Korea, while there are four other Wikiprojects that you didn't notify. And I note... four... not only Wikiproject China, which seems to be your sole opposing focus for some reason in this issue of you canvassing. (4) Also, you are trying to erase/downplay all the other myths, while trying to prop up the Dangun/Tangun myth. In fact, you even removed the cited info stating that there were three founding myths while falsely claiming that you were just "merging" the info. (5) I see that you also decided to go ahead and insert your Korea-centric views, disregarding the ongoing RFC. (6) I find it quite astounding how you call Jizi/Kijia/Qijia myth as a fabrication, but you seem to be unwilling to apply the same to the Dangun/Tangun myth (which tells that Dangun was the offspring of a bear and a deity), even falsely and Korean-centrically calling it "widely accepted" . Actually, even I wrote that the Jizi/Kijia/Qijia myth had been rejected into the article, so what are you arguing about? Probably the fact that scholars also rejects the Dangun/Tangun myth , but you don't like that as you view it as "widely accepted". Scholarly sources state that the Jizi/Kijia/Qijia myth and Dangun/Tangun myth are historically invalid; they are legends. You refuse to grasp that with this Korea-centric tunnel vision. --Cold Season (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• An important piece of evidence: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Collision787/Archive. This shows that Cydevil38 editorial opponents have included a number of sock puppets, so any reports of Cydevil38 reverting against consensus may be overstated. I think this conflict may need deeper investigation that what's going to be possible here on WP:AN/I. Already the evidence, encompassing 7 years of editing, is longer than the attention span of the average editor here. If you wish to pursue this dispute, please try Requests for arbitration, or else limit your complaints to specific instances of edit warring, and use WP:AN/3RR. I'll leave this discussion open in case somebody wants to make a precise (short!) case for some sort of administrative action. Jehochman 16:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• It's unfortunate that there were sockpuppets muddying the water, but none of the evidence I presented above involve any sockpuppet (except the IP socks of Cydevil38). Besides, the sockpuppets were only active on Template:History of Korea, not on other pages such as Gojoseon, where Cydevil38 is edit warring against the judgment of three experienced users as well as academic sources.
• If seven years of evidence is too much to digest, let's only look at the most recent incidents. The December 2012 ANI was filed by Benlisquare, a long-time editor with 40,000+ edits, and confirmed by Shrigley and the administrator Heimstern. And the recent 3RR complaint was filed by Cold Season, and confirmed by myself and previously uninvolved Legacypac, all long-term editors in good standing. Arbitration is for cases which the community cannot solve, but this case is about a single user who habitually ignores consensus and refuses to stop edit warring.
• I'm perplexed by your suggestion to use WP:AN/3RR, while retroactively closing Cold Season's archived 3RR complaint, citing this ANI thread. I filed this complaint AFTER the 3RR report was archived without administrator attention. This sounds like a Catch-22 to me, or are you suggesting that a new 3RR complaint be filed?

-Zanhe (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This ANI was about an attempt to blank and remove Northeast Project, an article split from Goguryeo covering the Chinese government project that laid claims on ancient Korean kingdoms such as Gojoseon, Goguryeo, Balhae were part of the Chinese empire. There was another split from Northeast Project, Goguryeo controversies. After some time, editors at Goguryeo Controversies attempted to remove Northeast Project. As for the editors involved in that ANI, Benlisquare and Shrigley, please consult this page], where they adamantly supported KEEP of a page that compared Koreans to Nazis, and of course, prompted emotional outbursts of anger and simply made making edits to the article repulsive for other editors. Also please consider this this edit] at Goguryeo, attesting to extremely biased editing. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with the Northeast Project dispute, but the ANI was about your canvassing activity, which was confirmed by an administrator, not about the content dispute itself. -Zanhe (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I took a closer look at the Northeast Project dispute. It appears that three users agreed that the article should be merged into Goguryeo controversies. Cydevil38 was the lone dissenter (along with yet another IP sock), see article talk page. He then canvassed on WP Korea for support, and Benlisquare filed the ANI complaint in response. Administrator Heimstern confirmed the inappropriate canvassing, but did not take any action against Cydevil38. This pattern of events is by now all too familiar. -Zanhe (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Update - after reading some old threads, I found out that Cydevil38 was previously known as Cydevil, who was blocked by the administrator Nlu for edit warring in 2007. He then claimed that he lost his password and created the Cydevil38 account. See block log. Cydevil38 was subsequently reported to ANI and other forums three times in 2007 alone. -Zanhe (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

In the last couple of days, Cydevil38 seems to have changed his ways and started to engage in more cooperative editing on Gojoseon and Template:History of Korea. Although still POV-y in parts, his recent edits are a vast improvement from the knee-jerk reverts which constituted the majority of his article edits in the past years. I'm cautiously optimistic that he has finally come to the realization that Misplaced Pages should reflect neutral scholarly opinions, not nationalist propaganda. As such, I'd like to withdraw my request to have him topic-banned, but reserve the right to refile the complaint if he resumes edit warring. -Zanhe (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Reject Zanhe's "Complaint withdrawn"

I reject Zanhe's claims that I have "changed" my long-term behavior due to this ANI accusation. My edits to Gojoseon was a delayed response due to my lack of time, and Zanhe and Cold Season have violated WP:Consensus in imposing their distorted POV, while Legacypac, an involved neutral editor, did not consider the topic at hand with much thought before he made his claim. My compromise at Template:History of Korea came with the suggestion of a constructive and neutral editor, and myself being tired of Zanhe's disruptive edit-warring. This is a pattern of long-term behavior on my part to resolve dispute resolutions. As I have stated in my first response to this ANI, this ANI was a disruptive attempt by Zanhe to compromise the dispute resolution process. Now he threatens me that he will further threaten me with such attempts. I would like to see this ANI case open until judged by the administrators and experienced, neutral, editors. Otherwise, I will consider this ANI yet another disruptive attempt by a POV editor trying to disrupt dispute resolution through intimidation. Cydevil38 (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Well, that didn't last long. I was encouraged by Cydevil38's seeming change of behaviour and took the initiative to withdraw the complaint while reserving the right to refile in case the disruptive behaviour resumes. I also wrote a friendly response to him on another talkpage. Incredibly, Cydevil38 interprets all this as a "threat". In addition to the belligerent response above, he also left an angry diatribe on my talk page. I'm truly surprised by this turn of events, and concerned with Cydevil38's emotional stability. If he wants to reject my withdrawal of complaint, that's fine, let's keep the case open and wait for the judgment of administrators. -Zanhe (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man again violating IBan

• Just a quick couple of notes, before this is archived, to prevent this from being revisited in a day/week/month etc:

  Clarification needed: just need to take the advice of others here, and ignore TRM's harassment henceforth - no such acknowledgement exists, no such "harassment" has been acknowledged by any single person other than the complainant.

  Clarification needed: That's not necessary. I will simply ignore TRM's harassment henceforth - no such "harassment" has been acknowledged by any party other than the complainant.

  Clarification requested: I have been putting up with this stuff all year - what "stuff"? "all year"? What? Diffs?

• It's apparent that some folks are really keen to chat about me, even though they shouldn't and the IBAN prevents them from doing so. But one of the complainants has started this thread, got to the point where enough opposition has occurred, and then closed it when it became a bit difficult because so many people objected to current approach. I'd prefer to keep this open and explore the best way to stop this happening again. We've had one suggestion, to prevent this ongoing harassment and baseless accusation to be met with a topic ban. I'm only exploring this avenue because I know that I'm being threatened with further trips to ANI in a month or so from one or more of the complainants. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the IBan is unfortunate and not very practical when it comes to WP:ITN/C as both you and medeis comment, discuss, and vote on many items there, inevitably leading to an artificial situation when you're discussing the same aspect of an argument.

With regards to the reference desk, I have often seen you lodge a strongly generalized complaint of its weaker moments, but when other editors reply that they (and yet others) do try to stay on topic and add serious and referenced factual replies, your answer is sometimes (paraphrased) : "I don't mean you personally, I mean generic you." As I don't recall seeing you addressing any editors by name, I get the impression that you mean medeis and Baseball Bugs. (Else you should give examples/diffs, beyond linking to an entire thread with all sorts of replies, including factual and referenced ones). Is IBan stopping you from straight talk? If so, I do think it would be better for you to refrain from that kind of criticism unless you give concrete examples that don't involve medeis an Baseball Bugs. Unfortunately you just come across as a wet blanket when dropping your diffuse downers at the desks.

Actually my suggestion is to lift this IBan, for the three of you to realize how silly this is, and find a way to co-exist and even interact without personalized conflict, but also without being kept on a leash. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

None of that actually addresses the points I've raised, but thanks for your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As long as the users in question are welcome at the RD and the IBAN is in effect, this issue is likely to arise again, and again. To effectively edit there almost guarantees the users will have to interact, in some manner. Moreover, the desk, and what goes on there, seems to be a point of contention among these users - and unlike an article, the desk will never stabilize to a more "finished" version, so it is unlikely the situation will resolve itself with time. To that end, I suggest, since all three should be given equal consideration, that each be topic banned from the desk or that the IBAN be removed. While a strong step, in either direction, it appears the same disruption will continue till one of those steps is taken.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It won't arise with me, because after this section is closed, I will be ignoring him in future. I believe my efforts at the ref desk have improved in the last year, and that I can no longer be complained about in the way that TRM still does. Evidence is that no one else has griped at me for many months now. That in itself is a good sign. I also don't see any reason to ban either of the other two parties from the ref desk. Medeis is a wealth of knowledge on many subjects. And when TRM is not grousing, he makes good contributions to the ref desks. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I, to an extent, agree and am not necessarily pushing for a ban. However, I do believe that if the IBAN cannot be successfully lifted and if all involved cannot interact in a more civil manner, then the only reasonable step is a ban, of all involved, from the desk. Elsewise, there will always be room for some insinuation the IBAN has been violated; or you all, haphazardly, in your own way, play out what is, effectively, the same end anyway (though, that is just as likely to cause more disruption). Thus, we should either drop any formal restrictions or push them to their logical conclusion, lest we stay in an uncomfortable and tedious middle.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I concur that the IBAN should be nullified. It was imposed sometime in January past, and was to be formally revisited no sooner than a year later. So come the anniversary, editors on ANI could decide whether to lift the ban or not. (It was not an ArbCom ban.) If it can't be, then everyone subjected to it should simply try to do better. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree and think that would be the best direction to go in:-) Are we able to handle that here or do is a new section needed to proceed with reconsidering, and hopefully removing, the IBAN?Phoenixia1177 (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It originated from ANI, as I recall. I'm not sure the minimum of one year is cast in stone, as "consensus can change". You could formally pose the idea here and see if it flies. I suspect the three involved parties would all be in favor of either dropping or altering the IBAN, but they should speak for themselves. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I will open the matter tonight when I am in front of an actual computer again, and notify all three involved.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, Baseball Bugs has indicated that he wants the IBAN dropped in order to stage yet another assault on me, i.e. so that he has carte blanche to dig up as much dubious dirt as he possibly can, including any dubious references to him (and/or the other person involved in the IBAN), just as we have seen, what, eight times here at ANI? Personally, I would like the IBAN to remain firmly and indefinitely in place. That said, it's worth noting that both of the other parties just open an ANI thread whenever they feel desperate to talk about me. I have done no such thing, despite noting the tag-teaming and email vendettas. Status quo should stay. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Secondly, the point of me continuing this thread was to ensure that the claims made by Baseball Bugs just before he closed the thread were completely untrue and based in no way in fact. This is important because when the next thread which he starts in a week or month or so, this will no doubt be used as "evidence", yet there is nothing that substantiates any of his claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, no matter whether the IBAN is retained or dropped, I will never again file a complaint against TRM. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Abortion - subject to sanctions- editing by MarieWarren

I am not a regular editor of abortion-related matters, and nor am I familiar with the workings of the various versions of sanctions applying to this subject area. That said ...

University and College Union is on my watchlist, so I noticed this edit by MarieWarren (talk · contribs) which added a new subsection "Sex-selective abortion" and the text "Through their affiliation with Abortion Rights, they support the position that abortion based on sex selection should be legalised." (no links, no sources). Looking into it I discovered the existence of the organisation Abortion Rights (I've created a redirect to one of the two groups which merged to form it), and that it campaigns "to defend and extend women's rights and access to safe, legal abortion", lists support from the TUC and many trade unions, and yes, in a pdf "Statement on sex-selective abortion", it opposes the criminalisation of sex-selective abortion, in the context of opposing any restriction on a woman's right to choose. I edited the section to change the title to "Abortion" and the text to

"UCU supports Abortion Rights which campaigns "to defend and extend women's rights and access to safe, legal abortion"; among its statements it opposes the criminalisaton of sex-selective abortion.

1. "Who we are". Abortion Rights. Retrieved 9 December 2014. We are delighted to have the support of ... UCU
2. "Statement on sex-selective abortion". Abortion Rights. 18 September 2014. Retrieved 9 December 2014.

which I thought was a neutral, sourced, statement (though possibly still giving undue weight to one single policy of Abortion Rights).

I discovered that the same editor had made her first 5 edits today (I'm using "her" because her username includes "Marie"), adding similar text to Trades Union Congress and 4 unions. Another editor had reverted her on Unite the Union; I could find no mention of National Union of Teachers on the Abortion Rights site so removed that information; I edited the Trade Union Congress (here)and UNISON (here) articles on the same lines as the UCU article.

Coming back to editing just now I find that she has edited the TUC article to change "opposes the legalisation of" (wording used in AR's leaflet) to "wishes to legalise".

I now see she has also added similar POV text to articles on several other unions (eg "The union campaigns for abortion on demand and the legalisation of sex-selective abortion ..." in this edit). She is adding a valid (though bare URL) reference to a TUC leaflet about abortion which includes the logos of 14 unions as well as the TUC and supports the Abortion Rights campaign.

I think that her singling out one policy among Abortion Rights' many statements, and misrepresenting it, is ... poor editing, at the least, but I'm stepping back at this point wary of the sanctions in this area. This editor's editing, in this delicate and sanctionable area, seems potentially problematic. PamD 17:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the user indefinitely under WP:ARBAB. Their edits have been entirely about political advocacy and not adhering to Misplaced Pages's sourcing and neutral point of view policies.--v/r - TP 19:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Scratch that. I've unblocked them. The new rules for discretionary sanctions require that she first receive an alert so I left one on her talk page.--v/r - TP 19:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Rolled back the remaining three edits. §FreeRangeFrog 19:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like 81.102.24.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) might be the same editor undoing the reverts. §FreeRangeFrog 22:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Might? I've warned, uh, them both. Bishonen | talk 23:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC).

