Misplaced Pages

Frankly, I don't feel obliged to apologize for anything other than the (extremely mild) b-word and "bungler" stuff. My apology was genuine. But putting it in this over-the-top format was out of self-interest. Bink is a disruptive editor -- as his most recent block and long track record of blocks indicates -- and this justifies following him and reverting his errors and harassment of other users. I see no reason for imposing constraints on myself. Moreover, I view your behavior on this thread to be tendentious and motivated out of malice against me, so I'm not inclined to listen to you. I made this proposal out of self interest: because I wanted to save my hide and new that the pro-bink crowd would want some sort of concession.Steeletrap (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Srich, that's just nonsense. The controlling tone of your language, aside from serving no purpose, gives the appearance that you are trying to humiliate Ms. Steeletrap -- an editor with whom, accoding to Alanyst above, you've had a history of dysfunctional interactions. Taking it one step further, this entire silly thread has the surreal aspect of a Kabuki harassment of Steeletrap. Bink's an experienced editor, so whatever his complaint against Steeletrap's rude behavior, she was not hounding him. That had already been explained to him before he filed this ANI. Hmmm. What's up with that? I'm not suggesting a boomerang against Bink for harassment, but this whole dumb mess should be closed right now before another electron is diverted from the important goal of North American energy independence. All the initial "votes" from involved editors who piled on against Steeletrap occurred before Bink's block. I hope some Admin steps up to the plate and closes this so we can move on. SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Update: OP blocked: The complaint for which he was blocked cited harassment and edit warring. I mention this because it is supports my claim that Binksternet is a problematic editor who routinely violates policy and harasses other users. Contrary to what his friends and my enemies have indicated here, his edits can be tracked for good-faith reasons (i.e. improving the encyclopedia). That's all I did in the four allegations of "hounding", all of which involved correction of unambiguous errors (which led him to harass other users) and none of which involved PAs. (The "binkie" jokes occurred weeks earlier.) Steeletrap (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Stale news update: Binksternet has been unblocket. Perhaps it's time to resolve this. How about a block for the same number of hours that Binksternet suffered? – S. Rich (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Srich32977: Its hard for me to see what purpose would be served by "a block for the same number of hours that Binksternet suffered". Certainly not protecting the encyclopedia, or for that matter, offering any potential benefit to Bink. It doesn't serve any purpose other than a smackdown/vindiction. Though I hesitate to say this, it suggests that there are goals here other than correcting a problem. I suggest some emotional distance.

@Steeletrap: - Apologize sincerely and watch your step going forward. There are plenty of bad/aggressive edits on Misplaced Pages, and you don't have to be the world's policeman. Somebody else will deal with the more egregious examples, and even if they don't, the world will go on. Bink: take a powder and stop threatening and harrassing people over non-earth-shaking issues like whether what genre a 1970's Kinks song belongs to. It really doesn't matter in the greater scheme of things, and all you are doing is making the world a less pleasant place, which is certainly not the goal of anyone who takes pride as a professional in the entertainment industry.Formerly 98 (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, Bink's unblock has nothing to do with the merits of the original allegation of wrongdoing (for which he was appropriately blocked). It came in response to his (voluntary) acceptance of editing restrictions in response to his misconduct. I am happy he has accepted such editing restrictions and hope he chooses to extend them to other domains.

I apologize again for the language I used and the disrespect it reflected toward Bink. Steeletrap (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Just read Srich's "proposal." His proposals have shifted throughout the thread. Clearly, his goal is not to determine a reasonable, policy-rooted solution to this issue. Rather, he wants to punish me to the maximum extent possible. (He first supported an IBAN, then after Bink was banned supported only a warning, and now (having falsely perceived that Bink's unblock has allowed this ANI to regain momentum) This animus should be noted in future interactions between us. Steeletrap (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm may be stepping over the line here @Steeletrap:, but I think "I apologize again for the language I used and the disrespect it reflected toward Bink." would have been a good place to stop. Its time to convince us that you are going to do whatever is necessary so that we won't be back here mediating another conflict next week. Other than not using the B-word anymore, what's your plan going forward? Formerly 98 (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not willing to commit to not reverting Binksternet. Sorry. You yourself concede that he harasses other users. Should I really do nothing about that?

That said, I'm sincerely open to any suggestions you might have as to my future conduct (apart from obviously refraining from the puns about his name).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)

@Steeletrap:"Shifting proposals" is not quite accurate. I have suggested various possibilities in an effort to resolve this. They serve as possibilities for administrators to consider and perhaps implement. Some administrators may be willing to impose an IBAN, some may be willing to simply warn you. And others may simply say the whole thing should dropped, but I think that is unlikely. It is not my decision. You can figure out for yourself what proposal (mine or someone else's) is most acceptable to all involved. – S. Rich (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm reasonably optimistic that there won't be an IBAN. Another admin, AdjWilley, was going to end this thread without an IBan. He decided not to because of an argument we had on his wall. But his view on the merits of the issue was anti-Iban. Steeletrap (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a significant range of possibilities between the extremes of a interaction ban / promising to never revert and simply promising not to use the B-word in the future. If you have some suggestions on what would be a reasonable compromise, lets hear them. If not, maybe a two way interaction ban is the next best choice. What we'd all like to see is either a more productive interaction, or failing that, less interaction. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

OK here is another (big) concession: 1) I voluntarily agree not to edit Bink's talk page, except with official ANI announcements. 2) With the exception of postings on noticeboards, I will not make any "meta" statements about Binksternet as an editor.(E.G. I can say: "Binksternet is mistaken " but not "Binksternet is a mistake prone editor." This should not be taken as an admission of wrongdoing (wrt the "Hounding" charges) but gestures of good-will to Binksternet.

I also want to see you (80) push for Binksternet to be warned for harassment of other users, a position you say you support. He should also pledge to stop this behavior. If he improves his behavior, my obligation to interact with him will dissipate. Steeletrap (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me add: My acceptance of the above terms of agreement is contingent upon Bink accepting the same arrangement. (I.E. no posts on my talk page exempting ANI notices (meaning: no templates) and no meta-statements about me as an editor.) Fair is fair. Steeletrap (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a great plan to me. @Binksternet: would that be an acceptable arrangement to you? It would be make a very positive impression on everybody if you guys could solve this, or at least give this a solid try for while. Can we all de-escalate here? Formerly 98 (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by Volunteer Marek

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

I normally have no major problems interacting with other editors. I first encountered User:Volunteer Marek ten days ago when I made the mistake of posting a mildly critical comment about one of his reverts at Talk:Ukraine (diff.) Within minutes he followed me to another article. Over the next few days, VM followed me to a variety of other articles and talk pages, initiating edit wars at two of them. He would find a reason to quarrel with me in every instance. I believe that this may be an example of WP:HOUNDING. I left a polite inquiry on VM's talk page, which he first ignored, then deleted.

Volunteer Marek's block log demonstrates that he has been blocked repeatedly for edit warring, incivility, and harassment. He has also been sanctioned by Arbcom. (block log) There have been recent complaints made about him on ANI, by other editors in other contexts. He makes an astonishing number of reverts, but it is difficult to count them because of the misleading edit summaries. He frequently reverts without engaging on the talk page, or makes baseless claims that a consensus exists for his reverts.

VM has been less than civil, continually violating WP:ASPERSIONS: diffdiffdiff (and I know he is aware of the policy, because during the same time frame, he was rudely accusing another editor of violating it: diff.) A careful examination of the diffs in the edits he is reverting will reveal that no sourced material is being removed. Three sections which are all drawn from the same 2 or 3 sources are being re-organized into one section. VM continually insisted that somehow sourced material is being deleted, and has used this as a pretext to engage in revert warfare, and to make unfounded accusations. Eventually he disclosed that he objected to the consolidation because it resulted in fewer headings, and he considered the headings to be "sourced material," a novel interpretation.

There is clearly a pattern of tendentious editing here, and it affects many editors other than myself. My impression is that on this noticeboard, you prefer to discuss behavior rather than content issues, so I have tried to confine my remarks to behavior. It would be nice if something could be done about this, particularly the WP:HOUNDING, because it makes the editing experience unnecessarily stressful. Joe Bodacious (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I will start by pointing out that the edit in the above-related thread was resolved in a basically satisfactory manner to stabilize the Kagan article, but even after that the attempts to dismiss the text continued on the BLP thread and became even more tendentious, with User:Iryna Harpy appearing out of nowhere and making a first edit accusing me of "Some form of gaming the system at work here?" and later with forum shopping, with her most recent edit being even more inflammatory even after appeals to cease followed by an query on her user Talk page after I noticed that she might have a strong emotional connection to the subject matter.

Meanwhile, VM has deliberately been promoting a misinterpretation of the Foreign Affairs piece (i.e., misrepresenting that piece) as an excuse for his continual POV pushing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT conduct on the same material in the Kagan article. Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#better_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubikwit (talk • contribs) 10:31, 12:01 23 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Given that an RfC on Schiller Institute is ongoing, I think any admin action will be rather counterproductive. That being said, Marek's comments are combative - insinuating that other people are editing maliciously or in bad faith is not conducive to a productive discussion. I would recommend that he keeps such allegations to a minimum, to avoid any future ANI threads from cropping up. Indeed, all parties involved could do better to stop with the allegations of POV-pushing (it is never helpful). —Dark 10:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even aware of the Schller institute article, let alone the RfC, though I see that the OP is involved in that. On the other hand, as the OP mentions, the scope of the conduct is much broader, spanning numerous other articles and notice board discussions.

I should specifically point out, with regard to the Nuland article, that when I made this edit, basically establishing the present text relating to the incident at issue, I specifically left out the text associated with the source I brought to RS/N Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Voice_of_Russia_article_reliable_for_quotations_attributed_to_PM.3F, which had been deleted with the edit summary VoR is not reliable.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• First, Ubikwit, does this have anything to do with you? No? Then why are you here? WP:BATTLEGROUND? Please give it up. As to the issues you raise, you brought them to like four different forums now, and didn't get the answer you want. Other users, like @Iryna Harpy: and @Collect: have pointed this out to you: (quote: "This board is for answering questions -- when one gets an answer one does not like, it is a waste of time using this board -- it is like saying "I want your opinion if and only if it is exactly the same as my own" which does not work. The wording you seek states as a fact in Misplaced Pages's voice that she "supported anti-government protests" and we can not do that on the basis of a Voice of Russia article. As for your ad hom that this is a specious claim that VoR is not reliable I would note that ArbCom has noted your specific battleground use of Misplaced Pages in the past. " - to Ubikwit)). So drop the stick and back away from the horse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Marek, I have indented your comment since you are not addressing the main point, only comments raised subsequently. I urge you to comment on the original point, if you want to make headway. Shooting a (subsequent) messenger is rarely a good idea. Best, Drmies (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, hold on. Easier point addressed first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Additionally, anyone can comment here, as long as their input as relevant to the reported issue. MV can't pick and choose who is allowed to comment. I agree that MV should focus on the reported issue. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It's VM, not MV. And yes, anyone can comment. But that doesn't change the fact that some people comment because they are pursuing a WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If you focus on commenting on the basis of the report, the (alleged) motives will become irrelevant. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

In regard to User:Joe Bodacious.

1. There's an ongoing RfC on the talk page of the article about the Lyndon LaRouche organization Schiller Institute about the section entitled "Allegations of antisemitism" . Hersch has been trying to remove that section from the article for awhile, hence the RfC. Rather than waiting for the RfC to conclude he began trying to get his way by:

1a. Removing the section title ("Allegations of antisemitism")

1b. Removing another section title ("Cult allegations")

1c. Removing the key sentence "The Schiller Institute has been accused of spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories"

1d. Adding in a spurious {{speculation}} tag, which has not been agreed to or discussed on the talk page.

And doing all this with edit summaries which claimed that no material was being removed, that no major changes were being made, and that this was only a "reorganization" of existing material. These are obviously very POV changes, there's an ongoing RfC exactly about this matter, and objections to these changes specifically were brought up on the talk page, by myself and @Serialjoepsycho: and @Binksternet:. Hence, this was very much an attempt to try and sneak in controversial changes "under the radar", under the pretense that "no sourced material was being removed".

2. Note that my initial comments and edit summaries merely pointed out that there WERE in fact major changes being made. It's only when Joe Bodacious insisted on these changes and kept pretending that nothing was going on (AFTER he was asked about it on the talk page) that I said that this was "sneaky". AGF specifically says: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary" and that certainly applies here.

3. It's the height of hypocrisy of Joe Bodacious to accuse me of incivility when he reverts with edit summaries such as "previous edit summary is utter nonsense"

4. Other users, like User:Binksternet and User:Serialjoepsycho have vociferously disagreed with Joe Bodacious on this. Indeed, Serialjoepsycho explicitly suggested taking this to AN/I in order to deal with Joe's disruption on the article. Let me quote their comment in full: "It's probably time to take this to ANI. You have policy shopping, advocacy, and a user making bad faith edits on another page due to a conversation here. And so much more can just be said." (note that this comment explicitly recognizes that it was actually Joe who was engaging in stalking). Hence, this is actually a "preemptive" strike by Joe Bodacious with the aim of diverting attention away from himself.

5. So... if I file a sockpuppet request at this point will it be seen as "retaliatory"? I've been teetering on the edge of doing so for awhile, since the connection to another LaRouche sock master appears pretty obvious but you know, I made the mistake of "assuming good faith". And now I get this AN/I for my AGF. Kids, remember, that's what assuming goof faith will get you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that WP:ASPERSIONS refers to unfounded accusations. My criticisms were valid and founded. This "aspersion" is a perfectly valid criticism. Tag was added. Section heading was removed. Discussion is here. This "aspersion" is perfectly legit, the reasoning for the comment is right there ("...there's absolutely no policy or guideline..."). This "aspersion" is also perfectly accurate. The concern about the removal of section heading had been raised on talk repeatedly AND the discussion on talk OPPOSED this change .

Contrary to the incorrect belief of some editors, "criticism" is not "personal attack" (usually the way this is framed is "If I criticize you, that's ok, but if you criticize me, then, gosh darn it, you're attacking me!". That's not how it works.)Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

My first impression of Joe Bodacious was that he was a sockpuppet of Herschelkrustofsky, a pro-LaRouche editor who was banned for disruption. "Krusty" has continued to make comments about the various LaRouche articles from his box seat at Wikipediocracy, for instance a topic in January titled "Is Binksternet the new Will Beback, or just his proxy," which is full of ridiculous conjecture that says more about Krusty than anything else. If Joe is Krusty then he should be blocked. I have not put together a sockpuppet case because the Krusty account was blocked so long ago and the trail of evidence is cold. The SPI would be based on behavior alone, a difficult proposal. Of course, since Joe clearly does not have neutrality as his guiding light (he is instead concerned primarily with promoting LaRouche), he is not really cut out for Misplaced Pages editing. So there's two more practical ways to solve this problem: topic ban Joe from LaRouche-related edits, or block Joe for disruption. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

My opening statement seems to have inspired a lot of diversionary tactics. Incidentally, WP:ASPERSIONS says: "If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums." Littering article talk pages and edit summaries with aspersions creates a toxic environment, which is the hallmark of WP:Tendentious editing. I considered adding Binksternet, another very tendentious editor, to this request for admin action, but I didn't want to make it more complicated than it already is. Joe Bodacious (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

And let us note that you didn't even bother denying the sock puppet accusation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Was there an accusation there? If so, I deny it. I just regarded Binksternet's comments as a frantic attempt to change the subject. Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's awesome that paid operatives of Lyndon LaRouche are really working to make our encyclopedia reflect the truth about the British Monarchy that has, for so long, been suppressed. More power to them! Hipocrite (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hipocrite, out of curiosity, at whom was that snipe aimed?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

To address my comment related to, "a user making bad faith edits on another page due to a conversation here." I wasn't talking about Joe. Another user who doesn't seem to be involved here in this AN/I. A SPA.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, your statement about disruptive users was in response to my talk page discussion post referring to Joe Bodacious' edit so I assumed you were referring to him. But yes, the other LaRouchite account active on that article, User:Waalkes is also an SPA and also up to some shenanigans in that topic area .Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

LaRouche operatives have edited this site on behalf of the organization for years. I wasted months of my time on a long, drawn-out mediation I was trying to facilitate between Will Beback and one of the LaRouche socks, until the sock was uncovered and blocked. It's a real problem and it has been happening for a long time. Whether or not Joe Bodacious is one of them, I have no idea, but I can tell you from personal experience that it's easy to be fooled by them. (Or maybe I'm just gullible.) -- Atama頭 17:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have inadequate evidence to start an SPI, then that comment is probably out of order. Moreover, this thread encompasses a far greater scope than the subject to which you refer, yet you address none of the other material, including the preceding comment that repudiates at least one of VM's charges against Joe as an outright misrepresentation of the actual state of affairs.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I know that LaRouche operatives fought with Will Beback for a long period of time, and for someone to bring up WB while simultaneously taking a pro-LaRouche stance, I can't help but be at least somewhat suspicious given my experience. Take a look at this mess to see why I am just a bit sensitive about this issue. -- Atama頭 18:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, see here for the conclusion of all that drama. -- Atama頭 18:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll take your word for it because I don't have time to look into that. But tell me, do you think it reasonable that this entire thread has been hijacked by that single issue? Have the other issues been adequately addressed? My interaction with both Joe and VM started with the Robert Kagan article, and there is absolutely no question that VM was in the wrong and acting as a troublemaker, basically. I'm concerned that this thread is sort of appearing to give VM a pass in light of some unsubstantiated suspicion that Joe might be a LaRouche plant. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I honestly didn't intend to contribute to any hijacking, considering that I haven't seen anything concrete that suggests that Joe is from the LaRouche organization (yet). I'll say one more thing on that subject, then hopefully I won't feel the need to bring it up anymore... Almost 5 years ago, we were able to get info from an ISP that showed what IP block was assigned to that organization, and identify an operative/sock via CheckUser information. If necessary it can be done again. So for anyone who feels there is sufficient behavioral evidence to pursue an investigation, don't worry about info being too "stale" for CheckUser to be of help, it still might be useful. Though it would be done in a somewhat non-standard way.

To get back to the subject, Ubikwit you brought up the Robert Kagan article. What I see there is not that VM is in the wrong. My opinion on that conflict is this... VM argued that the information was not worth keeping because the sources were editorials, you argued that there was nothing in BLP that restricted such information. I think both of your basic premises were potentially valid there. You edit-warred, which was a no-no, but it was a somewhat low key edit war (nobody violated or even reached 3RR) and it ended up going to the talk page which is what you hope happens in that situation. I don't think VM made much of an effort to argue their point, and the discussion on the talk page ended up getting derailed by what VM (properly) labeled as off-topic discussion about Kagan. It seemed to have proceeded in better fashion on BLPN. My suggestion is to let it resolve there, I don't see that administrators need to step in here to act at this point. Given VM's history, I won't rule out the possibility of blocks being needed if matters escalate, but I'll also note that the last block was a couple of years ago, so that might not be necessary. -- Atama頭 20:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Atama: I didn't mean to suggest that you were part of the diversion of the course of this thread into a netherland of LaRouche preocupied comments, not intentionally, at any rate. That is the course of development I see, however.