Thank you PamD for those useful edits and inserting the referencing. I am still learning the referencing style and I don't always get it right. I do try to provide references for all of the information that I add.

Apologies to all for the reverts that may have been carried out by a friend that I was talking to. I have now explained to them how to set up a proper account.

Thank you EdJohnston. My statements on union campaigns were posted in order to demonstrate the range of topics that they aim to support. All statements of affiliation of unions can be supported by documentation. I do not, at any time, give a POV on whether the unions' campaigns should be supported or not. I do not give a POV on sex selection abortion. I merely state that they have these campaigns. I hope that you will allow knowledge of what the unions campaign for remain as edits to their wiki pages. Please don't ban me without further discussion on ways forward. MarieWarren (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Marie. The problem is that whoever edited from the IP reverted another user so as to reinstate your edits exactly, which does not look good, especially when it happens identically at two different articles. Please be aware of the rule against offsite recruitment to edit Misplaced Pages, and tell your friend about it: "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Misplaced Pages and supporting your side of a debate." If your friend does create an account, the same principle will still hold. Incidentally, may I ask if you're a new user, or have you edited Misplaced Pages under another account? You seem highly competent with Misplaced Pages markup right from your very first edit, which was yesterday. Bishonen | talk 14:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for the compliment about using markup. I am just copying the style I see. It takes me quite a while of looking at previews to get it right and I still make mistakes - particularly in terms of referencing. I have used other wikis before: http://tardis.wikia.com/ . There are so many rules about wikipedia. I had no idea about that one about recruitment. I had assumed that it would be best to get as many people as involved as possible. Obviously, I see now that isn't the case. I am taking some time now to study all the rules. It took me a while to find them. MarieWarren (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible issues in Shooting of Michael Brown

There is currently a discussion at ANI regarding continued hostility. Thank you. —Roches (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Cwobeel has been very active on Shooting of Michael Brown, and has made some comments that are rather uncivil. Some comments regard deletion of content; this was done in the process of updating an article and adjusting the length of the section to fit better with the 'big picture' at this point in time. Some comments regard the policies on primary and secondary sources. (I don't think a neutral point of view is best served by requiring multiple secondary sources interpret a straightforward primary source, and I don't think it's appropriate to quote arbitrarily selected opinion pieces.)

I've tried to work on the article, and I did make some bold and entirely good-faith edits. Apparently this is being interpreted as a lack of understanding of the rules and a desire on my part to deliberately remove content. That's just not the case.

Sections involved:

Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#Shooting scene diagram

Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#Grand jury hearing section

Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#Wholesale deletion of relevant material

Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#Collaborating, OR, and inline attributions

There was also a comment on Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Source_bombing, which seems to be representative of the issues. Roches (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to attempt changing Misplaced Pages policies by engaging in a discussion such as this one. But you are not welcome to start editing articles in which you dismiss Misplaced Pages core policies and do whatever you want in contradiction with key policies. You are deleting well sourced material. You are also deleting key reporting, just because you believe journalists got it wrong. This is totally unacceptable and disruptive. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

None of the quotes are disputes I'm involved in Really? As for your arguments about using primary sources instead of secondary sources, it is exactly the opposite of what we do here in Misplaced Pages. You have a lot to learn. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No matter what I say on the talk page, I keep getting replies that are worded as if I'm completely ignorant of all of the policies.

Roches (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Roches, at least twice you have said something very ambiguous and then became insulted because multiple editors misinterpreted your ambiguous words. You also implied that we were idiots because we failed to read your mind. I'll admit to being a bit "short"—far from "hostile"—but I'll also maintain that that's a natural human reaction to the circumstances. I certainly wouldn't be caught wasting admin time with something like this, a petty squabble. I know from experience with this article and this group of people that we will work with you, but you should expect to lose some battles. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You keep getting responses that are worded as if you are ignorant of the policies, because the things you say completely contradict very well known policies. There are editors all over the spectrum of POV on this article. Cwobeel and I in particular I think come at most topics from a completely different angle. When everyone agrees that you are not following policy, thats a good sign that you are in fact not following policy. You HAVE deleted well sourced consensus-built material multiple times, you HAVE made repeated OR with statements such as "Objective facts from a primary source are not original research, and synthesis of objective facts when only one conclusion is possible is not speculation" when clearly there is quite a significant amount of analysis going on and there are easily identifiable "other conclusions". You continue to compound these errors with your most recent justification for WP:PRIMARY WP:OR being "An example would be the autopsy report, which is the work of a medical professional and makes all of the appropriate conclusions (and none of the inappropriate ones), as opposed to an article about the autopsy" which clearly indicates your analysis disagrees with secondary analysis which is completely prohibited by policy. You are very close to needing to be sanctioned either under WP:CIR or WP:TROLL, I can't tell for sure which one applies. Remember, when the WP:BOOMERANG hits you, you chose to bring this to ANI, not us. We were trying to work with you on the article talk page. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm definitely concerned about the article in general, not sure about the dispute. Most if not all of the pro-Wilson arguments are heavily disputed in text. Much of this article presents Pro-Brown arguments without counter point despite many arguments about inconsistencies existing: . There is some serious POV pushing going on in this article. The lead is especially troubling in which it gives a single line saying that the grand jury cleared Wilson and then three sentences critical of the ruling. In what world does a grand jury hold such little weight? In every part of the article, attempts are made to discredit Wilson and the grand jury and present a pro-Brown point of view uncontested. I'm sorry, but there is some serious misbehavior at this article.--v/r - TP 22:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of the grand jury, and, in particular, the prosecutor's actions, has been all over mainstream media. In contrast, far less in his defense. If someone adds something from a reliable source in his defense that we've missed, we don't remove it (subject to WP:DUE of course). Neutrality doesn't mean a 50-50 split, it means proportional to the sources. If anyone feels the balance is wrong, they are more than welcome to help improve that in a collaborative, not combative, manner. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

50-50 is one thing. The witness statements currently stand at 100-0. I just showed you five sources from the front page of a Google search about witness inconsistencies. Right now, you're not showing any attempt at balance, let along balance of the sources. Go through each witness statement, do you see any criticism of their consistency at all? Sorry, but your answer is far less than impressive and is the standard "my sources don't say any of that" mantra of a POV pusher. Not saying you are one, only saying that your reply is the kind of "I'm going to quote a policy instead of substantiate why the policy applies". I've substantiated. Sources exist, the witness section is completely barren of any criticism of the pro-Brown witnesses. I am referring to the exact same line of policy you are. I've demonstrated why I think it's being violated. Time for you or someone else to demonstrate why it's not. That's how discussion works. I don't need policies that I'm well aware of mindlessly quoted at me.

As it stands right now, the only combative attitude is the one quoting a policy at me without substantiating their argument based in that policy. And then calling me combative. Either dispute my claim or don't. But we're referring to the same exact line of policy and I'm arguing it's being violated.--v/r - TP 23:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you see the Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Accounts section which the entire intro section is about those inconsistencies? Gaijin42 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Despite that, there is still a paragraph and a sentence in Wilson's section critical of his comments.--v/r - TP 23:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop. I did not call you combative, any more than you called me a POV pusher. As I said, you or anyone else is welcome to help improve the article, and that is not done at ANI. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"I don't need policies I'm well aware of quoted at me" expresses my sentiments perfectly.

Generally, after having a policy quoted at me, I saw how something I said "clearly" shows that I don't understand the most basic points of policy. As was mentioned, as a scientist I'm used to working with primary sources, and I think I could use that experience to use primary sources in an article in a way that is consistent with policy. That could suggest a total and complete lack of understanding of basic policy. Rather than make that assumption on the talk page, it would have been better, I think, to let me try to do it in the article and then assess the results.

Another example is when I suggested the article was 'over-referenced.' That could be interpreted as if I'm saying I don't feel like including a bibliography in a term paper, or it could be interpreted as if I'm aware of when references are and are not required. It's sloppy and amateurish (yes, I'll say that) to cite seven sources for a sentence that says nothing more than "there were contradictions in witness testimony."

TParis, the "Wholesale deletion" section arose after I edited one of the witness accounts, "Construction worker". The account is wrong about the number of police officers that chased Brown, but I revised the section carefully trying to avoid stating the obvious fact that none of it really happened. The revision wasn't perfect, the response on the talk page was that I had disrespectfully destroyed the efforts of others. Rather than following BRD, what I got was a warning to follow BRD myself.

I do hope this isn't seen as a waste of time, because this is (or was) a high-traffic article, and it simply could have been much better done. Especially with respect to neutrality. The secondary sources in this case were extraordinarily biased on both sides. There was a chance for the Misplaced Pages article to present the facts objectively, but not if someone insists on making the article into a collection of quotations from various extremely biased sources. I was told at one point that "our job was to report what sources say" (possibly paraphrased). I don't see "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of quotations from mainstream journalists" or "Misplaced Pages is not a game about quoting and following the policies of Misplaced Pages" anywhere in policy, but my interpretation of and WP:5P seems to suggest that what it is is an objective and neutral source of information about everything. And also that the intent is to have people read and understand the results.

Again, I hope this isn't wasting time; that last paragraph especially seems soapbox-like, but I think it pertains to this article, especially if, as someone hinted, some of these editors work on news-related articles regularly. I was told in one of the replies that I have a lot to learn, which is true, but that is true of everyone. Roches (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: Roches removed two comments when he posted this: a comment from me, and a comment from NE Ent. I assume it was accidental, but it's not always easy to tell. I'm too lazy to repost my comment, but I basically said that an uninvolved, non-U.S. admin should babysit the article for a while, especially if removing talk page comments is a common occurrence. I'm not saying that it is, because I don't know if it is. I also think Roches needs to listen to consensus and observe our policy on original research. This whole post seems like a "policy doesn't apply to me, because I know THE TRUTH". If it keeps going in this direction, then, yes, I foresee a boomerang. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

As someone who lives in the area in question and knows the staggering amount of detail in the local press about this topic, I tend to agree with TParis above that there seems to be to be a bit more (understandable) attention paid to the comments and opinions of some involved and uninvolved individuals than to those of some others. And, honestly, given the riots and other factors, I can see that there would be - it helps explain the riots. Having said that, I also agree with the Ninja above that it would help dramatically if an admin who is clearly not involved or exposed to the torrents of media coverage that have existed in the US about this topic were to help manage it in the short term. I know I, as a non-admin and a party who has unavoidably formed opinions on the topic given the amount of coverage I've seen, would not be competent to do that myself, but I would greatly welcome any admin or editor who hasn't seen the torrents of press to involve himself to help make the article in general more clearly neutral and informative to those who haven't already seen all the coverage elsewhere. That is in no way a criticism of anyone who has worked on the article, just an acknowledgment that, to my eyes, data overload could not unreasonably be an unwanted factor in forming the opinions of some editors who know the topic very well in their determination of what to include and to what weight. John Carter (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I just saw now that two comments were deleted by one of my messages. This was entirely accidental and I'm sorry it happened. I was working on a netbook where palm contact on the touchpad is sometimes interpreted as a click. To my knowledge it hasn't happened before and it won't happen again. In the future I'll check "show changes" as well as the regular preview.

About primary sources, I haven't found anything that can be included without OR. I'm not thinking that I can do the opposite of policy. But I can't demonstrate that, so I'll avoid making any further suggestions about it.

John Carter, I didn't know much about this case until I got involved in the article first after the Ferguson Market "strong-arm robbery" footage was released and then again after the grand jury decision. That probably explains why my opinion was so inflammatory to editors who had been working on the story since the beginning. Roches (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

User:4TheWynne keeps removing valid sources and is protecting a deceptive article

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

Note: I'm moving this discussion for the user to here from the archive page where they originally added it at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive855 --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I was told to find sources that clarify (against) the claims that "Rise against was formed as Transistor Revolt", Transistor Revolt was Formed as "Transistor revolt" and put out one release as "Transistor Revolt". "Rise Against" was formed as "Rise Against". So I did , they keep being reverted to say "rise Against was formed as Transistor Revolt" (they also incurred personnel changes) and now I am being wiki hounded. this person is following me around the web changing much of what I do . Funny thing for like 6 years Ive only experienced this behavior twice. . Rise Against didn't form as Transistor revolt , Transistor revolt formed as Transistor revolt . I added a valid source and the code was messed up and this person deleted it instead of fixing it . The Article is being written to seem as if a Band who formed in 2001 really formed years Earlier in 1999. though the band name and release was /is Transistor revolt . 73.193.195.69 (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

here is one page http://en.wikipedia.org/Rise_Against

this has been going on for a little while now 73.193.195.69 (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

here too they are calling it "disruptive editing" since when is whats valid and accurate "disruptive" 73.193.195.69 (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tim_McIlrath&action=history

User:4TheWynne keeps asking for editors to "protect" the False claims 73.193.195.69 (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Barek#Protecting_Rise_Against

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rise_Against&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Apokryltaros said it "contradicted claims" which it did Not

""Independent years (1999–2003) Rise Against was formed under the name Transistor Revolt in 1999<------

by former members of the bands 88 Fingers Louie and Baxter. The first lineup consisted of Tim McIlrath (vocals), Joe Principe (bass and vocals), Toni Tintari (drums), and Mr. Precision (guitar and vocals). Though the band never performed live with this lineup, it released a self-produced demo EP entitled Transistor Revolt in 2000, a year before signing with Fat Wreck Chords. Tintari left shortly after recording the EP, and was replaced by Brandon Barnes, after a short time with Dan Lumley of Screeching Weasel and Squirtgun as the drummer.

The band changed its name to "Rise Against" in 2001<--------

and released their first album, Unraveling (produced by veteran punk producer Mass Giorgini) on Fat Wreck Chords that same year. Mr. Precision left the band in 2001, and was replaced by Todd Mohney of The Killing Tree.