Regarding the Kagan article, not all of the pieces were opinion pieces, though you are correct that I also argued against exclusion of the opinion pieces. I don't have time to dig out the diffs at the moment, but if you go through that thread carefully, especially the subthread on "better sources", you'll see that other authors maintained that the Foreign Affairs piece (to be fair, VM is included in this group), as well as the Guardian piece were not opinion pieces.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 20:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

On a side but related note. Aren't Kagan and Nuland both political targets of the Larouche movement?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, Serialjoepsycho, I'll be damned if I know, and its not a concern of mine at this point, nor is it relevant except insofar as you may be suggesting that Joe B arrived on those pages with a related agenda. I did not, and I can assure that the issues there are fully demonstrated on the related discussion threads to have nothing to do with LaRouche, only WP:RS, WP:PUBLICFIGURE and related polices. If you are interested in the subject matter, I suggest this article from Foreign Affairs, Present at the Re-Creation, A Neoconservative Moves On, for starters.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 21:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of fairness, I don't think anyone has accused (or has cause to accuse, or even suspect) that Ubikwit has any connection to the LaRouche organization, and in discussing any sort of conflict between Ubikwit and Volunteer Marek whether or not the article(s) involved are related to that organization is academic. It might be relevant when discussing Joe Bodacious given the allegations made. Just thought I'd point that out, for the sake of anyone following this discussion and to assure Ubikwit that nobody seems to be making any such insinuations. -- Atama頭 22:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Block/Ban?

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

I feel that After looking At His Contributions, We can safely Say that Volunteer Marek should Be blocked Or banned, I am not Proposing It (Putting it up to vote). As more of Opening This idea to Debate, Any Comments? Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 17:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

How long have you been on Misplaced Pages? And already hanging out at AN/I? Nice username btw.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI is always 3 clicks away from any page (Community portal -> Dispute resolution -> link to ANI). OhanaUnited 19:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support It seems that User:Serialjoepsycho just repudiated VM's misrepresentation of his edits/statements.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose No grounds given to remotely reach that sort of proposal. Collect (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for insufficient evidence. I also am going to ping @Dougweller: about this, given his interest in the topic in general. John Carter (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean to start voting prematurely, but the repudiation I referred seems to call for supporting a ban/block, because dealing with VM is an extremely time consuming enterprise due to his continually disruptive conduct.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's "time consuming" it's only because you insist on bringing up the same issue over and over and over and over again to every forum you can find, in search of an answer you'd like. For god's sake you even tried to shoehorn this dispute into an ongoing ArbCom case , that I have nothing to do with, and AFTER Evidence stage had been closed! And at every one of these forums you've been told over and over and over again by all kinds of people, by numerous editors that you're simply wrong and that you don't understand BLP policy. In couple cases you've seized upon some minor off the cuff comment someone made to declare "victory" only to be told by others that, no, you're still wrong. You've extended this harassment of myself, to other editors, such as User:Collect or User:Iryna Harpy. You're running all across Misplaced Pages shouting and ranting, posting walls of text, making accusations against anyone who disagrees with you and are just completely unable to step back and drop the stick. Chances are you're gonna get sanctioned in that ArbCom case, at least based on a quick look, the precedent set in the previous ArbCom case where you got topic ban, and the evidence there. This is a genuinely meant good faithed advice: drop it. Stop creating WP:BATTLEGROUNDs. Write an article or something. Create content. Leave good folks alone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@VM, apparently you are displeased that your attempts to displace a 2+-year consensus passage on the Robert Kagan article as well as the controversy surrounding the phone conversation recordings of Kagan's wife, Victoria Nuland article were foiled in large part due to my efforts on those articles and related discussions.

Arbcom will examine your conduct and mine in relation to the specifics of that case on American Politics, but this thread is a separate matter related to the community and your conduct on a broader scope of articles, which precedes my presentation of evidence against you in the Arbcom case, incidentally.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"Foiled"? Are you some crime-fighting-masked-crusader? What are you talking about? The junk material was removed, like I insisted (there's some IP trying to restore it but nm).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, VM, who was that masked man?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

...Just more the Reason To take some kind of Punishment against this repeat Offender, I feel that we should not just keep extending His leash. Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 18:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

^^^ If this isn't a disruptive sock account here only to create drama and lulz then I'm really a talking horse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If you are going to block or ban there needs to be more discussion and further investigation. He's not alone in that article talk page. And I don't think VM made a bad faith interpretation of my statement. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho, thanks for the clarification. There is much more to VM's conduct that needs to be examined here than the talk page to which reference is being made. The WP:HOUNDING has not been addressed, nor anything outside of the LaRouche material, which I've been exposed to for the first time in which thread and which appears to be a long-running issue.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, because I really don't want my name associated with anything to do with LaRouche - when you refer to "LaRouche material" that involves me cleaning up and removing PRO-LaRouche POV pushing from those articles. And it's not a "long-running issue". Stop making false accusations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to under stand Ubi. I don't mean further investigation of VM. I mean of everyone involved. Your going to start shooting for a ban it's best to know everything going on.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

No doubt you are right about that, because I have no connection to the Schiller Institute article, but with Jo Bodacious on the Robert Kagan article, where VM's tendentiousness was a serious drawback. I'm waiting to see this unfold, but it seems to be diverting into one direction only (the LaRouche related article), when VM's conduct on other articles is clearly at issue.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• strong oppose This does not come close to behavior requiring a community ban, nor topic ban. While VM's behavior is not perfect this isn't even warring of the type that would require a short block for cooling off. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Which of the diffs have you taken the time to examine, exactly, which "warring"? --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I read all of the diffs above. They are not evidence of warring requiring a block imo. If there are OTHER diffs that do show warring requiring action, those should be presented in an unambiguous manner, in which case you can skip the drama here and go directly to WP:ANEW where the blocks will happen without any debate required. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, now you have single-handedly transformed the thread about "tendentious editing" into a thread about "edit warring", which is a much narrower scope. That is a diversion from the stated subject of the thread.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - completely ridiculous proposal. We need more editors who are willing to insist reliable sourcing at BLPs, not less.--Staberinde (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Stupid idea. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - To put it bluntly - Possibly the stupidest idea known to man! - VM isn't perfect but who is ... Give him a warning & just move on!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - VM's got strong opinions and isn't afraid to show them when they don't match other people's. Not really the Securitas depot robbery. A some GF and settle it over a cup of tea. Ritchie333 20:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose While it does seem that VM can be abit coarse, alot of the complaint here really seems like this is tit for tat. It wouldn't make much sense to punish VM because Joe ran to teacher first.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Why do I have this unsettling feeling that an undisclosed COI team of possibly paid contributors is on the offensive here? Any ideas? Poeticbent talk 20:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• OpposeHonestly this seems over the top. I can't see the evidence to support it. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - no substantial evidence, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposal is premature in the extreme. HAD should read the guidelines for blocks and bans to learn that they are preventative not punitive. MarnetteD | Talk 21:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

• Probably a good idea for more editors to keep a weather eye on User:Happy Attack Dog, an editor who hasn't smelled right to me since they appeared three and a half months ago, and quickly began to comment here and on AN. BMK (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It is common practice to notify the editor involved when discussing them. I also don't think that it is particularly appropriate to accuse him of foul play when, for all intents and purposes, all he appears to be is a relatively new and inexperienced editor who is less familiar with our policies. Judging from his contributions, perhaps he is not familiar with the nuances involved in these user conduct discussions but I doubt he is acting maliciously as you implied. As an aside, his name is rather unfortunate... —Dark 06:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I haven't accused anybody of anything, unless you count that I've accused myself of having a good digital olfactory sense. I've merely suggested that other editors might like to keep their eyes on User:Happy Attack Dog. I'll stand by that. BMK (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Given that you are posting this to ANI rather than expressing concerns on the editor's talk page as you should be doing, your intent may be misconstrued. —Dark 09:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• The same concerns have already been expressed more than once here on ANI about the same editor. Nobody was opening a "case", no need to notify. No biggie the panda ₯’ 10:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• What would make me not Smell Right (What makes you Suspicious of Me)? And I also Have the Notion That You should not base Someone Off of how fast They Get involved in Certain Areas. Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 17:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've discussed my concerns on your talk page before, and you've ignored them, so I'm not going to go into them with you now, what would be the point? I'm merely suggesting -- to other editors -- that many eyes on a potential problem is a good idea. BMK (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

An editor editing other editor's talk-page posts

There is a discussion at Talk:Desireé Cousteau that has gone into surrealism. I can't even even describe the eccentricities going on, and this one, by an editor who keeps bringing up bestiality, is something I've never seen. An Associated Press wire-service story published here and elsewhere states the contentious fact that a public figure was arrested on a misdemeanor charge while promoting her movie. User:Herostratus is going around to other editors' posts on the page and writing "REDACTED" as if he were some NSA officer. He's redacting words like "arrest" and "police"! See this diff.

This is insane. He's claiming that factual information from 1981 is "contentious." People at this long, long discussion are making horrible claims about the AP islike right-wingers demeaning scientists because they don't like reports of climate change. Please intervene. This editor's spy-movie-fantasy redacting seems like disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a desperate attempt to include edits like this in the article. That diff introduces "(also named ...)" where the reference actually goes to a Google archive of a newspaper with a 1981 story of a porn star being arrested for posing nude on someone's lap. That smells of an attempt to use Misplaced Pages to tell the world about a VERY IMPORTANT EVENT without concern for whether it is WP:DUE. Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, there's nothing wrong with sourcing to something offline, so if the source is good, the Google archive link is unnecessary (though sometimes helpful). But of course, that doesn't answer any WP:DUE questions. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Evidently related to WP:BLPN#Desireé Cousteau. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

These are all tangential issues. The specific article doesn't matter. The question is: Should an editor take it upon himself to play vigilante-censor and edit other people's posts, or should he report it to an admin if he thinks there's an issue? I think editing other people's posts crosses a serious line. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no encyclopedic value in including a totally non-notable event from 1981 in about an article or discussion about an individual. NE Ent 02:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No one is including any event from 1981! The article has never mentioned an event from 1981. All the article is doing is citing her name to an impeccable RS. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Meh. WP:BLP is policy everywhere on the encyclopedia. It's absolutely appropriate for anybody to remove something that has been decided to be harmful to a living person. That said, I personally think even removing the word "police" and "arrest" from the talk page comments is at least bordering on ridiculous. I presume the concern has to do with a WP:DOLT-like issue with saying someone's been arrested before... which I think is really shaky for the factual circumstances (other than the name). If the RfC discussion is over and it's really that much of a problem, a courtesy blank might be more appropriate than trying to make sense out of a Swiss-cheesed discussion. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

That's just it — the RfC isn't over. Nothing's been decided. There was nothing even approaching a consensus: After one day, a couple of editors decided they wanted to have their way, and made the change by Wikilawyering specious claims amounting to, "We say the Associated Press isn't good enough."

But none of that is the point. We're not here to re-debate the RfC — go to that page if you want to do that. The point here is that an editor unilaterally decided he was going to edit other editors' posts, rather than reporting any alleged misbehavior to an admin. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think it's debatable whether a consensus has been reached, though the aggressive redaction makes assessing the quality of the arguments difficult (impossible with some comments); I know I could view the edit history and see the old comments... but further redaction, which will surely happen unless the RfC is closed now, will render this discussion an unbelievable chore to assess. That's actually a problem too... if the source keeps getting redacted from the page, participants won't be able to readily evaluate for themselves whether it's a reliable source. They can try to find the prior revision for now, but that'll become too much of a chore before long. They could also depend on the other participants' summaries of the article's contents... except those have mostly been redacted.

So... in short, this redaction in practice serves to foreclose further substantial discussion... which is probably fine if a consensus has been reached. RfCs don't need to run the full 30 days; heck, they probably don't even need to run one day (we aren't a court or bureaucracy)... but if we're going to not allow further discussion of this, then do it. Otherwise... we need to have the link and the comments restored for now (except for what's actually necessary to be redacted). After the discussion is closed, fine, courtesy blank it.

But as to the general question of policy you seem to be asking, Tenebrae, WP:TPO governs (generally) when users may modify other users talk page comments, and there's no "only admins" restriction that I can see. And honestly, I see no problem with removing BLP-violative material that another has posted... providing that material actually violates WP:BLP. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 06:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I thank you for your comments. Exactly so: Anyone can claim the other side of a discussion is violating BLP and then shredding their comments.

My point about requesting an admin speaks exactly to that: Does this or that material violate BLP? Someone involved in the discussion himself is not the one to make that call. It needs an objective third party, whether admin or mediator. Otherwise it's vigilantism. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Your assessment regarding what is tangential is not correct. The real issue is that people should not use Misplaced Pages to exercise their right of free speech in order to tell the world that a minor person had an incident in 1981. Yes, it's terribly exiciting because they were naked and they sat on a police officer's lap, and they got arrested. Nevertheless, it not desirable to use Misplaced Pages to ensure that all gossip is permanently recorded. When was the last time that a secondary source commented on the implications of the arrest? Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq, we can do without the belittling. Tenebrae, it's not quite as bad as you suggest; my issue with it only goes so far as that the redaction renders several comments hard to understand. I think that if we restored everything except the name to the discussion we'd be fine. Talk page redaction is a hard thing to get right in a manner that satisfies all involved, though. Just because I disagree with how Herostratus did the redaction doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

Honestly though, even if the material is restored, I feel very confident your position is going to lose out in the RfC. For various (good) reasons, we tend to afford pornographic actors and actresses a bit of extra privacy despite having some pretty wicked research tools at our disposal. The burden you're facing in my mind is not whether the source is good, nor whether it's her real name, but whether her real name is actually relevant to her career in a significant way... and that nobody else seems to have reported on her real identity in over 30 years seems a pretty good sign that nobody cares. While I agree with you that this sort of contextual information is great for giving an article more humanity and flavor, the community has long held that individuals' evident wishes to remain pseudonymous are pretty well respected, and I see no real reason to go in a different direction here. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 07:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I grant that I went through the discussion with a buzzsaw. But I outlined my reasons for doing so here: Talk:Desireé Cousteau#Re contentious allegations without a ref. In a nutshell, even on a talk page, you can't say contentious (deprecatory, embarrassing, whatever word you want) stuff without at least a ref. I tried to put in the ref, and I tried to gently remind people to be careful, but it didn't take, and the ref was removed at least twice (which may well have been justified). So fine, but then there's no ref. My reading of the BLP talk page template passage "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page" was that my best remaining option was to deploy a buzzsaw. There was no intent to make it look like editors had written something they didn't; I think that most people understand that in a comment is probably something added latter by another editor. Suggestions about alternative actions I could have taken (but with "do nothing" probably not being on the table) would be helpful and educational. Herostratus (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the only things truly contentious in a BLP sense were whether the individual identified in the article was actually the subject, and whether the name attached was actually the subject's name. Whether we should use the subject's name is a whole 'nother BLP issue. That someone was arrested, that a person identified as the subject was arrested, and that such arrest was published in a newspaper aren't BLP-contentious (though they certainly do not belong in articlespace for a variety of reasons); the source is reliable for that purpose. That's why I don't think you were correct in redacting so aggressively: merely removing the name would have been enough. Herostratus, in essence, your redactions have the same effect as ending the discussion in favor of non-inclusion. While I feel based on what little I know that it is the correct result, the way you went about it concerns me. In the future you might be better served by either asking an outside party to handle it or directly requesting oversight of such discussion (though honestly, I'm not sure this discussion would be subject to oversight). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, but there was no source. If you say "Person X was arrested for such-and-such" you're supposed to provide a ref. (Providing a ref was not possible, since at least one editor was objecting to that). On a talk page too I would say although that's more debatable and subject to particular circumstances. You could have found the source by digging into the page history, either for the article or the talk page, though. Whether that's enough, for a talk page, I dunno. It wouldn't be for an article. Yeah I agree that oversight would probably be overkill. OK I take your point about requesting an outside party, that's reasonable. Herostratus (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Well hold up, no source? What's the Lakeland Ledger ref if not a source? Maybe not good enough for articlespace, but easily enough to start a discussion as to whether other sources could be found, or to evaluate the source? (perhaps there's some confusion? when I say "person identified in the article" above, I meant person identified in the Lakeland Ledger/AP Wire story). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 05:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

But Lakeland Ledger is not cited anywhere. I added a Lakeland Ledger cite to the talk page, specifically to ref the allegations, but it was removed twice -- once by the OP here on grounds that it was added as a second-party edit to a post under his name which is never allowed (a reasonable but IMO wrong point), then when I re-added it was removed by User: Paine Ellsworth... grumble grumble, ten minutes to find this... here and replaced by "If the is returned, this will have to be reported to the BLP noticeboard" so I guess his grounds were that just including the ref is a BLP violation (a reasonable and possibly correct point). So one option was then to initiate a discussion about whether the ref should be allowed or not. But we already had a significant side-issue going and things were confused enough already. Another option would be to hand-wave and add something like <ref>''Lakeland Ledger'', you know the story we mean</ref> but that would not be very useful to future readers, while <ref>''Lakeland Ledger'', look in the history around May 2014 and you'll find it</ref> would be awfully close to an end-around of two editors who had removed the link. Herostratus (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Well... honestly I'd beg to differ with those who were removing the reference at that point, but I understand where they'd be coming from. Even so... I don't think the aggressive redaction was the right answer. And on top of that, remember, an offline source is still a valid source. You can absolutely say "the Lakeland Ledger article" provided there's enough information to otherwise identify it somewhere. It doesn't need to be openly linked to work, nor does it need to be placed in an immediate footnote attached to other editors' comments (remember, while footnotes are the preferred way of citing things, it's not the only way to do so). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 20:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-English racist and anti-ethnicity comments

Involved editors

• Hirabutor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Yagmurlukorfez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Diffs: , ,

Per WP:NOT, both users are involved in non-WP actions. --175.120.16.140 (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Translations (Google)

• I Yagmurlukorfez days, as I see you're busy few weeks in the wiki. I'm from the Persian or Turkish chauvinist anti-Western parties, none of which you're also şaşırmadıs. Unfortunately, it is very common here, including especially the Persian chauvinists. I've had the same thing, but thankfully did not achieve success until now. One of the reasons I'm using reliable and trustworthy sources. I want to talk to you a lot of chauvinistic puppet farce account the fact that the main subject is using. Until now, I've deciphered some. But these issues with you no longer want to treat in a confidential manner. If you have any private communication would be glad of the opportunity. yours truly

Work as a team

• Thank you for your attention. Well, here clearly that nationalism, fitting remove sourced content reasons (particularly on major issues), I came across users. Kyrgyz and racist attacks against me from experiencing the latest and most likely you have heard from the vandalism. As you say, a "chauvinist groupings" Do you have, if any, in this direction, I'm not sure exactly what the end looks quite likely that if we look at what happened. Turkish Misplaced Pages could meet on IRC
• Reply: I'm a little busy right now, but next week we could continue. To discuss the Turkish Misplaced Pages --175.120.16.140 (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Notified the two users. No comment on the issue since I can't read Turkish (nor know enough about the language to work around Google Translate's... shall we say idiosyncrasies). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

This IP is blocked IP for racist attacks to me. Here. Seems, He/she is come back again. I guess he using proxy. Btw, There is no "racist" comment. That's about nationalism in wikipedia. Google translate can't help you. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It is abvious that this person is using a proxy server for anonymous surfing to hide his/her IP address. The same person was reported here. He or she is using a wide range of proxies from various countries such as Georgia, Sweden, Japan, Korea, USA etc. Maybe the main IP acts from the Ferdowsi University in Iran. My guess is that this user is rhetorically related to User:Zyma and User:Ergative_rlt and maybe even to the banned User:Iranzamin-Iranzamin, all of them prominent for their radical Persian point of view. That the ip is certainly related to User:Zyma we can conclude from these edits:

1. User_talk:Florian_Blaschke#Recent_unreliable_changes_on_Afanasevo_culture_and_Andronovo_culture,
2. User_talk:Florian_Blaschke#Are_these_sources_expert_or_valid.3F. --Hirabutor (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Providing better translation as Google Translate's machine translate is far from being perfect: Good days Yagmurlukorfez, As I see you' re very active in wiki for a couple weeks. I hope you are not surprised with the Persian chauvinists or Western people with anti-Turk position. Unfortunately, it is very common here, including especially the Persian chauvinists. I also faced the same thing, but fortunately, they did not achieve the success until now. One of the reasons I'm using reliable and trustworthy sources. The main topic that I'd want to discuss with you is that a lot of Persian chauvinistic use sock-puppet accounts. Until now, I've deciphered some. But I'd want to discuss the topic with you confidentially. I would be glad, if you have any private communication opportunity. My respects