After touring in support of The Unraveling, the band returned to the studio in December 2002 to work on their second full-length, Revolutions per Minute (produced by Bill Stevenson and Jason Livermore at The Blasting Room), which was released in 2003. The band toured extensively in support of its first two records, opening for Sick of It All, NOFX, Agnostic Front, No Use for a Name, AFI, and Strung Out. In addition, Rise Against participated in the 2003 Warped Tour."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.193.195.69 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Esth270

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

Hello all, would an uninvolved administrator please review the dispute over the blocking policy as it is being applied to User:Esth270 by admin User:Doc_James. To prevent forking, please join in to the existing discussion on the other noticeboard here: Misplaced Pages:Education_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocking_students. Thank you, — xaosflux 03:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Outing attempt?

I think this is an WP:OUTING attempt? I've never dealt with anything like this before but it appears this is an attempt at harassment. Not sure of the next steps but would appreciate assistance. Champaign Supernova (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• It kind of looks like it and I've left a somewhat lengthy warning about why this is not kosher and what the appropriate measure would be if they think that you have a conflict of interest. Posting your potential real name and an insult is not the correct way to address COI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I responded on my Talk page. There was no COI accusation or implication made, no insult made, and no outing made. You are of course free to imagine whatever you like. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    • You called the user by a given name. What's your source for that given name? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
      • That's not an accurate report by 71.23.178.214. How is this , in reference to this not a COI implication? That's exactly what an implication is. And how is calling me "totally delusional" not an insult? As I've said before, if you want to accuse me of COI, please do so formally on the appropriate noticeboard. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
      • FYI, more odd accusations/comments from 71.23.178.214. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• I was willing to give this IP the benefit of the doubt (no offense meant by that, Champaign Supernova- I was mostly hoping to God this would be a case of "nobody on the Internet can hear your inflections"), but this looks to be exactly what CS is describing it as: one person being abusive for her not agreeing with her. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

IBAN Revisited: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, Medeis

I have very little experience here, so I apologize for any faults in my presentation. This thread is a continuation and extension of an earlier thread, here . Currently, there is a ban preventing TRM from interacting with BBB and Medeis, and vice versa. As mentioned in the original thread, there is concern that this ban has caused disruption, through arguments that it was being violated, as well as by limiting the effectiveness of these users in certain areas of shared interest; the last conjunct is what brings me to raise this issue, specifically the Reference Desk. All three editors are frequent participants at the RD, and since the RD is in an always on going state, there is always a high potential that they will cross paths. Moreover, given that the RD is currently looking into restructuring and reevaluating how it operates, as in , it is highly limiting that each of these users not be able to have a voice, since they are regulars there; and there many other instances on the talk page where it is overly limiting to not allow each user a voice in what is being discussed.

Given the above, I would argue that one of the following two courses be taken: the IBAN is lifted or all three editors are banned from the RD. The utility of the former follows from the above, in that the ban is unduly limiting given their involvement with the desks. As for the latter course: it appears very easy to construe actions and discussions on the desk as "interacting", and this has led to other threads here already, thus, as long as all three are welcome, problems are likely to continue. Moreover, it is awkward, and problematic, when it comes to any discussion on the RD's talk page since the involvement of one editor silences the others; and it makes having an open discussion very difficult as what constitutes "interaction" seems hard to brightly identify.

I do not have the authority to do so, but would hope that all involved are able to discuss, freely, in this thread (I'm not sure if that is already the case, could someone who does know clarify?). My own position would be that the ban be lifted, but that if disruption occurs from that removal, then some (or all) parties be banned from the RD (and other such mutual areas) as a next step.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep IBAN and instigate RD topic ban if consensus for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep IBAN - I doubt all parties will be removed from the Reference Desk, but TRM - would you willingly walk away to defuse the situation? Cutting your ties from that problematic area would probably be the best. Same for the other parties involved, but I don't want to lose good editors over this matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment 1 - Do what you want with the IBAN, but don't ban anyone from the ref desks. I will never file another complaint about TRM, nor will I interact with him anywhere, be it the ref desk or otherwise, once this discussion ends. It's worth pointing out that one of TRM's complaints about the IBAN was that it would prevent him from constructing an RFC/U against Medeis and/or myself. With IBAN lifted, he would be free to do so, if he still thinks it's necessary. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment 2 - As a compromise, you could consider a temporary ban from the ref desk talk page, which is where most of the problems seem to arise. Maybe 3 to 6 months, or whatever you all decide. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep IBAN and support TBAN. While this was not my original intent, if all parties do not want the ban removed, then I believe this is the correct one (change my vote to the original if all three do decide they want the ban lifted after all). While it does "solve" the issue for one party to walk away, that seems exceptionally unfair since the IBAN is not directed, each party is equally culpable - in short, I do not feel I can suggest that; and there is no reason that those walking away can't change their mind in a month, raising the same issues all over again.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Banning all 3 of us would be no skin off TRM's back, while it would be unfair to Medeis and me. As you well know, Medeis and I are frequent ref desk contributors, while TRM hardly ever goes there except to complain about certain unnamed users. In short, getting us banned from the ref desk is exactly what he wants done. I don't see how that's a fair solution. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    • That may, or may not, be the case - only TRM can say and I won't speculate. But, whatever the case, as it stands, I cannot advocate that any party be removed and the other retained since the IBAN sees all parties equally culpable, I cannot ask for a topic ban to operate differently. Moreover, as long as the IBAN is in place, the only logical conclusion I see is a topic ban: while I applaud your suggestions and willingness to cooperate, they, unfortunately, are not viable: promising to never file again is, effectively, lifting the IBAN, except the IBAN is not an agreement between you all, but the community (in short, you cannot make that agreement if the community doesn't reach that consensus); while a talk page ban seems reasonable, it makes it impossible for any of you to defend or discuss your actions on the desk (what if you hat something or have to remove something, how would you discuss the matter?), if you can't use the talk page, you really can't use the desk.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm becoming truly sick and tired of the baseless accusations being levelled at me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• I think it's pretty clear that the underlying problem that prompted the IBAN has not gone away. Therefore, Keep IBAN. It also seems to me unlikely that a TBAN from the RD would help; it's far from the only place these three cross paths (especially TRM and Medeis, both frequent contributors to ITN among others). So Oppose TBAN. While there have been a bit of a string of ANI threads about this IBAN of late, it seems to me that this at least contains the disruption on ANI and keeps disruption on the rest of the encyclopaedia to a minimum. So I think the status quo is not that bad. GoldenRing (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Interaction bans are stupid, pointless, ineffective, and an only-on-Misplaced Pages dysfunctional attempt to solve a problem that our administrators are otherwise unable to deal with. The premise, that two people are simply unable to deal with each other, without assigning blame to either, is flawed. The real life equivalent, restraining orders, are issued only under extreme circumstances. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Interaction bans work as long as the involved parties are in agreement with the IBAN. I was fine with it. I think Medeis was also, but their parallel participation at ITN created potential for trouble. TRM never liked the IBAN, because it prevented him filing an RFC/U against Medeis and/or myself. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• I'm confused. Has there been any new conduct since the last time ANI closed a thread about this? I really don't like Rambling Man's policy complaints, but that's not a reason to sanction him. And the other two... I haven't noticed them up to mischief on the Refdesks anytime recently; please cite diffs if there's something of note. Wnt (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not a matter of "sanctioning" them for poor behaviour on the RD. The problem is that they can't effectively discuss things on the RD, and that there does not seem to be a clear line on what constitutes "interacting". In other words, as long as there is an IBAN, it's not shocking that something will end up construed as violating that ban and end up here again - it also makes policy changes, and other such, impossible to discuss with the involved parties, and all three of them have caused debates over their actions there, at one point or another. In other words, the issue isn't TRM's policy complaints, but that TRM can't actually discuss those complaints in depth, which just confuses the whole process (for one example).Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• • They're not "policy complaints", they're behavioural issues that I have highlighted which, it now seems apparent, several other editors are (in some cases) complete agreement with. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep IBan Oppose any topic ban as being a solution in search of a problem. And noting this has been the result several times here in the past - while "consensus can change", it is quite unlikely to at this juncture since there is no evidence that BB and M have mal-used the RefDesk. Collect (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The problem is wider than RD behaviour, so TBAN won't help. What would help would be if everyone could stop picking at this scab for a while and give it a chance to heal. --Dweller (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You're right. I think it's also worth pointing out that after TRM had endured a mountain of criticism at Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk for his constant negativity, the group there is slowly clawing their way to ideas on how to improve the ref desk. A topic ban would not aid in that process. Cooperation will. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Status Quo TRM is in general a very good editor, I'll point out that when he was blocked above I suggested to BB that we personally, as parties to the complaint, request his unblocking. I went to sleep (we don't none of us sleep together) and by the time I saw the issue at lunch, BB had already requested the unblocking and it had been granted. There's no current disruption, and if there were there are already normal mechanisms in place to handle them. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• The three editors should go work out their differences, come back and request the IBAN be lifted. Learn to get along. This IBAN is an ongoing source of wasteful discussion. There should be a page exempted where they can go talk it over. Here, use this one User talk:Jehochman/Arena. Jehochman 19:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  Intriguing. Is that page definitively outside the remit of the existing IBAN or this just a splendid trap? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  TRM, with a link to this discussion prominently placed on that page, any admin who cares to take action over breaches of IBAN for the three of you trying to work things out there, will get a rough ride back here on ANI. Go ahead. And may the three of you have the space to work out your differences. My advice to all of you is don't rush it, and you'll have more chance of succeeding. --Dweller (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  This is an intriguing idea. My worry is that it's the wiki equivalent of handing them each a half-brick and locking the door behind you. We shall see. GoldenRing (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• If I understand Jehochman correctly, the proposal is to temporarily lift the IBAN, for that one sandbox page only, and see if the three of us can be cordial and civil. Is that correct? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  That's not the only way I understood it. It's not so much to see whether you're capable of being cordial and civil (of course you all are), but a chance to get beyond this point in a way that people in real life might choose as well, especially when they are working together (though without an audience etc). Dweller's piece of advice is important too: Give it time. And like Dweller, I deeply wish you all best of luck and progress. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Cautious support for lifting the IBAN - At least TRM and BB have shown that they can, on occasion, be pretty reasonable people. Both have contributed to the site in useful ways. I'd hope that they can both bring useful insight to the discussion on the future of the RefDesk. I hold no such hope for medeis, but it would be unfair of me to suggest retaining only part of a restriction which is hard enough to operate as it is. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support TBAN for TRM - For the record, I'd had no previous experience with or knowledge of TheRamblingMan until earlier this week and thus my knowledge of their recurrent issues with BaseballBugs and Medeis stems entirely from the archives of the multiple ANI discussions on that topic and not from any previous first hand knowledge of the relevant incidences. That being said, I've always been dubious of the effectiveness of IBANs; in my opinion, if an editor can fall into disruptive behaviour with one party, it's inevitable that it will happen with another, since the root issues (minimal respect for our policies as regard civility and consensus building, no matter who you are talking to) are not addressed, which is why I think more conventional bans and blocks are generally called for if the involved parties cannot learn to control their impulses and attitudes with regard to these vital and nonoptional community standards. TRM's behaviour in this case is a perfect representation of that concern -- all the IBAN has accomplished is to cause him to take the traits of BaseballBugs and Medeis that he most dislikes and generalize them to the entirety of the Refdesks, where his behaviour has become consistently and increasingly uncivil and disruptive. Since the IBAN prevents him from directly criticizing either of them, he's just made the RefDesks (and every good faith editor there who disagrees with him) into one giant strawman.

I feel anyone participating in this thread needs to look at his behaviour in the two most recent talkpage threads here and here before they make their recommendations. Virtually every single editor that TRM has interacted with in those discussions has asked him repeatedly to alter his disrespectful and counter-productive approach to discussion in that space, but doing so has only lead to him to reduce each of these efforts to evidence that there is a "club" mentality at work there that will do anything to preserve the status quo, and that this is the true reason that he is not being received well. And this re-contextualization of all criticism of his (frankly, bully-like) behaviour has grown to truly bizarre proportions; he now regularly, with zero evidence and no regard for WP:AGF, vocally and repeatedly insinuates that the active users there are colluding (on wiki and off) in order to sabotage his message, by trying to trap him with in his IBAN or other nerfarious means. Several of us have made repeated attempts to impress upon him that we actually agree in principle with some of his positions on issues facing the Ref Desks, but that the bombastic and caustic wording of his comments are actually serving only as a detriment to exploring reasonable solutions to those problems. But these comments too, if they can be seen as critical of his behaviour in the least, get filled merely as evidence that the "club" is working to thwart him; it seems to be utterly unfathomable to him that so many editors are trying to tell him the same thing because his mode of operation is just that blatantly out-of-sync with a basic adherence to pillar policies, and therefore there must be a conspiracy against him. And all the while, in what I can only describe as profound display of a lack of self-awareness, anyone who crosses him gets accused of ad hominen attacks and harassment, no matter how polite, restrained, or based-in-policy their arguments are.

I'm ambivalent towards the IBAN, with regard to all parties. TRM himself obviously favours it remaining and I figure, under these circumstances, that's reason enough to leave it in place, though I would add that even if the IBAN is removed that he could still voluntarily adhere to it to just to avoid he and the other editors getting sucked into one-another's orbits again, to the detriment of all parties and everyone around them. Regardless of that determination, I strongly feel that TRM should not continue to be involved at the Ref Desks, since he has made it repeatedly and blatantly clear that -- due to his issues with multiple editors who are regular contributors and inability to work within the confines of consensus building in that space in general -- he cannot operate there in a manner that is consistent with basic regard for WP:Civility and other core behavioral policies. At the same time I do not think it is even remotely appropriate to remove BaseballBugs or Medeis, both of whom are regular editors there whose contributions are overwhelmingly positive and non-inflammatory and both of whom have shown repeatedly that they can take the criticisms of other contributors in stride and work within the framework of consensus building. Bans are not about equivocality and we don't need to be removing three parties just in the name of "fairness" when two of them can obviously continue to operate productively in that space. TRM, though, has thoroughly exhausted the reasonable efforts the other editors in that space to try to get him to engage in a civil and productive manner and made clear, in unflinching and immutable fashion that he doesn't particularly care for the space and won't show the basic respect to those operating within it necessary to contribute there -- let alone that necessary to discuss broad changes to the way the space operates, which requires deep patience and tolerance for differing view points in an area which has so many different regular contributors (and thus viewpoints). For the good of all relevant parties, I think TRM needs to be removed from that space. Snow talk 02:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I truly appreciate Snow Rise's attention to the issue. I still have to say that as a party who's asked three times for TRM's being banned from interacting with me, that the IBAN, and that alone should be sufficient. We don't need the IBAN raised and we certainly don't need to be invited to duke it out for the enjoyment of the Gamesters of Triskelion, as Alex Tiefling suggests.