Answer: Thank you for your attention. Well, I here came across shows clearly nationalism, and remove sourced content with crap reasons (particularly on major issues). Probably, you are informed about the racist attacks on me and made vandalism which was made in the topic about the Kyrgyz people. I am not sure if there are "chauvinist groupings"or if there are some, I am not sure on which direction they are working, but if we look at the incidents which happened recently it can be seen that is quite possible. We can meet each other in Turkish Misplaced Pages on IRC

Answer 2: I am quite busy these days. See you in Turkish Misplaced Pages

Comment: As it can be seen these users are not saying anything really chauvinistic or something else. But rather trying to coordinate to stop anti-Turk POV biased users with reliable sources. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Not going to comment on the translations due to language difficulties, but it is recommended that editors use English for their communications on this project in the future, just to avoid any suggestions of impropriety. However assuming that the IP who started this thread is the same as the one from Kyrgyz people (a reasonable assumption given that this is the IP's first edits); there appears to be no merit to the complaint and this is simply persistent harassment. —Dark 17:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

How to deal with this: , ? --Hirabutor (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

lol WTF?! Look at this revision history: . --Hirabutor (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Hirabutor's first comment. These users are totally aggressive and they got obvious biased actions about certain articles. I think it is a suspicious stiation and should be check. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@DarkFalls: I think you're a biased and POV admin. You don't decide by logic. This report is clear and these two users are involved in an ethnic war. Those IPs are disruptive, but it doesn't mean that you ignore these two users. All of these users (two registered accounts and those IPs) have battleground actions with strong ethnic/racial/nationalistic views. Now I learned why "The Decline of Misplaced Pages" just started. Because some admins like you try to give extra credits to registered users despite their behaviors. There is no difference between those racist IPs and these two ethnocentrist users. --24.69.98.233 (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Minor trolling

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

• Unhex(46 75 63 6b 20 79 6f 75 21) (talk · contribs)
• Category:Encrypted usernames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a very minor incident, but it would be better if WP:DENY were applied soon. The above user name is "Fuck you!", and they created the category to highlight equally clever previous incarnations. A block and speedy delete would be useful. Johnuniq (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

About the above. (Understand bilingual puns in Classical Chinese and Korean? No problem. Research hip-hop in Nigeria? Sure, I can do that. Understand Math jokes? Ummm... this has got something to do with all your base are belong to 16, right?) Could someone explain to me off-dramaboard what was going on there, in easy to understand words, suitable for people who have problems with simple mental arithmetic? TIA. Pete AU --Shirt58 (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the other two usernames that he tagged to the category he created, but that one is Unicode for "F U" (as noted) - and as he left notes on his user page, user talk page, and I think elsewhere to "Use a unicode converter!" it was pretty blatant he was just here "for the lulz" - the fact he immediately started posting at multiple locations - including CfD! - that his category was appropriate was also a sign that constructiveness was not to be expected. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks and massive POVish edits

User:LouisAragon is attacking me and my country . He's also an extreme POV pusher, using Netherland IPs . How can I deal with this racist editor who responds with long nonsense statements that are outside of the topic?Alien from Afghanistan (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Alien of Afghanistan has created his account here merely to push an agenda and WP:VANDAL in order to do so. In this very short time, almost all of his contributions and edits have got reverted, got a ton of WP:GOODFAITH reversions by users (wich unfortunately didn't have any effect), and is already on the brink of getting blocked, being warned by moderators multiple times for this ]. In other words; quite a pain for the established editors here since his ascension on Misplaced Pages in the few weeks he's here.

Now, as of a few days ago, he wrote a message on my talk page (see link above) saying that I was "PoV" editing, and started provocating me out of the blue. The same user tells me this, an active member for more than a year, while he himself is, a recently signed-up user now already on the brink of getting blocked for PoV editing. (How ironic)

Therefore, I'm convinced that what he's doing right now is trying to portray his issues on established users that have prevented his vandalising edits multiple times, as he doesn't seem to get done that what his unsourced, biased, PoV's want him to.

Other than that User:Alien of Afghanistan should have been suspended, blocked or even banned long before according WP:BANPOL and even WP:WAR (will quote all of them later if needed), I hope this joker gets dealt with now accordingly. In fact, me and other users wanted to drag him here some days ago too, but we saw he was already at the brink of getting blocked. ] If needed, I can ask all other editors who have warned him in any way before to comment here as well. I'm sure they've got a word or two to say as well about him. LouisAragon (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Both of you are biased and non-neutral editors. User:LouisAragon inserts his biased edits and personal analysis in many articles. User:Alien from Afghanistan has nationalistic views and he can't accept the reliable facts. 1 week ban is the best solution for both of you guys. It'll help you to don't use WP as a battleground. --218.147.123.105 (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Both users are involved in edit warring (several articles). --218.147.123.105 (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Meh. Might just be a content dispute. LouisAragon is apparently confusing blocking with banning: AfA got a level 4 warning back in April for vandalism (though I think there's no proof of the intent required by WP:VAND, so it might better be characterized as revert warring). Anyway, the dispute at hand seems to do with this revert by AfA, followed by this revert by LouisAragon describing AfA's revert as vandalism. @LouisAragon:, I don't believe AfA's edits constitute vandalism, as I see no evidence of an intent to damage Misplaced Pages rather than to right great wrongs (see generally WP:NOTVAND). You should be careful with that designation, especially in a dispute involving cultural and ethnic concerns because calling someone who believes strongly they are doing right can often inflame the situation beyond hope. Adding to that appeals to things like the amount of time since the user created an account (or the fact that the user is editing anonymously), and referring needlessly to past indiscretions does not help things.

All that said, @Alien of Afghanistan:, you need to discuss changes like the ones you want to make, and to do so independently of making complaints about other users' behavior; this is not the right forum for such an issue (possibly Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Afghanistan). You may also find The Teahouse a useful place to find helpful people to explain our editing processes in greater detail. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 06:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If AfA would have brought his suggestions in the first place to the respective talk pages (whether those of the articles in question, or those of the users), he wouldn't have already had what, like a level 4 warning level for vandalism in a few weeks? As I mentioned, there are many other users who have given him WP:GOODFAITH and other types of warnings in this short amount of time. It's obvious he tries to push an agenda here, otherwise he wouldn't have had so many problems ] in a few mere weeks related to a precise section of topics.

@Mendaliv: It's not just this mere one revert/content dispute, its tons of it. And it's also not one user (me), who has pointed him out on it, but other users, and moderators too. The fact remains AfA has got a level 4 warning in a few weeks he's just active here for vandalism, while I'm active here for much more than a year and I got zero warnings or anything. I think that tells something quite obvious too, you know. LouisAragon (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Tons my foot. The guy has had three (3) warnings ever, all related to the same incident on the same page, which is a different page than this time (though also related to Afghanistan). By the way, this comment on your talk page contains personal attacks and cultural epithets of an unacceptable nature, and these two tweaks to that contemptible commentary do not make it any less offensive. In fact, I've just issued you an only warning for personal attacks: you may find yourself blocked in the future if you engage in such disruptive conduct again. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 07:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot to mention this redaction as well. I'd missed your describing Afghanistan as a "shithole", and making disparaging comments about Afghan people that are so opprobrious I will not repeat them here. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 07:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Every country has own issues... at least Afghanistan is in better condition today than it was in 2001.... the country at least has freedom unlike Iran where you don't have it. I just want to explain something... those warnings on my talk page were completely wrong because obviously my edits were not vandalism! I can't help it if people place false warnings on my talk page. FYI, this discussion is about me reporting LouisAragon (a racist Afghan who lives in Ontario, Canada, or Netherlands and uses multiple accounts to edit) Him choosing LousiAragon demonstrates that he's trying to pass off as a white European native. I'm an alien and I know all this. Anyway, he wrote about me "Annoying dude... You seem to have severe inferiority complexion. But I don't blame you as you're an Afghan.... It seems to me you have severe inferiority complexion like many diasporean Afghans, wich is quite understandable given the shitty history and reputation it has, and the shithole it still is nowadays. Pure barbarianism, tribalism, perpetual refugees, being ruled by foreigners for millennia, and child molesting seems to be interchangeable with people from that region.... You don't need to reply to this. Next time I will report you for your harrassments." That alone is enough to block him and he is now playing games with you. As for me, I don't have time for games and LouisAragon shouldn't judge me based on my name. I may be a white millionaire from America or some poor Afghan guy... what does that have to do with anything here? Shahrukh Khan and many other Bollywood stars are of Afghan origin and yesterday BBC mentioned that he's worth 600 million dollars. Many Afghans live in million dollar homes around the world but what does that have to do with LouisAragon repeatedly mentioning in every sentence of Afghanistan page "what is nowadays Afghanistan"? Why is he racist towards Afghans?Alien from Afghanistan (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note to reviewing admins: This is not an isolated incident. LouisAragon's edit summaries over the course of the last month alone paint a disturbing picture suggesting that sanctions under WP:ARBIND may be warranted. (, , , , , , ). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 08:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright, if you still don't see that AfA merely created his account here to push an agenda, then it's not my problem anymore. I understand you give me a warning for that on my talk page, but the fact remains, he knows perfectly well he could've brought up his suggestions or notifications to the respective talk pages, but he didn't do so (and he still won't I'm pretty sure), if he wanted to avoid any warning, any reversion-conflict or any other problem. He knows how to write on my talk page, so why not on the talk page of these Afghanistan-related topics wich he's concerned about? Do I and other users really need to quote all his edits and say why they're very, very wrong? Even a simple example like this ], while Hotaki Dynasty shows that his edit is incorrect. Or what about this? ] Or these? ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]; He has 40 edits here since he joined, all of them are related to Afghanistan, and most of them got reverted due to being fueled by unsourced, nationalistic bogus. (The same reason why he got those warnings and ends up each time in RV wars)

You mention even yourself that his other issue(s) here is/are also related to Afghanistan-topics. I mean how can that, in combination with his obvious editing history not tell enough about the true him?