Inded, while I was not surprised by his recent raking over the coals at RD Talk I don't think it was necessary, he saw that he can be blocked, and BBB and I asked for him to be unblocked, as Jehochman, who did unblock him, can attest. TRM has knowledge that can be (is) useful at the RD and there's no reason to block him as such there or at ITN. We can all do just fine if we don't find it necessary to attack people, or, especially, accuse them without supporting diffs.

As for raising the IBAN? No. I do not need to be put in a position where I have to defend myself from potential future unsupprted attacks, incivility and innueundo. As one can see in most cases at ITN TRM and I have been able to work together quite well, and he's even thanked me for my work there since the IBAN has been in place. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I would add that Snow has used various venues to berate me and my approach to trying to improve the Ref Desk. He doesn't agree with me. Many others don't as well, but several do. It seems that his request for a topic ban is designed to simply shut me up. His various walls of text are indicative of someone with a serious grudge. If he spent as long improving Misplaced Pages or answering questions at the Ref Desk as he does writing paragraph after paragraph of character assassination, Misplaced Pages would be a better place. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

My proclivity for verbosity when I see someone trampling all over our civility standards not withstanding, anyone who wants to get to the truth here can feel free (and as far as I am concerned, very much encouraged) to go to the talk page and review the relevant discussions there in order to assess your claim (which you have leveled at just about everyone who has disagreed with you there) that my motivation is some sort of grudge against you. I didn't know you from Adam two days ago, TRM -- though my experiences with you since and the significant trail you have left in the archives here at ANI have given me a thorough impression of a problem editor whose concern for the overall well-being of the project is not sufficient to overcome his desire to pursue personal grievances, even if it means stepping well outside policy and ignoring the advice of all around him. But I didn't request the topic ban -- that was forwarded as a suggestion here well before I arrived -- though I am increasingly convinced that it is inevitable. And "various venues"? We have only ever interacted on exactly one page, the talk page I linked to above, only on the one narrow topic of your incivility and only over the last couple of days, before which I never even knew of your existence.

And thank you, but I can decide for myself how best to apply my energies on this project; I have contributed regular and significant content in a variety of areas for years and if you don't think I'd rather be doing that right now than taking time to deal with this, you really have seriously misjudged my motivation here. Nobody wants to deal with disruptive contributors but it's a reality of the work we do here, and if I have to take the time present a long-winded summary of your behaviour so it doesn't go unremarked upon as the admins here try to determine what to do about these long-standing and highly-disruptive issues to which you are a party, well then, so be it; better that I should have to do it once now than that this cycle be repeated yet again. And, for about the hundredth time, I actually agree with you about many of the issues concerning the Ref Desks. What I don't agree with is your caustic, personalized way of trying to affect change, nor your coming there in the first place with the apparent purpose of furthering your drama with Medeis. Snow talk 07:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Do your own civility standards include making false assertions (aka lies) and incorrect assumptions? I thought so. I think I'll seek an IBAN between the two of us so you can stop with your deceit. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Right, so you're telling me that it's just complete coincidence that, on the exact same day that you were engaged in disputes with Medeis in other venues, you show up on the Reference Desks for the first time in about a month and your very first post just happens to be the closure of the thread that Medeis had last commented in with the explanation "Reasonably pointless question, utterly pointless answers"? That's just coincidence? Are you further telling me that the slew of posts which followed (, , , , , for just a few examples), which utilize such language as "pathetic", "sad", "useless", "pointless", "nonsense", "if you are so blind", and "love me because I'm funny/clever/satirical" in their content and edit summaries are not uncivil? Of the ten or so posts you made on the various reference desks in the hours after falling into conflict with Medeis again, not one actually makes an attempt to answer a question asked by the OP. Rather, each and every single one of them is a mean-spirited and unambiguous effort at denigrating the good-faith efforts of your fellow contributors. That's what I'm talking about when I reference civility standards; so what am I lying about exactly?

As for your implication of seeking an IBAN against me, that tool exists to separate one editor from another from whom they simply cannot disengage after long-standing and severe issues, when all other options have failed -- not to be used as a threat against someone who has had all of two days of interaction with you, simply because they happen to be largely critical of you and your regard for community behavioural standards. I think the fact that you are trying to leverage it against me here speaks volumes for the fact that you seem to view procedure and policy as means to intimidate others and manipulate the parameters of a conversation and the ability of others in the community to call you out on your actions, rather than utilizing them as good-faith means to genuinely improve the project. Regardless, I am not concerned, being confident that I have kept all of my comments towards you above-board, based in policy and free of personalization, from the very start of our interaction, and equally confident that any admin looking into the matter will see as much. But is that really the solution you would want to seek anyway? Securing a mutual IBAN against anyone on the Reference Desks who happens to disagree with you? If you keep that up, you ironically actually will form the club you keep implying already exists there -- the one in which you are, by definition, the only non-member. In any event, if you wish to continue calling me a liar, I'd very much appreciate if you would be specific as to which statements I've made which you feel are false and supply the evidence for why they are so. Snow talk 09:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, please drop the stick now. It's evident that you dislike me and my approach, but all these walls of text are completely unhelpful. You're made your position clear (crystal, like mountain water) so please spare us any further assumptions and pseudo-detective work. I'm just glad to see that some ref desk editors are finally getting round to discussing solutions, not just bombarding the community with megabytes of assumptions and falsehoods. Try channeling all this enthusiasm into article space, that way you'll help improve Misplaced Pages for our readers! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I was just editing my response along those lines. In this you are quite right. I've made several lengthy posts here already and I've said my peace, so rather than give you the ability to try to twist the length and number of my responses into supposed evidence that this matter is somehow personal for me, I'm going to disengage and let the admins and other volunteers here do their work of combing through the discussions to come to their own conclusions. Short of absolute necessity, I'll allow my interpretation of the issues involved with your bans stand as they are. But I want you to know something: I think you're a bully, plain and simple. Your conduct is atrocious for someone whom the community has invested with the position of an administrator. And if I ever come across you anywhere on this project treating people the way you've treated volunteers on the Ref Desk the last few days, I won't waste time bringing the matter to ANI again -- I'll go straight to ArbCom and make the filing myself. Best of luck to everyone here sorting through this mess. Snow talk 10:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

ZOMG, The Mighty ArbCom? Good luck with that. Your threat is meaningless and childish (I'll tell on you!!) and frankly, the mess is of your own creation. You'd be better off expending this megabytes on improving articles that interest you (like I'm doing) rather than spend day after day dedicated to seeing the back of me. You're only making yourself look ... odd ... in doing that. As for "treatment of Ref Desk volunteers", if you mean I've demanded a high standard of response, with references, and less joking around and less banter and less opinion, well go sue me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No, actually, what I mean by the way you treat the other volunteers there is....

• Blatant violations of WP:Civility in which you denigrate other editors (at least one of which you seemed to be hounding in defiance of your IBAN) and their contributions as "pathetic", "sad", "useless", "pointless", "nonsense", "blind", and needy, just to reference a few of the overall comments: .

• Violations of WP:Civility and WP:AGF in which you dismiss any criticism of your behaviour by suggesting (utilizing insulting and directly antagonistic language) that everyone commenting but you is part of a "club" which has decided to put their own needy desire for attention and protecting one-another's back above the greater good of the project and further implying (without a shred of evidence) that they (including editors who had just made your acquaintance) were colluding with off-wiki coordination for the express purpose of getting you banned or blocked:

See, it's a problem on Misplaced Pages when you can't take any form of advice or criticism without seeing it as a conspiracy against you, even when multiple persons (read: every other editor involved in the discussion) are trying to tell you your behaviour is unacceptable -- only to have you just reduce them all to one giant strawmen of idiotic, half-informed, self-indulgent, non-editors only out to stroke their own ego and cover eachother's backs, rather than dedicated, good-faith contributors who are trying to improve the project same as you. Do you really not see how that is uncivil? We aren't collectively out to get you, nor are we all trying to silence you to enforce the status quo - we simply feel your hostile comments (which often come in the form of a straight insult as a means of stating your displeasure with no productive component) do not improve anything and we just want you to tone it down a bit. You're an admin -- have you never had to ask someone to take a breath and try to consider saying something in a more calm and civil manner? What would you say or do in the event that they insulted everyone who even suggested as much?

• Perhaps most concerning of all, comments celebrating all of the above tactics as successful in helping you get your way, as in comments such as "this has sparked a useful debate below which hopefully will result in some changes, the sort of changes I want to see. So perhaps I will get my way after all!" and "I understand that my approach has been received with varying degrees of revulsion. But the wheels of improvement are finally turning.", amongst others. This "the ends justify the means" attitude of yours is at the root of what I'm trying to get at with you here; WP:Civility is not an optional policy that you can just disregard so long as in your head you're getting things done (or even if everyone agreed you were getting things done!). It is a vital, non-negotiable community standard that you are expected to at least minimally adhere to if you are going to contribute on this project in any space where you have to interact with others. You aren't above the rules just because you think you're getting results. And that's if we accept this ridiculous notion that your showing up and carpet-bombing multiple pages with nothing but insult after insult directly contributed to an improvement of the page, which I personally find to be an asinine leap.

This is why I don't see the IBAN as at all the core issue that needs to be examined here. Because I have never known Bugs or Medeis to exhibit disruptive behaviour on anything approaching this scale or gal. But not only does this seem to be your standard mode of operation, but you actually feel entitled to it. Even here, on the very forum that hosted a discussion that saw you blocked for hounding just a few days ago, you don't feel the slightest need to be even remotely apologetic, or to concede that your behaviour towards your fellow editors could use some tweaking to be more civil and productive. And the amazing thing is, you actually are getting away with it, at present. And it's caused you to create this image of yourself (which you've shared with us repeatedly) as a brave reformer, who is willing to shoulder the burden of being unfairly disliked, so long as you get the results you want and think would be best -- even if it means torpedoing the consenus-making process. Regardless of your motivation, regardless of your results (perceived or real), talking to people the way you do in the diffs above is just not allowed on Misplaced Pages, no matter who you are, how long you've been here or how certain you are that you're arguing for the right cause. Can you just acknowledge that? Because, I tell you what, if you can, I will withdraw my own support for the TBAN; if you'll just do nothing more than promise that you will be mindful of the need to approach other editors (including even those you disagree with and don't particularly find to be useful members of the community) with respect, I for one will take you at face value. If you can't do that, I don't see much hope that you will ever be able to contribute in a space with as many active editors as the Reference Desks without causing discord.

The thing is, civility is not just vital, it also costs us nothing. You can make effective and forceful argument without parting with it from a second. Anything you can accomplish here without it, you can accomplish with it -- usually faster and more efficiently and definitely with a lot less lingering animosity. Snow talk 02:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I neither want nor need you to withdraw your TBAN claim. I don't care about it, and neither does anyone else it would appear. You agreed that you had "said your peace (sic)" and that you would desist from this discussion, yet once again another falsehood as you return to bombard the noticeboard with more walls of text. Time to improve the encyclopedia, write a Good Article or something. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't say the verdict is in just yet as to whether the community cares about this behaviour. As to responding to you again, you'll note that I said I wouldn't unless I felt it strictly necessary and while, yes, I did feel a little awkward about it, if you're going to keep trying to spin this situation to come of as the victim, I didn't feel I really had much choice but to supply those diffs to keep the matter clear for anyone who has to make a determination here. This was less about making sure my words were noted and more about yours. And having done that, I thought I might make one last honest effort to try to get you to take a look for yourself at just what you had said, though I must admit, I unfortunately got exactly the response I expected. I wouldn't call it a mere wall of text though. You asked a question, as to what I meant about how you had treated other editors on the Ref Desks -- those 20 diffs, containing varying kinds of uncivil behaviour, are my explanation. Now you have a habit of dodging any question that's been asked of you during this whole affair which asks you to evaluate your own behaviour, every one of them. So I'm asking just one simple question here that I think is completely germane to this discussion no matter how fair or unfair you think my judgement of you has been these last few days, something I think everyone would like to hear, whether you think they care or not: looking at those diffs, do you feel that their content represents uncivil behaviour? Will you answer that question for me, please, if only just that one? Snow talk 09:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have already said that my approach to getting others to see the issues at the Ref Desk has been variously vilified and I acknowledge that some more sensitive types may object. I can't comment on your "judgement", you dug up some diffs and more power to you. You haven't bothered digging up the other 122000 diffs which don't match your profiling of me. If it helps, you can rest assured your text walls have raised my awareness of the situation and I will try hard to be a better person. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, while I'm glad that you both can agree to the pragmatic advantage of just making sure that neither of you can directly interact, the problem is that the issues between you (and between TRM and Bugs) have grown so substantial that they are causing significant issues beyond any direct character attacks or acrimony between you two. You say that the two of you are capable of peacefully co-habitating in the same spaces and that he's even thanked you for your work and yet you filed an ANI complaint just days ago alleging that he was hounding you and making comments in defiance of that ban. It seems all but certain, given the timing and the nature of his comments, that TRM showing up on the reference desk and hatting a discussion you were involved with, utilizing heavily disrespectful language was an extension of that hounding. The persistence of that behaviour led to an extensive discussion of TRM's incivility on the talk page, which he then managed to parley into an even longer discussion about the appropriateness of other users behaviour, with many a blanket indictment on his part about the shortcomings of other editors there and other WP:AGF- and WP:Civility-defying implications of others working in unison against him, and finally now we have this, the latest in a long series of ANI's surrounding the fallout of even tenuous interactions between you two, all within mere days of his being blocked for similar activities.