As for AfA, now he says that the warnings he got before were false (therefore mocks the moderators' authority), calls me an Afghan (wich I'm not), says I try to pass of as a white European (what?), and says that I use multiple accounts to edit. (Wich I don't and mods can easily check that). I don't know what's wrong with the guy, but I'm sure other users that know him will agree too that he deserves at least some kind of reprimande for all of this.

LouisAragon (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the 3 warnings issued to AfA should not have been issued for those 3 edits to Tajik people. The edits removed questionable and unsourced information and were accompanied by reasonable edit summaries. The editor used the talk page 10 minutes later. Either way, regardless of AfA's intentions or the quality of their editing, they shouldn't have to be exposed to your personal opinions about Afghans or anything else just because they decided to become a Misplaced Pages editor. You want them reprimanded. What do you think should happen to you given your role ? Do editors need to be protected from exposure to your personal views, and if so, what is the best way to do that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

In the above comment LouisAragon listed his own bad actions as mines (example: , you can investigate each of the other diffs), he's playing this game with intent to get me blocked so he can carry on with his POV pushings. He told you guys he's been around for a while so he knows Misplaced Pages rules and he's still ignoring them. When he says me and other editors (he actually means me and my other accounts, example 1: Feysalafghan (talk · contribs)). He claims that he's not Afghan but he actually is, he was born in Afghanistan but doesn't like the country. He's pretending to be Iranian but I know Iranians very well, one obvious thing about them is they're not interested in editing Afghan related pages. As for me, my edits are professional (with GOODFAITH) keeping them in line with W:NPOV. For example, on Afghans in Iran I've done research, Iranian officials claim there are 800,000 registered Afghans living in their country (this is backed by UNCHR) and possibly another 2 million living illegally. I re-wrote the article to reflect all of this but LouisAragon reverted to the misleading version which contains dead links. This is vandalism at its best. He's doing the same to nearly all my other edits. To sum it up, the guy should be permanently blocked for playing games in Misplaced Pages (mainly for extreme POV pushing on multiple articles, attacking other editors and purposely misleading administrators). It's the best solution and this will teach others like him to behave.Alien from Afghanistan (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this is not the place to hash out whether the edits themselves were correct, or the sources of any particular editor's personal points of view. What matters for the purposes of this discussion is behavior. As Sean and I have commented, there's nothing particularly wrong with AfA's behavior, except perhaps one run of tit-for-tat reverting (which is understandable for an inexperienced user) and perhaps some incivility towards LouisAragon (which should be absolutely forgiven insofar as it was in response to intolerable, heinously offensive slurs against the Afghan people, which were made simply to demean and drive away another editor rather than engage in an honest, aboveboard discussion of the content dispute at issue). Even if AfA were a SPA editing disruptively, LouisAragon's conduct is so offensive as to merit individual sanctions completely separate from anything that would lie against AfA (again, presuming AfA were editing disruptively, which I do not think is happening). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Sean, I already mentioned, whatever I did wrong on my own talk page, I acknowledge that and I understand that I've got a warning for that. I don't have any history of throwing insults or any other type of such violations in the time I'm active here, for that matter. It'll be my only warning I can assure. I already received my reprimand. The user AfA however, has gotten into a ton more problems here in a few weeks than I and many other established users have gotten in multiple times the amount of time. People tell, "regardless" of AfA's intentions or quality of his editing, but that's what the whole other much more major story goes about.(!) Check the links I provided above in my previous reply. That's already a huge part of his small editing history. The user has an obvious agenda and bases his edits purely on nationalistic or wishful thoughts as I clearly showed in the examples above. So now what about his reprimand? It can't be that just because my action is labeled as "worse", that therefore he goes free-out? I'll ask the other editors too to comment here too who have had issues with him and his edits, in the incredibly short time he's active here.

PS: Another direct example; how can we possibly take someone seriously here, who uses this as argument in a matter? Total joke and it reflects once again his posting reputation/capabilities here ; "LouisAragon" (a racist Afghan who lives in Netherlands and uses multiple accounts to edit) Him choosing LousiAragon demonstrates that he's trying to pass off as a white European native. I'm an alien and I know all this. He claims that he's not Afghan but he actually is, he was born in Afghanistan but doesn't like the country." LOL LouisAragon (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you were wrong about the 3 warnings. Perhaps you are wrong about other things. Maybe AfA is just a reasonable human being with their own bias who wants to make Misplaced Pages better, someone you can collaborate with constructively if you find the right way. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Gave both editors DS notices for WP:ARBIPA. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see any necessity for administrative action at this point. Both users are slinging mud at each other. AfA's comments about Louis, his nationality, where he lives, etc. is pretty weird stuff. AfA should put a lid on it. Louis's comments about AfA's nationalistic edits don't seem justified. AfA may not be the most neutral editor, but I don't see anything glaring in the short time he's been here (Louis, your diffs are weirdly formatted - I find them difficult to look at). In any event, AfA should realize that if he picks a controversial user name and edits in only one topic area, other editors may be suspicious.

Mendaliv, thanks for issuing the discretionary sanctions notices; you should really sign them, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Bbb23: these were my first DS notices, so I suppose it's to be expected I'd make a couple mistakes. I've left my sig and back-dated it to when I left the notice (so there's no confusion over when notice attached). Anyway, I concur that there's nothing more to be done here, and have tried to explain to AfA the importance of taking care in this subject area, particularly when dealing with conflicts. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please ask @Binksternet to cease with the gratuitous templating of my Talk page

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

In March, after several instances of gratuitous templating of my Talk page, I said to @Binksternet "apparently I must spell it out for you here: these "reminders" of yours are unwelcome and you are hereby instructed to keep them off my Talk page. Any questions? You continue to remain welcome to actually discuss any good faith concerns of yours on my Talk page (ie no drive-by templating)." This was ignored, such that last month I had to confront the editor again in an effort to put a stop to the harassment: "What did I tell you a month ago, on this page? "these "reminders" of yours are unwelcome and you are hereby instructed to keep them off my Talk page. Any questions?" Could that have been any clearer? I think not. You then proceed to ignore that, which is one thing, but you then insist I stay off the Talk pages of others. Do I need to lock my Talk page? Seriously." As of this month the harassment continues. In his latest edit war with myself and another editor, Binksternet yet again refuses to present on the article Talk page any rationale for excluding the material he wants excluded, in this case the germane observations of a legal expert, one James C. Hathaway. I have referred to Hathaway's comment at least twice on the article Talk page in the past and there neither Binksternet nor any other editor has ever voiced any objection to inclusion. If Binksternet wants to come to my Talkpage, he is welcome to discuss the content matter he insists on edit warring over, just like he is free to do so on the article Talk page. Templating my Talk page for the umpteenth time with the exact same Template accomplishes nothing in terms of informing either me or any debate about whether Professor Hathaway's observation should be included or not. The only apparent rationale is antagonizing me. I've made many requests to keep this particular form of antagonism off of my Talk page and Binksternet refuses. I am at a loss as to how to put an end to this so all concerned can get back to what we are here for.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Your wish to have me stay off your talk page is overridden by the requirement at WP:3RRN for a warning to be delivered about edit warring. The only time I will template your page is if it is required of me. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• One way to limit the disruption of the work of other, non-edit warring editors, is to block the two of you for a week. So, that is what I am going to do. I'll also tell Binksternet to stop templating you, and report you to WP:ANEW next time. You don't need a 3RR warning for each edit war. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Bdell555, I only count 10 edits by Binksternet to your talk page, of which only five (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) appear to be templates, one being a notice of an issue at WP:AN/EW. Hardly "gratuitous" yet. G S Palmer (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal Attack and an issue of some serious article ownership

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

User Modernist used a personal attack against me by calling me a troll in his edit summery Not once, Not twice, Not three times, But four times. And he apparently insists that my minor edits on the article are basically worthless and that his 121 edits on the article gives me no right to even discuss changes. I do not believe that this attitude is paramount to the consensus building process of Misplaced Pages and it only tends to antagonize people rather than trying to work together in a collaborative way. I tried to discuss and even opened up an RFC, but that has only appeared to infuriate him further.--JOJ 20:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• All I see here is a content dispute and a bit of incivility, nothing worth admin attention. It also appears that Modernist has a case of editcountitis. G S Palmer (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Yep Its basically a content dispute. A content dispute that I am trying to get some more opinions on. Thats why I opened an RFC. So I'm not sure why it elevated to such an uncivil level.--JOJ 21:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Judging by this edit, it appears that Modernist is willing to compromise. G S Palmer (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Willing? Maybe, but the lead still has a major flaw.--JOJ 01:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• Modernist does need to stop with the "troll" rhetoric. NE Ent 01:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree that modernist is being rude. Howunusual (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

User talk:The Rambling Man

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

About a week ago I warned The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) that I thought he was skirting his topic ban with respect to User:Medeis, which he highly resented, as can be seen in this dialogue and not least by the way he edited his talkpage note an hour later, to read "Advisory notice: This admin has been declared persona non grata by a couple of other "competent" admins, please refer to them (User:Writ Keeper and User:Bishonen) to help you out if you need something urgent. Or, if you like, email them in a quest to get me blocked, that seems to be how things work around here." (Notice the creepy edit summary.)

The topnote about me and Writ Keeper has history going back to March, when we were originally merely noted as a couple of anonymous "competent" (i.e. incompetent, per the piped link) admins that had declared him persona non grata. It was soon extended to include our names. The March context, if anybody cares, was that WK had closed an ANI discussion of disruption on the Reference desk as having consensus for an interaction ban between TRM on the one hand and Baseball Bugs and Medeis on the other, and had had a discussion with TRM of the application of the topic ban which ended in resentment. I had disobliged with… oh… never mind, I can't find it, perhaps TRM can; it was also to do with the topic ban.