Each of these discussions is eating up massive volumes of volunteer hours to mediate, while never reaching a long-term, stable solution. Now, the contributors at ITN and other spaces where you two are likely to cross paths can decide how to deal with any disruptions that occur there in their own way, but I think I speak for everyone whose had to watch this drama unfold at the ref desks when I say we need to see an end to this ugliness there. And given TRM's inability to take the recommendations of his fellow editors there at face value, rather than reducing them to evidence of a conspiracy against him -- not matter how many different individuals who have no previous beef with him join the chorus -- and his refusal to reform his approach, I just don't see any options other than banning him from the Ref Desks (which he clearly has nothing but disdain for anyway) altogether. Let me ask you a question that I need you to be bluntly honest about -- and this is something that I wanted to ask you from the beginning of this mess, but couldn't ask in another venue because I felt it wouldn't be fair to ask you to voluntary violate the IBAN: when he spontaneously showed up on the Ref Desks, hatted the very discussion you were involved with and made broad insults to those involved in it, was there any doubt in your mind that these comments were directed at you and that they were connected to the issues that you two were engaged with at ITN and here on ANI?

I think I know the answer to that question already, but regardless, it seems obvious to me that while the IBAN may be serving to protect the two of you from eachother and the effects of the bad blood between you, it is only doing so by redirecting that negative energy outward with consequences that the rest of us have to deal with. Responding admins will have to make their own determinations on whether you and TRM can get on well enough not cause intolerable disruption on ITN and other venues, but I say the volunteers at the Reference Desk have had to deal with enough of this nonsense. And since TRM is the one who can't seem to get on with anyone else there, who has made clear his disdain for the space, who thinks everyone critical of him there is part of an alliance against him 'and seeing as he was the one who seems to have gone there looking to further the drama between you two, I just don't see any solution to effectively restore calm in a stable and long term manner than making sure that he can't return there to start the process all over again the next time he has a beef with you, wherever it arises. Snow talk 07:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"TRM is the one who can't seem to get on with anyone else there" is actually a lie. I wondered how long it would be before you started to actually descend to this level. I'm also surprised to learn that you believe you can read my mind. Do us all a favour and move on to another topic which is deserving of your walls of texts, occasional falsehoods and incorrect assumptions. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

My offer to mediate has only been accepted by one of the three parties. The community has tried for quite a while but can't seem to end this controversy. I think we should bring the matter to arbitration and get it resolved once and for all. A deep investigation is required. This notice board is t suited for that. Jehochman 10:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Make that 2 now. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have a look. Jehochman 12:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't get excited. So far I've only put a "placeholder" there to make that item rise to the top of my list. I'll be posting something real there soon. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's a shame, but it's not without some irony that the three of us have (sort of) exchanged more civility here than we have ever done. I don't see any advantage in Arbitration, the IBAN has consensus to stay, if people want me off the RD then that's a different matter. It is gratifying to see that many commentators have agreed that there is a problem, and I understand that my approach has been received with varying degrees of revulsion. But the wheels of improvement are finally turning. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

As an onlooker to this situation and very occasional commenter, I have to agree with you. The differences appear intractable. Jusdafax 11:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. Not for me, anyway. TRM and I have only interacted here (of course) and on the ref desks, as far as I can recall. There are others on the ref desk that don't like me (and/or vice versa) and I'm quite content to either ignore them or try to keep the temperature from increasing. In fact, they have had little cause to criticize my activity there lately. It's worth pointing out that Medeis and I have had seriously hot-tempered debates in the past, but we've gotten past that and have since been able to work together cordially. I don't see why it should be any different with TRM. This extensive discussion here and there has given me better insight to where TRM is coming from. It looks like there is an effort being made to improve the quality of responses at the ref desk, and that's been TRM's core complaint. So I am optimistic. I don't think it's necessary to ban any of the three of us from the ref desk, and once we can interact better, here and on Jehochman's page, the question of lifting the IBAN should answer itself. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration is just a negotiation with a bit of formal support, and an enforceable result. I'm not going to file a request, but if any of the parties feel that negiations are deadlocked, they can. Jehochman 12:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That is a wonderful sentiment; although, I'm not so sure I'd be quite as optimistic as that Jon. Sometimes a case will take some unexpected twists and turns, and there is the unknown factor of who exactly will show up to put an edge on a particular ax. No disrespect to the folks at arbcom, they only respond to what is presented; but, as the "last resort" in dispute resolution, often harsh remedies can be a result. Personally I think the page that you've generously offered to host would be the next best venue to attempt. I'm familiar with both Bugs and TRM, and know them both to be reasonable adult editors who have the best interests of the project at heart. I'll assume the same with the 3rd editor as well. Perhaps they may not always agree with the same methods, or take exception with an attempt at humor, but I suspect an open area with a moderator might prove to be quite a benefit. (if you are willing, and it appears you are) I would strongly suggest your page before any request to arbcom. If some agreements can be reached, the current IBAN could even be vacated in time. Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  03:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep iBan I dont see much reason to get rid of it. It's working as intended. Lor 03:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

User Dino nam

User:Dino nam is making a series of disruptive edits on Battle of Cua Viet and Battle of Thường Ðức providing non RS and adopting a very argumentative tone when I have pointed out that changes need to be in line with RS and so I am requesting an Admin warning or temporary block. Mztourist (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Dino nam had made triple R on 324th Division (Vietnam) and I request he/she be temporarily blocked. Mztourist (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48

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

HiLo48 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has been making personal and abusive comments to other users, including Macosal (talk · contribs), Skyring (talk · contribs) (Pete) and myself sroc (talk · contribs), despite repeated requests to desist and despite having been having been banned several times for personal attacks in the past. In particular:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia):
  • "There is an existing consensus, from only eight months ago. ALL the back and forth, edit warring, vandalism and incivility has been by soccer fans refusing to accept that consensus. And you're part of it. Are you proud of that?" 10:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "I will continue to highlight disruptive editing, especially when it's packaged in an expression of concern about the disruption. "Are you proud of that?" was a way of doing so." 17:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "You have misrepresented me again. Piss off." 04:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "NOW FUCK OFF, AND GROW UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" 06:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• User talk:HiLo48:
  • "Piss off." 02:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In removing comments from talk page: "Remove bullshit" 03:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Fuck off from my Talk page, please" 08:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from myself and others on both of these pages show repeated requests for HiLo48 to be civil, to avoid personal comments, and to stick to the issues. HiLo48 has not shown any remorse – on the contrary, has defended the comments and sought to deflect criticism – and has no only continued to make personal comments but escalated them (snarky comments → "piss off" → "bullshit" → "FUCK OFF!"). —sroc 💬 09:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that HiLo48 removed this section himself with a rude edit summary, so I have restored it. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Stalker observation. I sympathise with HiLo. He's just had a months ban dished out, and this gives all the appearance of a lynching. Very unsporting behaviour from Football/Soccer supporters. No FIFA Fair Play award to you guys. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Serial vandalism and distortion of statistics at Aliyah?

• Aliyah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Most of the last 1000 edits on Aliyah, dating back more than a year, have been by a series of IPs (evidently the same person) amending contemporary and historical statistics. In some cases, they have maintained the original sources, in other cases they have added new sources. Most of these sources are either broken links, in another language, or to Google books; every time that I have been able to find the source cited, it has not confirmed the edit. Since the editor refuses to communicate in any way, it is impossible to determine whether they are using more accurate information, or are simply vandalising. Because this has continued for so long, with so many edits, it means that the integrity of the whole article is seriously challenged, and a major clean-up by an expert is urgently required.

I raised this over a month ago at Talk:Aliyah, with no response, and at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Israel, where a brief discussion failed to address or resolve this apparent problem. The article was briefly semi-protected, which put a temporary stop to this disruptive behaviour; but the IP editor has now returned and continues the same pattern.

It is, of course, possible that my concern is misplaced, and that the edits are correct and valid. But the obscure sourcing, and the editor's complete failure to communicate, suggest that this is unlikely. How could this issue best be addressed? RolandR (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not even POV-pushing. It looks to be a long-term campaign of random vandalism to numerical values, usually undertaken from 70.* IPs hosted by Bell Canada. For instance 70.24.68.152 (talk · contribs) and 70.29.119.33 (talk · contribs). The IPs never participate on talk except to remove messages left for them. I've applied six months of semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Ed. But meanwhile, how do we deal with the several hundred edits since September 2013? Since these are interspersed with a few good edits (by IPs as well as accounts) and were made by multiple IPs, I don't know if a script could do this. RolandR (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:205.155.71.58

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

Despite being banned in Nov 2008, this user continues to vandalize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draughtmanus (talk • contribs) 15:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a dynamic IP at California State University - it's highly unlikely to be the same person still using it six years later. Squinge (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Onlylove18 not heeding warnings

Onlylove18 doesn't seem to be improving their behavior in response to the many warnings on their Talk page, and may need some alternative way to get their attention. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it could be one of those people who never look at their talkpage or even who don't know that they have one. Thanks for your alert, BarrelProof. I have given the user a final warning. If I have to use a block to get their attention, so be it. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC).

Wow, not a single talk or user talk edit so far. §FreeRangeFrog 22:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It's been several days since they edited at all, so there's a risk this gets archived and then they quietly start again. (And a real risk that I forget all about having warned them..) If you should see them upload a non-free image again and you aren't an admin yourself, please kindly alert an admin, such as me. Bishonen | talk 21:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC).

Personal information available on Misplaced Pages

(Redacted) and reported to WP:OS Admins: Please revdelete the diffs if you can. Lor 22:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS violations?

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

RGloucester (talk · contribs) recently posted a fairly blatant canvassing attempt at WP:POLITICS under the heading "Need help at Austrian Federal Government", describing the requested move as "wrong for many, many reasons". I have no particular view on the RM, but requested that they reword their request. However, this was met by several denials that they had violated the guideline (with some snarky comments and edit summaries thrown in). This doesn't seem to be the only incidence of such behaviour - there was also this earlier in the day and this yesterday.

Seeing as he's not willing to listen to me, perhaps some other people could weigh in on whether this is canvassing or not (editor notified here). Cheers, Number 57 22:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear! My asking for third opinions on an Australian (or Austrian) politics-related matter at the Australian (or Austrian) politics WikiProject is downright horrid! Lord smite the man who wants to broaden a discussion, and allow people who actually know something about the subjects at hand participate. Mr 57 has a bone to pick with me, and has had one for quite a while. This is frivolity incarnate. If you want a public execution, go ahead. My head is ripe for the taking. It is quite swollen, right now, so I fear it will make a better trophy. RGloucester — ☎ 22:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @RGloucester: Please remain Civil Lor 22:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Truth cannot be "uncivil". What's better, a few words with a tiny sting, or someone whose actions contain an apparent and subversive subtext of incivility? RGloucester — ☎ 23:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Look, the point of being civil is so edit warring does not become a yelling match. Your opinions are your own, but it's common courtesy to abide by the rules the community has set out. Lor 23:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be a pretty clear case of canvassing, as defined at WP:CANVASS#Campaigning. It's simple enough to post a neutral notification about a discussion without campaigning for your particular view at the same time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I cannot be neutral on this matter. I should not hide my non-neutrality behind a veil of non-existent "neutrality". That'd be subversive, and what is often called passive aggressiveness. As I said, I must declare my vested interests, so that people know what they're getting into. I'm not a neutral party in this matter, and I can't be. Do you want me to lie? Is lying better than speaking the truth? RGloucester — ☎ 23:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: You never seem to take on board that using your unnecessarily flowery and overblown language only disadvantages you. Leaving that aside, can you explain how your posting to WP:POLITICS complies with the requirement in WP:CANVASS. Specifically "Notifications must be... neutrally worded with a neutral title". You seem to be admitting that you knowingly breached this requirement. DeCausa (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to change how the almighty God has made me for your sake. If I deserve to be executed, execute me. Regardless of such fripperies, there is no such thing as a "requirement". The purpose of the canvassing guideline is to discourage people from recruiting editors to support one's argument in a debate. The spirit of the guideline rails against that behaviour. I did not do this. I did not attempt to "skew" anything. I did not recruit a selective group of editors who I thought would support my view. I asked for third opinions at relevant WikiProjects, not for opinions that mimicked mine. I also made my own position clear, to declare any potential conflicts of interest. In this, nothing about my actions ran counter to the spirit of the guideline. RGloucester — ☎ 23:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You declare your position in the discussion itself. No one is asking you to deny your position. But, when posting notifications, you need to avoid campaigning for your side. A neutrally worded statement that there is a discussion on subject xyz that is within scope of a particular WikiProject can be made without stating a side in the notification itself. Note: not lying about a vested interest - obviously all parties in a discussion has a vested interest - but omitting it in the notification where it's not appropriate to be brought up one way or the other. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Uninvolved opinion; This is a technical breach of WP:CANVASS but I would treat it leniently, especially if RGloucester can be persuaded to see that this was unhelpful. Personally, I am more concerned with the editor's grammar error above than by any small damage that may have ensued to the project through this minor faux pas. User:Number 57, this page is to discuss admin actions. What admin actions are you looking for here? It may be that next time you have a complaint like this about an editor, it will best be resolved by a word from another admin, rather than by bringing it to this board. --John (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

No, he's declaring UDI from WP:CANVASS. If he's saying he's incapable of complying with it on principle he should be TBAN'd from making any notifications. DeCausa (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I've stuck to the spirit of the canvassing guideline. A literal interpretation of anything is false. Meaning is determined by context. In this case, the meaning of the guideline is clear. As far as the grievous accusation that John has made above, I can only say that I do not believe I've used any such falsities in my writing, and that, if I did, I beg for his eternal pardon. RGloucester — ☎ 23:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not: you've declared against its spirit. If you are not neutral on the subject you don't feel obliged to give a neutral notification. How far from the spirit and letter of it can you get? DeCausa (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The notification in intent and in content was neutral, but my position, as stated within it, was not. It is that simple. RGloucester — ☎ 23:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Clearly untrue - your notification stated "This is wrong for many, many reasons" DeCausa (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a question of taking something out of context. The section on Inappropriate notification specifically lists "Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages." The meaning and intent of that specific item being mentioned at all is quite clear. As John said, this is ultimately a minor matter; but your refusal to even acknowledge the issue, let alone to make an effort to avoid it in the future, is somewhat troubling. Again, no one is asking you to deny that you have a bias in the discussion - just to leave it in the discussion where it belongs and will be obvious to anyone who goes to that discussion, not in the notification. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Did I go to the projects and write "I NEED PEOPLE TO HELP ME STOP A PAGE MOVE THAT I THINK IS WRONG"? No. I asked for "third opinions" from people more familiar with the subjects involved. It is funny that I can be put on the gallows for something that is clearly acceptable in the context of the guideline, but that the tens of off-Misplaced Pages canvassed SPAs and IPs that attacked me and a certain article last week were completely ignored. A bunch of rubbish, really. I don't understand what you fellows want from me, though I know very well what Mr 57 wants. RGloucester — ☎ 23:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what you did. Do you not realise the meaning of your own post: "Need help at Austrian Federal Government - Editors are trying to chance the title of Austrian Federal Government to Cabinet of Austria. This is wrong for many, many reasons, not least of all unsourced. Third opinions would be appreciated." DeCausa (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "third opinion" inherently implies that the opinions being asked for were not my own. RGloucester — ☎ 23:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