I've looked away, and it's my impression others are looking away too. Surely some people watch the page, but nobody has reacted visibly to the "one-eyed queen" thing or the other quips. A couple of admins, Hahc21 and Dweller did inquire about the pagenote in April, but only to commiserate with TRM and tell him how persona mucho grato he was to lots of other users. It doesn't seem to have occurred to either of them at that time to consider the page note uncivil. However, a couple of weeks later, May 9, Dweller removed it in favor of a nice note about TRM's qualifications as admin and 'crat, which TRM reverted after a few days, and since then it's stayed, now improved with pings to me and Writ Keeper. Now I've disobliged again, I think, or perhaps I just seem more despicable the more he thinks about it, for TRM edited his note again a few days ago, to say: "As Daffy Duck said, "DESPICABLE"!! Feel free to email User:Bishonen if you'd like to get me blocked. She appears to be more than happy to help in this respect." (Perhaps Writ Keeper has been forgiven, or at least his villainy pales next to mine, because he's gone from the topnote.)

I don't want to believe that people are looking away because TRM is an admin. Perhaps it's because he used to be a nice guy. But I'm tired of it. Would somebody please remove the ever-fluctuating, but always Bishonen-envenomed note at the top of TRM's page and discourage him from putting it back? Also perhaps somebody would be so kind as to notify him of this thread, as he has warned me off his page. Bishonen | talk 23:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC).

Editor notified and comment removed. NE Ent 00:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Seems the box has been removed by NE Ent. I think that's the right course of action. I recall having highly positive interactions with TRM several years ago, and think that box seems really out of character. I hope TRM understands and accepts its removal, and whatever the cause for the dispute, he try to avoid letting things go this far in the future... because pro wrestling-style callouts like that are without question incompatible with our mission here. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Since Bishonen pinged me: I've seen the editnotice/hatnote/whatever; I can't fault Bish for her reaction to it, and her complaint shouldn't be disregarded, but to be honest it doesn't really bother me. I really don't know why TRM thinks that I consider him a persona non grata--I don't, and never have; though I've disagreed with him about various things in the past, he certainly does a lot of good around here, probably much more than I. I'm not sure what I've said or done to make him think that. Nor, for that matter, do I understand why he, in the conversation on his talk page that Bish linked, thinks that I've sided with Medeis against him (I haven't done that, either). My statement there was that I wouldn't accept his help in researching Medeis's possible misbehavior on the Refdesk, as having him help me would hardly be conducive to neutrality, at least in appearance (not to mention that it could've fairly easily been seen as a violation of his interaction ban with Medeis). But I guess to him, that meant that I had sided with Medeis; I guess he thinks that anyone who isn't for him is against him. But, as I had also said, any investigation of mine wouldn't be helpful in actually concluding their feud unless both sides could see that the outcome wasn't influenced by the other; he clearly wasn't willing to accept me as unbiased any more, so I let it drop. I haven't really thought much about it since, nor have I kept tabs on TRM's edits. So, yeah. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That edit box was utterly unacceptable and a blatant personal attack on the named admins. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Given the context from which this arises, I see this as a reference to the ban situation. His interaction ban prohibits him from "mak reference to or comment on anywhere on Misplaced Pages, whether directly or indirectly", and this is an indirect reference. Had I seen the situation before he removed it, I would have blocked and then removed it myself. As things are right now, a block would only be punitive, so I'll not do anything, but let me remind everyone that TRM is on a one-strike-you're-out plane; a warning need not be given before sanctions are requested for ban violations. Nyttend (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• The editor is distressed and the problem rectified, this should be closed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed. --Dweller (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Concur. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 06:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Skookum1 edit-warring over nominations for speedy deletion

AFAIK, speedy deletions may be challenged by removing the tag. At least, that's what the tag itself says. User Skookum1 has nominated a number of dab pages for deletion as he has judged one of links to be the primary topic, per TWODABS, but according to what several admins have told him in recent disputes, TWODABS applies to clear primacy, not to the ethnolinguistic articles he's nominating to move. Regardless, AFAIK if someone challenges a speedy-deletion request, you need to make a regular move or deletion request; you don't start edit-warring over the request.

Warning here: (I meant to warn him when he started edit-warring, but put it on the wrong page: )

Because I erred in posting the warning, so he did not see it before continuing the edit war, I asked him to revert himself rather than me reverting him. He did not do so. The articles where he has edit-warred to restore a speedy tag are Makaa, Subiya, Sukuma, Northern Ndebele, and Yeyi. I'm notifying him of this posting now. — kwami (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No, CSDs are challenged by: A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead click on the Contest this speedy deletion button which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag. This button links to the discussion page with a pre-formatted area for the creator to explain why the page should not be deleted. (per WP:CSD). (In other words, you don't just remove the CSD tag, you use the article page to discuss the issue.) NE Ent 01:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Check your facts, Ent. BMK (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've removed the tags, so the sea-lawyering is moot at this point. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

More specifically (and perhaps helpfully): that's very true, Ent, but the key word in that sentence is creator. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Not all DB notices have a "Contest this speedy deletion" button, including Template:Db-move used here. HelenOnline 11:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

User:240F:11:A201:1:1469:C428:EC44:FEB at Ryukyuan languages

240F:11:A201:1:1469:C428:EC44:FEB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been removing sourced information, rewriting sentences with misleading language, inserting machine translations, and edit warring. I've warned him twice four times and he continues this behavior. Please block this IP immediately. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

ClueBot and Stiki keep undoing my good faith edits

There is a controversial section in the article Emperor Jimmu that I removed while it is being discussed on the talk page per WP:BURDEN. I have been reverted at least three times because I'm an IP editor (even though I'm really not). I don't want help with the content, and I'm not asking for help resolving the content dispute (yet...) or for sanctions on the one user who (accidentally?) reverted me with Stiki, but I wanna know if reverting bots that keep undoing my edits counts as "edit-warring"?

Cheers!

182.249.240.32 (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

...why are you editing as an IP and not from your account, especially given your history of problems with socking? Why are you edit warring? GiantSnowman 10:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

My user page, and every talk page I have edited from an IP, specify who I am. What history of socking? And what edit-warring? I reverted three times over the last 50+ hours, and two of these were "edit-warring" with a broken Bot that determined my edit was "vandalism" based on the arbitrary criteria that I removed an arbitrarily-defined "section" of text (that I specified in my edit summary doesn't belong in the article) and I'm editing logged-out. This is not vandalism, since I gave detailed reasons for my edit; it's not edit-warring, because false-positive vandalism checks are not valid edits to begin with; and it's not sockpuppetry, because of the reasons detailed in the WP:COMMENT portion of this post. 182.249.240.1 (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be intentionally editing the same topic areas both from an account and from an IP. Most would consider that to be an effort to make it more difficult to correlate your edits. What is your explanation for doing so?—Kww(talk) 16:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

To expand on what others have stated and asked: WP:SOCK#LEGIT covers the limited uses for multiple accounts. Accidentally editing while logged out is obviously not a problem (it happens), but to knowingly edit an article as both a logged in user and as an IP is automatically outside of the legitimate uses for "multiple accounts". You are virtually begging to be blocked for evading scrutiny as not all of those IPs are linked back to your main account. Your previous socking history doesn't help. I strongly suggest logging in, and if needed, create "Hijiri88-alt" for times you are on insecure connections. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Harassing by User:Dmatteng

For the last few weeks User:Dmatteng is constantly fishing for blocks or referring to a recent block (when I lost my cool and got a conditional unblock/topic ban regarding Irish parishes). Unfortunately, Dmatteng seems to be revengeful after my AfD-nomination for UE Boom as advertising. His warnings and requests for blocks are very distressing. See: ], , , , , , , , , and . I might have missed a few.

I am not the perfect guy, I admit. The Banner talk 12:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like DM needs to just leave The Banner alone. I've interacted with both extensively recently, so perhaps the message might have more effect coming from another admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree that the solution here (should be) pretty straightforward and that it might be better coming from a heretofore uninvolved party. JohnInDC (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at articles like this where Dmatteng comes out of nowhere to revert (he's never edited that article before), and his constant reverting of editors (including The Banner) on UE Boom, while hypocritically quoting WP:BRD (which applies to everyone, not just those you disagree with). Then I see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/HarvEast Holding which is an AFD The Banner nom'ed but Dmatteng never edited, but voted in. It is almost like he is following The Banner around. He seems to bump into him a fair amount for someone with less than 500 edits in just over two months. This looks like harassing to me. I'm trying to find a good reason to not block, but I'm coming up short, as the tone of the editor is such that I think there is a major clue deficiency going on. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I would disagree that I bump into The Banner. If there is a problem with how I applied WP:BRD that is a content-related issue. The Banner has frivolously nominated HarvEast Holding and since I'm a native Russian speaker I thought I can help there. Indeed after my comment unrelated editors voted to keep the article. That was 2 months ago? (Fails short of constant following.) Was the second instance I reverted The Banner and actually he has started edit warring there. He has reverted a good-faithed edit so I thought I might correct the situation.

From my perspective things are: (of course I'm an involved editor so I might have a subjective view, but nevertheless): After I have reported The Banner's disruptive editing to an admin he got blocked for one week. Once unblocked he repeated disruptive editing and was blocked indefinitely. (At the same time he nominated article UE Boom that I have written for AfD.) According to several editors the nomination wasn't appropriate, and the result was to keep. At that time I proposed The Banner to help to improve the article but he declined. However after being unblocked he started to follow and harass me on the article and talk page of the article I have written. Those 100 edits were made on the article I have written and it is The Banner who had followed me, not vice versa.