So what? "This is wrong for many many reasons" is a straightforward breach of WP:CANVASS. If you don't get that you shouldn't be allowed to make any notifications because you don't accept that you have to word them neutrally. DeCausa (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't run counter to the spirit of the guideline. What's wrong is wrong. If I cannot say what is wrong in my view, how can we ever know what's wrong? I don't feel like getting lost in the valley of the wishy-washy. Regardless, I'm perfectly content to never again in my earthly life issue another notification to anyone. Why should I waste my time, if all it does is cause needless headaches? RGloucester — ☎ 23:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If you don't accept the community's policy on this but undertake not to make any future notifications, then that's fine. I suggest this thread can be closed. DeCausa (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I do accept the community's guideline. I don't accept your interpretation of it, which is literalistic. Regardless, I shan't make a notification. I shall forever remain shackled to my prior transgressions against the honourable editors above. Lord provide me strength to raise myself above this low point in editorial conduct. RGloucester — ☎ 23:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That's all very well but what about the "who's"? --John (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Never mind the who's, let's just hope that some sunny swain will foresooth close this Parlement of Fowles and record RGloucester's shackling therein. DeCausa (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

God has damned me to Hades twice-over for that mistake, John. It is has been corrected, but it shall always remain a mark on my name. RGloucester — ☎ 00:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It's all done and can be closed isn't it? DeCausa (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Look, here is what I suggest. First, RGloucester gets a final warning for their behaviour, they have violated WP:CANVASS. In addition, one more violation of WP:CIVIL I think will deserve an Arbcom case. Their behaviour (in my opinion) is not good enough for them. To work productively on Misplaced Pages. This is my opinion though at the very least and I'm in no position to enforce this. Lor 00:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

My behaviour is defined by context. If your good faith was crushed by tens of lunatic activist SPAs and a personal intercession by the founder of Misplaced Pages on their behalf, you'd be quite annoyed. If you were forced to deal with editors that do not believe that Australians, New Zealanders, and Canadians can understand the meaning of the word "government", despite tons of sources provided to the contrary and pure common sense, you'd be acting the same way as I am now. Regardless, if you want to hang me on a cross, feel free. I don't see what it will accomplish. I'm just a small fry. RGloucester — ☎ 00:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Disagree with the above close I don't see any canvassing either. When someone request a third opinion or opens an RFC, it's inherent that they're doing so because they see something wrong, his stating it is not an un-neutral statement, his statement that it violates a certain policy is not un-neutral either, it's a statement of fact. Or, said another way, had he left out the sentance "This is wrong....." it still would have been understood that he believed something was wrong. Further, the definition of canvassing is so vague that it could be interpreted to apply to pretty much any post. His post pointed out what was wrong, and it was posted on a project board, not on the page of someone that had supported him in the past, so no, there doesn't seem to be anything about it that fails neutrality, since we broadly define canvassing as being an un-neutral message or an attempt to sway a vote, and this message was neither. (Posted on a project, not a userpage, and it pointed out what was wrong, per policy , not personal opinion ), I move to strike the trout, no canvassing occurred. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The Devil is in the details, and the line between proper notification and canvassing is totally in the wording of the message posted. It's quite easy to post a note which which says "There's a conflict at X and more eyes are needed there to help resolve it", so posting a message which says "There's a conflict at X, and I need more eyes there to help me since my opponents are wrong" is totally gratuitous, and clearly canvassing by definition. That RGoucester refuses to recognize that, and KoshVorlon agrees with him, indicates a lack of understanding of the canvassing rules on their part. All they need to remember is to post a neutral pointer on appropriate project talk pages, which seems simple enough to understand. BMK (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible promo BLPs on related persons by 3 stale SPAs .... AFD? or something else?

Just checking before AFDing two BLPs on Paul Mendelson and Zoe Mendelson. (disambig. note - the subject is a theatre/TV playwright, but is not the casino and cards author of the same name and same location who also writes for theatre/TV!).

The article on Paul Mendelson felt like it included a lot of attempt to "build up" the BLP, but not a lot of real basis for notability, and not a lot of independent RS coverage to support notability. (It states there was a BAFTA nomination and TV award on two shows, but nothing more: no idea if that suggests a TV writer is probably notable). Overall the article felt as if it was more about "padding" making up for missing substance. I was wondering whether to PROD it, but noticed oddities about its creator, history, and connected article.

• Excluding bots, the actual content of Paul Mendelson was added by two accounts: User:Thermoman47 and User:Mrsryken.
• Thermoman47 edited on one day, Aug 8, 2009, creating the Paul Mendelson article, and adding a note on the same person in another article, and nothing else. The user hasn't edited since.
• Mrsryken edited from July 22 - Aug 2 and Aug 25, 2009, adding content to our articles on Paul Mendelson and his daughter Zoe Mendelson, then reappeared for one day in April 2011 to blank a section in the Zoe Mendelson article. Like Thermoman47, the user hasn't edited since and didn't edit anything other than on the Mendelsons. The content additions were mostly around the same time as the first account was writing.
• So I checked the history of our article on Zoe Mendelson. It too was mostly written by one individual, User:Artistresearcher. The account was used to write our article on Zoe Mendelson, on April 15, 2009, and nothing else. The subject of the article seems to be a fairly run of the mill artist, with some solo exhibitions whose importance isn't clear to me, and a couple of quotes of the kind written to accompany an exhibition of these kinds.

Overall, there were 3 accounts that did nothing but write, in a somewhat promo/padded style, on this father + daughter, at around the same time (in two patches in 2009, April and July-August) and then none of the three accounts ever seemed to edit again except one that appeared 18 months later to blank an old section listing the subject's exhibitions.

I can't judge the importance of the actual claims to notability myself, but there could be a doubt, and the circumstances of writing are a bit of a concern. On the other hand if they are by consensus notable then any original intent wouldn't matter. The accounts have been stale for several years and not 'replaced' by other accounts, so there aren't any current conduct queries. So I'm sanity checking before going ahead, on the best way to proceed. Separate AFDs on the 2 articles, and treat the circumstances above as a red herring? Quick check in case I've overlooked anything. FT2  02:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's how I would handle it: get the job done with least work by myself and others while being kind to newcomers who don't understand our rules. It sounds like these aren't blatant advertising, so speedy probably won't work. I would try prod and if nobody is watching them, they will be deleted or if somebody objects they just convert to AfD. As for the stale accounts, they aren't worth the trouble of further investigation. I would leave them welcome templates and messages about the prods as this serves to notify them and conveniently makes their editing history more visible should they later return. Jehochman 04:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal Attacks at Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates

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

Well, I've just been called an idiot by an editor I don't know and have never addressed or interacted with in any way on my own talk page, here. Users User:AlexTiefling and User:Sceptre have seen fit to tell people at ITN/C to "Fuck Off" for their same oppositions of a nomination at that page, myself not being the only party who opposes the nomination. User:AlexTiefling sees fit to tell people who explain the report in question is less than 1/20th of a document written by an outgoing party who were in the majority when the actions, already publicly known, were taken, should themselves expect to be blocked if complaint is made about his own incivility. Where are the warnings and summary blocks for such behavior? We've already had one user User:WaltCip strike his own comments in disgust. I've notified others attacked for brining up the purely partisan release of partial information. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Does any policy stand above POV now? Please block editors who find it appropriate to issue personal attacks and utter obscenities. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't tell you to fuck off for opposing the nomination, I told you to fuck off for making excuses for torture (in particular, of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad), and frankly, apologists for torture should fuck off. Sceptre 03:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

So, apparently we've also got a sockpuppuet telling people to fuck off? I'll assume this Londoner IP 82 is the erstwhile Sceptre, since Alex Tiefling usually signs his own name. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sceptre appears to be upset by this very disturbing news, and justifiably so. Medeis, I recommend ignoring the bad words and just don't respond. No response is needed. Sceptre, the item has been posted for the world to see. Rather than arguing here you can do more good by improving the target article or by doing whatever else you like to do. Arguing here is unnecessary. Jehochman 03:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

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

I have removed your closure. Having an admin who posted an item also close an ANI on the same item is an obvious conflict of interest, and it is very interesting to me that this same admin does not respond to emails or civil requests for comment, and is involved in reversing decisions in other issues in which I have been involved.

Note the following:

Sceptre: "fuck you"

Alex Tiefling: "*Support per Sceptre. Fuck any claims of partisanship."

while WaltCip withdraws his vote with the comment "Oh forget it. If this is where ITN is going - yelling "fuck you" to people with a different !vote - then this is a procedure I want no part of."

Note that besides WC and myself questioning the partisan nature of the release, Drangon's Flight, Abductive and others were also doing so. I request we here about this apparent endorsement of telling people 'fuck you from uninvolved admins who did not vote, post, or comment on the ITN discussion or warn editors not to complain, or face repercussions. μηδείς (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You have made a bizarre interpretation of WP:INVOLVED. You aren't disputing how I closed the discussion, you are claiming that you were personally attacked in a discussion that that I closed, by other editors, not by me. I have no involvement in the personal attacks. Any such attacks are now stale and un-blockable, and in any case, no blocks were required for what happened, because they would have just intensified the silly dispute. You don't get to cherry pick an admin who has no knowledge of the dispute. Jehochman 20:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not about to argue with you, Jehochman. What I'd like to know is, given User:HiLo48 was just banned for a month for the exact same words, why is this issue, personally attacking other whether I am involved or not okay, and where should it be taken otherwise. As for the fact that you have recently commented against me on various talk pages and are the one who posted this item to ITN while a complaint was active on the behavior of certain editors, I don't think you were uninvolved and should have closed it. Thanks for not doing so again. Please advise me if there's some other board egregious obscenity complaints shoud be taken. As for the politics or POV, it has nothing to do with justifying incivility. μηδείς (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48 was telling everybody he disagrees with to fuck off for years now, and even developed a philosophical theory that it is good for Misplaced Pages to tall others to fuck off. He was proud of that and showed no intention of stopping. The block is long overdue. If Sceptre develops a bad habit of telling everybody to fuck off every day, I am sure they will be indefinitely blocked a month from now.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Good. I wasn't responsible for that block/ban and don't know what other facts were involved. Jehochman 21:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Is the point that occasional fuck you's are to be tolerated? Sceptre didn't say that above, he said the Fuck You was justified on a POV basis. Is that the case now, POV justifies personal attacks? μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Medeis, please strike my quote from these proceedings. I don't want any part of ITN or ANI drama, regardless of whether or not I'm a tangentially involved party. If I want someone to defend me, I'll do it myself.--WaltCip (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I am the one who quoted you, so if anyone wants to direct any malice over it they can do so towards me. But unless the comment is revdeleted, it remains very pertinent.

We've got user Hilo48 blocked for 30 days for saying "fuck you", we've got user Jehochman closing this discussion after posting the issue at hand, and then accidently moving his hat to cover my newest comments, after inviting me to comment further, we've got involved admins taking hostile positions in various fora, then acting as if they are uninvolved here. All this evidence needs retaining, but do place the blame/credit on me for retaining it. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Medeis, we've tried to explain to you that Hilo48 has a long history of inappropriate behaviour and has been justifiably sanctioned - please don't use strawman arguments. Also, please try to avoid telling admins how to run their noticeboard when their closures are perfectly in order. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

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

You seem to be horribly mistaken, Kudpung. This is not "your (i.e. admins') page" but, "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Misplaced Pages that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors."

If we have Involved admins acting with a conflict of interest, and experienced admins telling their opposition, "fuck you", we have we have matters requiring the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

Once again, the diffs of users being told to fuck off have been closed. Why is no action, not even a final warning of WP:CIVIL taken by an uninvolved admin? μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It's likely that a dozen admins have looked at the case and yet each has chosen not to issue a block or warning. What possible explanation could there be? Hmmm, I wonder if they are intelligent people who have looked at the underlying issue and observed that the "fuck off" was reasonable under the circumstances? Here's a shocking thought—what if TRM is right and you really are the problem? Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I think it's perfectly reasonable to tell someone to fuck off when they make excuses for what is, at best, serious sexual assault, and at worst, a severe violation of the Geneva Conventions. Sceptre 23:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I see that Medeis has declined to notify me of the two unilateral re-openings of this preposterous case. For what it's worth, I did not tell anyone to fuck off. Misplaced Pages is still not censored, and I'll say 'fuck' where I like, provided it's not disruptive or a personal attack. To which point, Medeis might also wish to consider the difference between vulgar abuse and defamation. To bring two users to ANI three times in 24 hours over the use of profanities during a discussion of state-sponsored torture and rape is a failure of Medeis' sense of proportion which I am unable to account for. I have long maintained that Medeis is a disruptive and unhelpful user. ANI has been an ineffective tool for controlling their unhelpfulness. Perhaps, at least, Medeis can now learn what it's like for ANI to fail to deliver. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sceptre, you should be ashamed of yourself. This is Misplaced Pages: we must remain civil. It's kindly fuck off. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I should add that I do not recognise Medeis' characterisation of my behaviour in the original complaint, and no diff has been provided to substantiate it. (Sorry for not mentioning it earlier; this whole business is so ridiculous that I forgot to respond to the original accusation.) AlexTiefling (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Motion to temp block Medeis for disrupting the ANI process.--WaltCip (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The comment, and many others on that page, are inappropriate. The top of the ITN page clearly says " Please do not... ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due a to personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN." Ideally a wiki-scapel would be taken to that page, because all that should be important is determining consensus on how secondary sources describe the report, not any editor's personal of anything. NE Ent 00:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sony Pictures

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

I am trying to find the wiki article on the Sony Pictures hack but cannot. was it deleted? if so where is the AFD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neukenjezelf (talk • contribs) 05:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I have given the above user a usernameblock, as his name is clearly offensive (Dutch for "fuck yourself"). Fram (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You're giving them too much credit, Fram--that's some embarrassingly poor Dutch syntax on the fucker's part. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparent mistake in sockpuppet case

A few days ago, I submitted an SPI regarding AsharaDayne, who I believed to be a sock of serial disrupter Greekboy12345er6, and I reverted several edits by this editor. At the time, I was being stalked by JarlaxleArtemis, who reverted scores of my edits. This led to Sjö submitting an SPI, mistakenly identifying the IP used by JA as a sock of AsharaDayne. AD was then blocked for sockpuppetry as a result of this submission, rather than mine. When my submission was noted, this led to AD being blocked indefinitely, on the basis of the earlier, mistaken, identification.