Since then his participation on UE Boom was one-directional and simply consisted of contradiction to any changes that I would propose and creation of hotair that was noted by unrelated editor. He violated one of his unblocking conditions: "You conduct yourself properly on talk pages, in a manner consistent with good-faith discussion intended to improve the encyclopaedia". His participation on the talk page of UE Boom was lacking AGF in my opinion and his PA has been noted.

JohnInDC is a related editor with whom we have a content dispute. It is distressing that he hasn't introduced himself here as an involved editor. I'm sorry if my English is not perfect, I'm not a native English speaker, and I apologize for any grammar mistakes in this post. Dmatteng (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

How about the idea that you just avoid him, then we have no problems? There is obviously some disagreements between you two, and that is the easiest solution. As for BRD, if someone has reverted you, don't revert back until you talk on the talk page. You don't just get to quote it for other editors, it applies to everyone. Most arguments and edit wars are easy to avoid if people didn't keep reverting. Be the one that stops the cycle and takes it to a talk page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely support this idea and I wonder why The Banner has come after me and the article I have written. I see it as a clear instance of revenge editing. He is purposely trying to decrease the quality of the article by supporting all edits that do so. In about 100 edits on the article he hasn't introduced any one single reference, any one word of a new content.

Regarding WP:BRD, I'm still learning, but I think I might have acted right. We have had a version of the article per consensuses. Mendaliv introduced bold edits without prior discussion and I have reverted him. Then The Banner reverted back to the new version and cited WP:BRD. I think it is wrong? What should have happened at this point is a discussion, not a revert.

From discussion related to his block: "Banner, if we're wrong, why it is every member of WP:Ireland aside from yourself agree on the same thing and you're the only one who says we're introducing errors into articles?"; "You're not instilling me with confidence that you're not just going to jump straight back into the same arguments. In fact the wikilawyering over the definition of "parish" makes me inclined to think you're deliberately missing the point," - admin; "I'm just seeing an angry Wikipedian who's itching to get back into the same old rows and wear their opponents down to the point of submission." - admin about The Banner. Also here the blocking admin explaining his decision.

While he has been blocked, he has posted on his talk page: "Now we are cleaning up, I like to ask the attention for two other potential explosive cases: .." about UE Boom. That is how it all started he was inciting editors.

In my opinion The Banner should be banned editing WikiProject Brands articles. He is edit warring, placing PA on article talk pages, inciting other editors, repeatedly placing frivolous AfD requests and he has deliberately misintroduced information on this post to AN/I. From my side I haven't followed him and has no intention to follow him once his disruptive editing on Brands project will cease. I think he is a good editor and may contribute on other projects. Dmatteng (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If I was after you, as you suggest, I should not have given this advice to safe your article. And you keep up throwing that perceived PA when you are fishing for a block again. The Banner talk 16:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That is what I mean. You are a good editor, but some projects simply get you hot-tempered and you are starting deliberately to act without AGF. The PA was noted by an experienced unrelated editor. However, even without the PA your participation on the article profoundly lacked AGF. Dmatteng (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This seems like the kettle calling the pot black. You keep dragging up a claim of a personal attack without linking it, and telling someone they profoundly lacked AGF without substantiating it with diffs is, well, it isn't cricket. I'm not worried what another admin/editor said ABOUT him, I could have judged for myself. Look, I'm fully aware of The Banner, including his strengths and weaknesses. We all have them. Right now the issue is your decision to remain engaged when good sense would tell you to back away, drop the stick and go find something nice to edit. The Banner obviously needs to work in other areas as well. I'm NOT a fan of interaction bans and tend to support blocks rather than ibans in most instances. It is obviously within the power of you both to prevent either. As a sign that you agree, just walk away without commenting to me or anyone here and just avoid each other. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

To be perfectly fair, I do recall a comment by Banner on Talk:UE Boom that questioned Dmatteng's motivations... but to be fair it was something we were all thinking; particularly in light of some of the really petty wording change demands, it felt like we were doing SEO instead of writing a balanced article. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with all Banner has said here. Despite my having had negative interactions with him in the past, he's done nothing... nothing... to deserve being hounded by Dmatteng like this. And why is this happening? Just because of a minor disagreement over content in an article about a freaking wireless speaker. While I am not sure if Dmatteng requires sanctions at this point, I believe his behavior at Talk:UE Boom needs to be reviewed, particularly his rather idiosyncratic conception of WP:TPG and his unilateral enforcement thereof. I'd also note that Dmatteng seems to make extensive use of IRC: given the brazen manner in which he has been canvassing for Banner to be blocked on-wiki, I wonder just what's happening off-wiki. I don't mean to impugn the legitimate use of IRC, but merely to make it clear here that there's a lot we are likely not seeing. I think it would be best for all involved if Dmatteng agreed to leave Banner alone. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• He didn't explicitly ask for The Banner to be blocked on IRC, but has tried to steer discussion in that direction. We don't get involved in content disputes when helping on the IRC Help Channel, so all he has been told is to consider compromising on the infobox and perhaps to design a new infobox more in keeping with the article. I'd also add at this point he was not told to use a specific infobox by anybody, he was told the article, which he created with the mobile phone infobox, looked OK (in terms of layout). Nick (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

User:TonyTheTiger gaming AfD, bludgeoning and personal attacks against multiple editors

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

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

This thread is in response to specific personal attacks made by User:TonyTheTiger at the second AfD for Jabari Parker's high school career. There is a mild content dispute regarding the article however I am not posting here to resolve that; for details please see the AfD(s). The user has taken to personally attacking many of the dissenting editors, ad hominem attacks and accusing editors who identify as Canadian of being a meatpuppet of Resolute or WP:CANVASSed from WP:HOCKEY. Myself and other editors have tried to keep the AfD to a discussion about the article but it is quickly descending to a battleground for Tony.

Unfounded accusations of canvassing: (edit summary), , , , ,

Ad hominem attack:

Tony's contributions to the encyclopedia are commendable but his conduct here is not. I have no prior interactions with Tony (AFAIK) but I understand based on comments from other editors that this is Tony's pattern, and I find it quite disruptive. I realize that my conduct and that of other editors in the AfD may not have been exemplary and I'm willing to accept the admins' review of the situation. If this is not the appropriate forum I apologize; I am not very familiar with this process as to my recollection I've not had to use it. Ivanvector (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• User notified: Ivanvector (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• This is a straight-forward G4 speedy, and I have tagged it as such. Delete, salt, and indef the creator until the disruption is acknowledged and will not be repeated in the future. Tarc (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Re-tagging G4 is a bit superfluous given the AFD is leaning deep into delete territory. An uninvolved admin could just as easily close per WP:SNOW. Resolute 15:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Should add that indeffing Tony might be a tad harsh though. He's obviously venting because things aren't going his way. I view his accusations against me in that lens, and don't find them remotely concerning. Resolute 15:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Is this indef threat for recreating or CANVASS claim?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of canvassing is serious. If Tony makes them again without providing proof an outside editor would deem reasonable, he should be banned from participating in that AFD until it is over. --NeilN 16:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• • I stated in the AFD that an admin would likely find several delete votes by WP:HOCKEY and Canadian editors who did not even read the article, which suggests some form of offline WP:CANVASSing. The article traffic is low enough that IP investigations should point this out pretty easily. It does not seem entirely unfounded to claim canvassing of this sort and when the accused party does not deny such allegations it seems reasonable. I don't even know how else to approach (possibly offline) CANVASSing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    • As Resolute noted, you posted on their talk page about this AFD. This is going to draw the attention of other editors Resolute has worked with. And your allegation - "Have you made a statement on why people are voting without reading the article." - asks him to speculate on what other editors are doing based on your assumption. --NeilN 18:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't really buy the argument that people saw she was involved in a discussion and went and voted on the discussion without figuring out what it was about.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Seriously? After this you still refer to Resolute as "she"? Why do you do that? And hard evidence for "voted on the discussion without figuring out what it was about" please? --NeilN 18:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
          • TonyTheTiger is lucky he hasn't been blocked yet for this absurd display of assumptions of bad faith and completely baseless apersions against other editors. And the only way to not get blocked yet will be for him to drop this matter, immediately. Tony: one more posting going on about these accusations, and I'll block you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I am pretty sure that if I wanted to canvass another project, Tony, I could have drawn more than one editor in. The truth is, your article has been rejected by editors who write in several sports - including basketball - in addition to the numerous others who don't focus on any sport. Resolute 22:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Resolute, if I may make this recommendation to you, please just don't further argue. Everybody else here can see how baseless Tony's accusations are, and as for him, we really want him to just drop the matter, not engage him in yet more pointless discussion about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• I declined the speedy G4 because I did not see consensus for it. I note two points about the accusations: 1/some of them were based on the supposed nationality of his opponents, which is an aggravating factor, but on the other hand, 2/there was considerable personal comments from other parties also, DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• After reading through the whole AfD discussion, I think everyone would be best served if this thread is closed. As DDG points out, there were personal comments made on both sides that helped heat up the discussion. I am One of Many (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Block evasion by 2602:306:C561:A2A9:21F:5BFF:FEBF:E186

The owner of Suburban Express has been blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages for harassing an editor. Since then, it appears that he has been evading his block several times by making edits using an unregistered IP, including edits made to the Suburban Express page today. The edits fit the typical pattern by the owner of attacking others and making edits that make Suburban Express look better. A link to the blocked talk page is included below.

(talk) 21:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the IP should be investigated for block evasion. Also, the Suburban Express page should be protected to restrict edits by unregistered accounts after the recent edits by the IP are undone.

Gulugawa (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• IP now notified. G S Palmer (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• Just for clarity, the editors in question are:
  • Arri at Suburban Express (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 2602:306:C561:A2A9:21F:5BFF:FEBF:E186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

G S Palmer (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I seem to recall that WP:FUNC had asserted a sort of jurisdiction over Arri with his last unblock request. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 20:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I say whack the IP and refer the matter to ArbCom if it requests unblock (since Arri's unblock decline specifically says to refer all future unblock requests to ArbCom). —Jeremy v^_^v 22:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable to me. Perhaps block and notify a functionary to ensure they're aware. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 04:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)