Although I still believe that AD is a sock of Greekboy, this has not in fact been investigated, and I could be mistaken. It's possible that AD has been incorrectly labelled as a sock, and blocked for the wrong reasons. Could someone please look into this, and advise the best way forward. RolandR (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to reopen that SPI. Let's discuss over there? Courcelles 14:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a side issue. The account has been sufficiently disruptive that the first step is to evaluate whether it deserves a block on the merits of its own contributions, and I think the answer is yes. Jehochman 14:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no objections to a new investigation, but I don't think that I can contribute anything to it. Do whatever you think is best. Sjö (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jehochman: I wasn't even contemplating unblocking AsharaDayne, in fact, CU found more socks that need evaluating. Courcelles 15:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, for that reason in makes sense to reopen the report. The AsharaDayne looks like a pro-Russian Ukrainian conflict specialist. Jehochman 15:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

MadGuy7023

Misuse of rollback purely in an attempt to conceal blatant wrongdoing as related in report from IP. --Marcus Az-Absent (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it only coincidence that User:MadGuy7023 has already reported you at WP:RVAN. Looks like tit4tat from here. _Fortuna 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I get the impression the OP is Tobias Conradi, per creation of Time in Austria, etc. Anyone familiar with his history? I'm not. Anyway, I've dealt with the AIV report. And Madguy, please don't remove bogus reports about yourself; it muddies the waters and confuses things for others who don't know what's going on. And causes a lot of edit conflicts at AIV. Just leave it there, or comment on it, and an admin will understand it's bogus in about 15 seconds. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the report, it was not bogus - if it had been then I wouldn't have restored it either. It seems that a BLANKING issue was violated a good dozen times. Either we observe rules or we don't. --Marcus Az-Absent (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

For some reason, he was edit warring with a vandal to restore warnings on the user talk page of someone who vandalized about 30 articles in 15 minutes. Yes, you aren't supposed to do that, but anyone who thinks that's the critical issue here, and worthy of an AIV report, does not have sufficient judgement to participate at AIV. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Admin Guerillero participating in private board for off-wiki targeting of article and abusing admin abilities to win content dispute

Problems with user 'Houn' with reference to Ambassadors of Ghana to Russia

Dear Administrators,

I am having problems with user 'Houn': http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:EmailUser/Huon http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Huon I am exasperated with this persons continual disruptive interference of my page on "Ambassador John Banks Elliott". He has on numerous times removed the contents of the article, disrupting the flow between myself and the editor I prefer to work with on this Article. His persistent personal attacks and defamatory innuendos bordering on harassment of the subject has forced me to put in this complaint.

I am having to delete his messages from my email inbox received from (watch list). I have also had to change my password on Misplaced Pages as I think he has hacked my account. I will kindly request that you prevent him from editing my page, my user page, my talk page and the talk page of Ambassador Elliott. In one of his messages 'Houn' accuses Ambassador Elliott of whitewashing his story and being the worst Ambassador ever. I do not know where 'Houn' is going with this, I definitely do not have the directions for him. He has also left several messages for me on the talk page of Joe Decker.

The copies of photographs, files that I posted are from Ambassador Elliott's personal collection from the sixties. He handed them to me to make copies for his Misplaced Pages page. I have been using these photographs and posting them to and fro on the web. The later photos taken on his Birthdays were taken by myself with my BlackBerry.

This article is written with honesty as recounted by Ambassador Elliott himself. It is an assemblage of his Ambassadorial-ship in Moscow. It is not everything he told me that I entered in the article as this may cause embarrassment to certain parties.

I would like to quote what Ambassador Elliott said at the end of my talk with him for this article, he said, "I am resolute and hold no grudges towards any persons or institutions that are inequitable towards me or my achievements". Yes he knows he might have enemies scattered here and there, what they do, what they say, what they write about is their prerogative. What he says is his choice.

I have a feeling 'Houn' thinks that Ambassador Elliott is dead. What he is doing is fighting with himself. I have asked him to kindly replace all of the editions, files and references he removed because I have not yet finished with the edit and will need to adjust some lines in the article, my request was to no avail. Instead he warned me about trying to replace the article.

I would appreciate it if I could hear from you the soonest. Kind regards, DorothyDorothyelliott (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of what you feel he did wrong. Also, I suggest you read WP:COI, going by your username. I notified Huon of this discussion, as required. Origamite 16:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, we'd appreciate evidence of the "hack". Another good thing to read is WP:OWN. Finally, if what you're saying is true, you can't use what Ambassador Elliot gives you, as any information must be verifiable by any reader to reliable sources. Origamite 16:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you read what Huon said here? He's quoting someone else on the "worst ambassador" remark. Origamite 16:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dorothyelliott and Huon: is an experienced editor and administrator on English Misplaced Pages as @Origamite: suggested that you should read the policy Conflict of interest and Ownership of articles. Another thing, you should support your edits with reliable sources such as articles published in the newspaper, books etc. and also maintain Neutral point of view. Just don't be panic Cheers and Continue Contributing. — CutestPenguin 16:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the accusation that I hacked anybody's account is baseless, and I don't even have a clue of how to do so beyond guessing that the password is "love", "sex", "secret" or "god".

Secondly, the emails Dorothyelliott had to delete probably come from me commenting on her talk page, once notifying her of the explanation I left for reverting her and once commenting on her uploads' copytight status, giving her advice on how to avoid the free images' deletion, advice she has not yet followed.

Thirdly, I have never edited Dorothyelliott's user page, and there's nothing wrong with my edits to either the article on John Banks Elliott or its talk page. If Dortothyelliott wants me to stay off her user talk page, I'll do so (except for required notifications), but I don't think that will help.

Fourthly, as Origamite points out, the unflattering comments on Elliott's work in Moscow are from one of the sources Dorothyelliott cited in her expansion of the article - in fact I'd say the best of the sources she cited, though she didn't cite it for what it actually says. Huon (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

PROD notification template problem

036386536a edited this template, adding "Let me finish the article I am working on it now Dori Landi is a Royal bloodline that goes back to the Empire of Rome 1st century Landi house of has a two thousand year history 700 hundred years of Princes of the Holy Roman Empire". Any instances of that template that were subst-ed in the past 17 hours now have that message. Is there any way to fix this? Origamite 17:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I found two instances, using a Google search. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem will remove when I get home later036386536a (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Thanks

It wasn't too bad; I found about 18 or so. In the future you can use the Misplaced Pages search engine. Just copy and paste the phrase, select everything for the search field, and then you've got your results. Mike V • Talk 19:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Bhargavaflame topic ban breach

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

Bhargavaflame (talk · contribs) has been displaying very tendentious behaviour at Talk:Bhargava. After being given a lot of rope, EdJohnston imposed a topic ban from the subject area under the discretionary sanctions provisions. Bhargavaflame has continued to pursue their agenda, most recently with this comment. Aside from discussion on the article talk page and at their own talk page, there has been discussion elsewhere, eg: here.

Would someone care to review and perhaps enforce the ban with a block? - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Euryalus beat me to it. Nisus (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Would you, then, Nisus, refuse to share your enterprise with me? And shall I let you go into such danger alone? -- Euryalus (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Rollback proposal

To avoid forking the discussion, could admins please weigh in on the discussion at the (relatively unwatched and unmonitored by admins) Education Program noticeboard, here? Among other things being discussed there is that the use of that board, monitored by Wiki Ed staff (unaffiliated with Misplaced Pages, or some weird arrangement I don't understand) for reporting student editing issues has led to a walled garden, shielding the regular admin community from the problems occurring. More admin input into the specific cases of copyvio, editwarring, tag-teaming, COI, explanation of what course instructor rights are and how they can be removed, and the potential use of rollback to remove blocks of student edits after copyvio is revealed in courses with uninvolved professors would be helpful. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikihounding

My first encounter with User:DHeyward was at Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers. I'm not aware of any previous run-ins with him. I brought DHeyward's behavior up at the GamerGate enforcement request page but my request was closed with no action. Since then, DHeyward has followed me to two articles and specifically targeted my edits: and . Today he even followed me to an SPI case that I opened, writing a diatribe against me and another experienced editor who also objected to DHeyward's edits. I've been an editor since 2010 but this kind of aggressive wikihounding is new for me. Try an interaction ban? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Sonicyouth86. The sorts of links you've given above aren't very helpful, which means people are less likely to review your complaint. You should use diffs. See the Simple diff and link guide. Bishonen | talk 00:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen. I thought that the usersearch tool provided a better picture but here are the diffs as requested: His first edit on the first page that he followed me to; his first edit on the second page he followed me to; his edits on the SPI that I opened today. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Its not uncommon to have your editing examined by seasoned editors if your editing history needs scrutiny.--MONGO 01:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

And your possible BLP violation and editing warring here led me to ask for page protection.--MONGO 01:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, let uninvolved editors scrutinize my editing, I welcome it. You are not an uninvolved editor and you know it. I can understand your wish to help DHeyward, especially considering that he has returned the favor here for example, but please let uninvolved editors examine this. As for your accusation "BLP violation", you know that it's not what happened. I also don't see any BLP violations in the edit that was reverted by DHeyward. But you tried, that's something. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest User:NE_Ent/Unilateral_interaction_ban NE Ent 03:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I can and do ignore his allegations in discussions (like on the SPI case that he's followed me to) but I don't see how that can work in articles where he shows up to revert my policy-compliant edits. The "just ignore him" type of advice isn't helpful in this case. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The edits you agree can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone (emphasis mine) every time you press "Save page"? NE Ent 03:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The policy-compliant edits that an editor hounds with the single purpose of reverting them? Sure. Let's try it for a week. You contribute article content sourced to academic sources or remove unsourced nonsense about living persons or open and SPI, all the things that I did and that DHeyward found offensive. And I stop by and revert your changes, leaving incoherent edit summaries and accusing you of every wiki-sin. And then you tell me how you liked it. You expressed your opinion on the enforcement page, why are you here again? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This isn't wikihounding. It's all related to Sonicyouth86's desire to include questionable BLP material to Christina Hoff Sommers. When he failed, he moved to her book Who Stole Feminism? which is a 20 year old book. When he added fringe material to the book on the "rule of thumb" I pointed out to him that we had an article on Rule of thumb that also called it fringe. So he attempted to add it there as well. In the meantime, he warned both ImprovingWiki and me about GamerGate sanctions related to Sommers. For me, he tried and failed to get sanctions. For Improving Wiki he filed a SPI. Using these processes as a weapon (as he is doing here) should not be rewarded. My only interest is that he not create BLP violations and mischaracterizations (some of which were highlighted by Ms. Sommers through twitter and were well publicized - Jimbo weighed in, sonicyouth86 disagreed with him). For the record, ImprovingWiki and I don't agree on a lot of content but we haven't turned it into a drama fest and neither of us has added BLP violating material. Sonicyouth86 seems to believe consensus involves punishment and threatening those who dissent. --DHeyward (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Here are the two "questionable" edits on two separate pages that caused DHeyward to follow me to the pages and revert my edits: first article and second article. And of course the "questionable" SPI that DHeyward simply couldn't resist because I opened it. I trust that editors will see through DHeyward's diversions and allegations. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

sigh? This is just the edits you made to my talk page telling me about all the mean things the admins will be doing to me for opposing your violations. and the coup de gras, the edit war template . I think you've taken me forum shopped me to 3 or 4 noticeboards in a week. Now, I don't know ImprovingWiki from Adam, but I recognize bullying and intimidation. I have not tried to keep you from editing in any way, only to keep poor edits out of the encyclopedia. Please stop the boarding of editors and find another topic area outside of BLPs, especially of people you seem to disagree strongly with. --DHeyward (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

DHeyward says "this isn't wikihounding" but then he describes how he followed Sonicyouth86 to the Sommers book and then to the rule of thumb article, both of which were first edited by Sonicyouth86. He then showed up at the SPI Sonicyouth86 filed, which had nothing to do with DHeyward. So DHeyward is certainly following Sonicyouth86's edit history. I would like to see him explain how it was relevant for him to comment at the SPI, especially since I was dragged into it in his comments. The comment there was hounding, pure and simple, trying to derail the valid concerns raised there. Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I call bullshit....someone leaves a notification of possible sanctions notice on my talkpage and other unfriendly reminders and obnoxious bits of advice and I sure as hell am going to follow them around as well to see what other stupidities they might be up to. Considering all the bait Sonicyouth86 has tossed about and the forum shopping to boot, he should expect to see his editing scrutinized. If nothing serious turns up then it's to everyones benefit.--MONGO 05:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous bullshit! Sonicyouth86 has dragged DHeyward to the NOR noticeboard and tried to get him sanctioned on the Gamergate arbcom case, both unsuccessfully and now is here claiming he is being wikistalked by DHeyward? He should expect to be followed after all this garbage. We routinely block and then ban editors with a vendetta...Sonicyouth86 better chill out fast.--MONGO 05:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The HOUNDING guideline does not say that if someone bugs you then you should follow them around and bug them back. DHeyward had no reason to comment at the valid SPI filed by Sonicyouth86. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering all the other harassment that Sonicyouth86 has been engaged in against DHeyward is anyone shocked that DHeyward would also look at this SPI. Perhaps DHeyward assumed erroneously (but for valid reasons) that the SPI may be another effort to seek sanction against an editor that disagreed with Sonic youth86...there is precedent for that as one can clearly see.--MONGO 06:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, your earlier analysis of "who edited first" is misleading. For example, he went to edit rule of thumb after I pointed out we had a well sourced article. His edit to "Who stole Feminism?" was a fringe view. So he edited rule of thumb to make the fringe appear not to be fringe. He went there after this. . He is correct that Kelly is authoritative. What he misses is that whoever gave him the out of context sentence that is fringe, didn't give him the entire paragraph or paper - the 20 page paper is a treatise on how rule of thumb has nothing to do with a legal interpretation of wife-beating, including Blackstone. I can't pre-cog bad edits but when he adds a bad edit to one article, gets shown how another very well sourced article that is more specific disagrees with him and he proceeds over to that article - that's not following. I already read and vetted the article, mainstream views and sources and even retrieved the JSTOR document and tediously transcluded the text so he would understand. If you tell an editor adding flat-earth theory to the Ferdinand Magellan article that we had the Apollo moon landing and took pictures and the editor proceeds go to Apollo to add the flat-earth stuff they attempted to add to Magellan, that's not wikihounding to protect the Apollo article, too. --DHeyward (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You are inflating the problem by calling his position "fringe". It is a common misconception that 'rule of thumb' came from the size of stick used for wife beating; this is not a fringe position held by an unimportant few. I can show you a dozen scholarly papers that assume the misconception, and these papers are not written by fringe people. I can show you a hundred books written by otherwise reliable authors who assume the misconception. Sonicyouth86 was not a dangerous juggernaut intent on wrecking the wiki, instead Sonicyouth86 was following the sources, of which there are quite a lot to draw from, all of which contradict the Kelly paper. The authority of the Kelly paper is not apparent to someone seeing 100:1 ratios in the literature. Kelly's authority comes from a deeper investigation. So I disagree with the way that you paint Sonicyouth86 as pushing some kind of fringe POV. Binksternet (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, and here is why your revert to his edit on that page was not well thought out when you blindly restored his misconception as "properly sourced." He was not arguing that there were opponents to Kelly, rather he was inserting, in Kelly's voice that Kelly supported the view that the rule of thumb was being used in courts. The origin may have many misconceptions that are not supported by scholarly literature. We don't publish misconceptions as fact. There are many people with misconceptions about global warming or evolution. It is not wikihounding to prevent them from spreading those misconceptions to articles that are uncontaminated especially when they were given those articles as links to broaden their viewpoint. Widely held but unverifiable views can be called anything you like except encyclopedic. --DHeyward (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I concur the comments on SPI were bad form -- purpose of the page is provide information to reviewing SPI clerks, not continue disputes. NE Ent 11:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mongo: You appear to be saying that he has been following me out of revenge for my "harassment" (NOP noticeboard which led to the removal of his OR and GG noticeboard) and that he's justified in doing it. That described his "vendetta" (and yours) pretty nicely. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

My vendetta? That's a cute little stretch playing the victim card when the facts are I watched you bait and badger and make every effort to seek sanction against an editor who is in oppostion to your BLP violations and POV pushing....which is once again what your posting here is all about.--MONGO 12:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

If by "bait and badger" you mean open a discussion at the NOR noticeboard which led to the removal of DHeyward's original research and the request at the GG enforcement page, yes. But your definition of "bait and badger" is surreal. Again, you're saying that he wikihounds me as revenge for my alleged baiting and badgering. You haven't been able to show a single BLP violation or instance of "POV pushing" on my part, just shrill accusations. My two article edits that were wikihounded and reverted (1 + 2) by DHeward and the SPI that I opened didn't contain anything of what you allege. In fact, I removed an unsourced statement about a BLP subject with the first edit, and attributed POV to a jurist in 1675 (primary source) with the second edit. My edits were perfectly policy-compliant, DHeyward's reverts were not. But, again, please stop derailing this discussion about wikihounding with shrill and obviously false accusations of misconduct on my part. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack in AfD discussion

Here I was called a WP:POINTy troll (although I have no idea what I was suppose to be being pointy about). I attempted to neutralize the personal attack which has no reasonable purpose for being in a deletion discussion about an article. That attempt was reverted by GraniteSand with an edit summary that verifies it was intended as a personal attack ... If you don't like my honest characterization then file a report. I warned the user on his talk page in an attempt to stop the attack there. which They acknowledged the warning as I was restoring the discussion page to a point where there were no personally attacking comments against an editor so the discussion could focus on the article with an edit summary of Personal attacks will not be tolerated. Feel free to file a report for my WP:RPA WP:TPO#Removing_harmful_posts fixes to your comment if you don't like it. Moments later, they again reverted to the version with the attack claiming It's my honest assessment of what is a speedy keep AfD and the justification for my position, not a personal attack. Don't modify it.

Now, I admit, I probably hung on to thinking I could convince this user that a comment that calls me a pointy troll is not appropriate to leave in a deletion discussion, and I should have probably come here a little sooner for feedback on an appropriate course of action forward, but I really wanted to try and exhaust all other methods of resolving this without coming here. It is now obvious to even me, that I am not going to sway this user to keeping the attack off the page, so here I am to discuss this and try and achieve a little consensus from a community which is mostly senior editors on if I should just let it go and deal with being called a pointy troll which was very much an WP:ABF comment on the other editors part or if I am justified in believing that such attacks are not acceptable on Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. — {{U|Technical 13}} 03:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

One point to remember is that rude personal attacks never make the target look bad. They only make the person who said them look unreasonable, and quickly discredit any possibility of anyone listening to them. When you refactor a personal attack against yourself, what you're doing is excusing the person who made it, and covering up their real selves, making them look better. When I see people using personal attacks to win an argument, it is a signal that I can safely ignore them forever. --Jayron32 03:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Well said. NE Ent 11:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have too much to add; my terribly misconstrued edit summaries pretty much sum up my position. I'm generally a civil guy but in any request for input (such as AfD) where I have to extrapolate on my position I always try to be clear and unambiguous. My position is not a personal attack and the refactoring of my comments was inappropriate. I'm offline soon but I'll check back i tomorrow. GraniteSand (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• I participated in that discussion (now closed as snow keep) and perhaps read that comment differently. I saw an editor trying to theorise as to why another editor would nominate that article for deletion; his conclusions narrowed down to three options including something pointy, trolling or a misunderstanding. It didn't seem (to me) like an attempt to call the nominator a "pointy troll" which takes the first and second disparate options and combines them without regard for the third. In reality, the "right" option of the three would seem to be the third. The nominator refactored the comment to remove the first two options and leave the third, effectively accepting that the third was the case and saying not much more before the discussion was closed. It was a strange nomination for which there was absolutely no support. It struck GraniteSand as strange and he said as much. Best bet? Move on. St★lwart 10:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks by IP

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

I don't usually bring things to AN/I, but this really offended me. I had a small content dispute on Ryukyuan people with an IP (153.173.114.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) who removed something they believed to be untrue, and after I reverted them and added references to said disputed content, the IP left a long message for me on my talk page. It's uncivil at best. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 09:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You never warned the IP. If IP had continued even after the warning then only it could be actionable. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hardly, Bladesmulti. Calling an editor "a brutish animal without intelligence, closer to the neanderthal than to the homo sapiens", belonging to "the most retarded people on earth" (=Americans) (and falsely calling them a Misplaced Pages administrator, too!), and you think there must be a warning before they can be blocked for personal attacks? Well, you're wrong. Blocked for 31 hours. Thanks for the alert, Sturmgewehr88. Bishonen | talk 10:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC).

User:Jenakarthik's copyvios

User:Jenakarthik is inactive since 2011 (3 edits in 2013). However, some of his articles created in 2009 still suffer from copyvio and/or close paraphrasing. Examples I tagged: Ilayankudi maranar, Iyarpagaiar, Meiporul Nayanar, Viralminda Nayanar, Amaraneedi Nayanar, Sadaiya Nayanar, Isaignaniyaar, Pugazh Thunai Nayanar, Nesa Nayanar. The copyvio and close paraphrasing remains as these articles have had only minor edits since creation. I wanted to check if his/her other creations but "Pages Created" from Tool Labs is dead so could not check. Can some admin please provide a link for a tool that does this job OR at least give me a list of pages created (by using your admin tools, Don't if this is possible). Thanks. --Redtigerxyz 13:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, all you have to do is to go to Special:contributions/Jenakarthik and click "Only show edits that are page creations". You can also only look at article namespace creations if you want. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 13:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This tool lists all major edits. MER-C 13:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --Redtigerxyz 13:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

IP hatemonger on IPNA talkpage - Special:Contributions/71.127.135.196

Re Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America#Native_Warrior_Society_flag_theft-pic_re_the_Vancouver_Olympics_article @Montanabw: and I have enjoyed a visitation from an IP editor who.....other than having nothing constructive or in fact even relevant to the subject at hand to say, has engaged in some very nasty political/racist POV and attacking us both. Those who know my username know that I'm not fond of ANIs and dislike procedure but in this case "something must be done". Because of a consistent pattern, of sorts, by IP users of a certain "bent" like this, and the known fact that partisan internet-penetration campaigns are underway on various fronts by corporate and political-partisan organizations and contractors, that such IPs should be checked as to their origin. This isn't possible with the many WP:SPAs of this kind, but it is possible with IP users. Wikiscanner is no longer in operation, and interpretations of corporate-origin and government-origin contributions vary...but this is not a contribution, it's a volley of poisoned apples...if from a "tainted source", then consideration should be given to blocking the whole domain, not just that one IP. In viewing the pink section instructions above some of what is said could be construed as more-than-implied libel/defamation of either or the both of us; but it's just hate-spew and as noted has no place in Misplaced Pages. But very typical cant of a certain kind on native and environmental-related matters identifiable in its agenda and on behalf of whom such dissembling is being acted out; he claims to be native American, but anyone can say that....what else he says after that is:

• ... yet it has already been widely observed that it is always white homosexual activists in Canada who dominate all discussions of our welfare, and try to squelch out any of us speaking for themselves, automatically screaming "racism" because I used "toothless" as a synonym for their generally comical impotence and sword rattling. As if, being a homosexual. you are some kind of deity and tell everyone else what they may say or discuss.

• Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are we Montanabw?

• I can assure you the media deal to hype a toothless group of 37 people out of ten thousand is sealed *behind closed doors*, but they remain a toothless group of 37 people though dont they?
  • made indirectly about native people in reference to my example of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) being given headline/feature coverage as if they represented participants in a demonstration or a movement or whatever when they do not. Equating native people as "toothless" is commented upon by montanabw before the later edits above. Some elders are indeed toothless, but they're not comically impotent or sword rattling; anything but. As for being a white homosexual activist, that I've never published that if it makes him good to spew homophobic slanders to make himself feel more macho and righteous, that's his problem not mine; that he would castigate and emasculate white supporters of natives doesn't speak well to his own self-proclaimed native identity (which I find dubious, and falls in the "some of my best friends are black" category of disclaimer, like political trolls as at Talk:Adrian Dix who claimed to not be of a political party/faction but obviously were, in tone and also in the goals they had for that page; WP:DUCK etc. In this, perhaps it's a bit of the old "methinks he protests too much" but the sexual identity challenges he's facing are his own, not mine to comment further on.

• This is my reply to the IP user's most recent attacks/hate comments; I agree with montanabw that its best to ignore such tripe but given that's the WP:IPNA talkpage, his comments are all the more offensive. I'm tart in my responses, perhaps because he's such an easy mark to have his words turned back against him. And to "call bullshit" what it is.

Rare for me to ever say this, but having made this post I will leave this to the "wisdom of the adminship" to be dealt with; and again, I recommend the origin of this series of attack-posts be determined and a domain-block or something of the kind be considered if there are issues with that origin's nature/funding.

I wasn't sure which ANI board to take this to; NPOV or NPA; I'm unconcerned with his libels....and can't afford a lawyer anyway, nor am I inclined to engage further in his negative energy. As montanabw advises elsewhere "Just keep on editing".... yeah, true, but this guy needs shutting down. With a sledgehammer.Skookum1 (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Masusimaru

User:Masusimaru has spent his whole time on WIkipedia for the last half year repeatedly edit warring on the Alexander Suvorov article. He continues to remove information about Suvorov's Armenian ancestry despite academic sources supporting it. And just recently, he has impersonated a bot and accused me of vandalism. Not only is wrongly accusing someone of vandalism a WP:PA, but Masusimaru has also now just violated WP:SIGFORGE. I have no problem with him and don't want to see him blocked, but I would like to request that Masusimaru no longer be allowed to edit this article. --Steverci (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that bot has been active for years... since 2006?!?!? _Fortuna 15:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

‎64.183.48.206 has returned as 2602:306:BDC5:6DC0:159D:A9F7:9682:6057

My favorite sociopath has decided to get around his six-month band by working from a different computer and posting his same abusive edits. Please block this one too. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't know if this is relevant, but see these usernames too- re they connected? Surely so!:

2601:9:A80:7CE:221:E9FF:FEE0:8C3C
2600:1010:B01F:BD99:543C:B037:142E:4FA6
2001:1388:106:FB3A:CCD7:275D:2FE1:CDDF
2A00:D880:3:2:0:0:F60B:1FB7
‎2602:306:cce7:5510:2c59:a3b0:5c7e:a6be
2600:1011:b049:465c:9491:e9ec:b6d0:98a9
‎2605:6000:9d83:d800:404:a84a:11de:2070
‎2003:48:2d2d:a01:a5a6:64c7:7fc4:5ea
‎2404:e801:7458:c972:5417:d542:bbd0:8461
2A01:E35:8A2D:AF10:DD5E:934A:3B5C:40FA
2601:E:1980:532:5C26:7E74:892D:5BFA
2a01:e35:8a2d:af10:2d2e:3cf4:16d:20b0
2001:8003:6023:1a01:a08a:512d:9829:65e7
2600:1005:B00C:E7DC:0:23:DD5E:B801
2605:e000:efc0:1c:68ee:f5e:5e64:670c
2001:464c:c401:0:1907:5a11:c2d3:56b5
2601:2:5780:b0c:c3:d3d8:7d7:91b1
2601:9:1980:907:B89F:3B1B:8318:20E9
2600:1006:b11d:5531:b945:d20a:9451:85d
2602:306:BDC5:6DC0:159D:A9F7:9682:6057

_Fortuna 15:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

those are WP:IPV6 addresses Avono (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards