Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Closure is easily attained: there is nothing here for an admin to do. I have looked at a number of diffs and find that none of them cross any kind of civility boundary. The discussion may well be interminable, and while there may be a few avenues to resolve that (RfC, dispute resolution, etc.), ANI is not one of them. If anything, this appears to be a content issue which needs to be handled by content editors, and a pointed RfC, or a series of them, may well be the only way forward--RfCs are typically set up for a limited time frame, and if discussions get out of hand an admin could step in and hat excessive content, judge insults, etc. Good luck to you all. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user is a published author, who has made some valuable contributions at Talk:lift (force). However, I am concerned about his conduct towards myself and others.
I joined the discussion last August, partly because of this comment, arguing from authority against other authors and implying they were not "aware of these pressure forces". This was refuted by evidence from the sources. Since then, I have seen an ongoing pattern of incivility towards anyone who disagrees with him. To highlight just a few examples: 8 October 2014: Claim that different numerical results are, "comparing what different sources say about precisely the same question". 13 November 2014: Dismissal of reasoned review of evidence as 'intuition', 'speculation', and 'protestation' (previously brought to ANI). 5 December 2014: Claim that source "supports what I've been arguing all along." (Refuted.) 11 January 2015: Refusal to listen to another user, "at this point yours would seem to be a minority view. Does anyone else oppose my adding this new subsection?"
Doug McLean is a cited author in the article. In his published works he also criticises a standard introductory approach to the subject, and for many months now has been trying to push his minority PoV on the article. He has a clear conflict of interest, and to his credit has avoided editing himself but has confined himself to the talk page. However the discussions became interminable and sometimes less than gentlemanly, and I joined the debate to help manage them. That succeeded partially, though they now fill at least two archives,7 and 8, as well as the current talk page. Despite a strong warning there, and again on their talk page, the excessive pedantry still trickles on. I should like to propose a voluntary topic ban for say six months, both to give us all a breather and to give Doug a chance to learn more constructive approaches to editing Misplaced Pages. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Support. I certainly need a break from this endless conflict. It would be much easier for me just to remove the article from my watchlist, but I don't think that's the right thing to do. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I participated in the discussion in question, often re-reading Doug McLean's and others' comments several times in order to better understand them, so I am quite familiar with the issue. There were/are disagreements among the editors including myself. In my view, at the times when the discussion began to border on incivility it was not Doug McLean who was being uncivil. While the administrators are welcome to wade through the walls of text on the Talk page, I don't think there's anything actionable there at least as far as Doug McLean's behavior. And I don't think bringing this up in AN/I is conducive towards building consensus. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Swordfish, after some pause for thought, I can perhaps understand why you don't see it. Doug is very knowledgeable, eloquent and persuasive. He would never sink to the level of calling someone a "dilettante" (as someone else did). But no amount of careful wording can hide the underlying message, "you're wrong" that has been consistently levelled against others, regardless of what the evidence says. No doubt some of the mistakes that have been alleged were in fact wrong. We all make mistakes. I know I've made some, and I've corrected myself where I can. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as we're willing to learn.
You were rightly offended by the other incident, and chose to report it, as you are entitled. Personally I found that event far less distressing than the remainder of the last six months. Perhaps this helps you understand how I feel about this situation. If you do have any unresolved concerns about another editor's conduct, you should raise it with them, with evidence, in the appropriate place. If you have unresolved content issues, they should of course be raised on the article talk page. Burninthruthesky (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC); edited 22:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
As a participant in one of the most recent discussions, I have found Doug a bit verbose and maybe hard to get on the same page with, but definitely nothing actionable at AN/I. Sometimes debates go over-long. I think things have mostly been handled in a responsible way. That said, I haven't been over to that page in the last few months - I'll look at where things have gone since then and comment again if possible. That said, it's not at all unreasonable for people with a disagreement to be negative about one anothers' positions. Obviously he thinks we're wrong; we think he's wrong! I kinda wonder if any remaining content disputes might actually be best resolved with a conference call between the primaries or something, if that's feasible. 0x0077BE15:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@0x0077BE: I can't agree that things were handled in a responsible way. To give a relevant example, at one point we were asked, "If 0x0077BE and Burninthruthesky think The Statement is true for some control volume other than the infinitely tall sliver, they need to tell us specifically what control volume that is and provide citable sources for their assertion."
For reference, the conduct of that IP user was previously reported here. Still today, he continues to make groundless allegations that I'm both biased and wanting to impose my understanding of the topic on society. WP:DENY may be applicable in that case.
I think that would be discourteous if not invidious. Doug McLean has not been back since I posted this incident, effectively operating the voluntary ban himself for now. I think he deserves closure on our allegations as much as we do. The IP editor is a different problem and (as you may have noticed) I am still trying a less formal approach with them. It is not helpful to have both issues hanging over the same discussion at the same time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for misreading the intent of the diff being linked above. I was trying to highlight the fact there are unrelated conduct issues there. I have struck my paragraph which is, of course, irrelevant here.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Malik-Shah I
Qara xan keeps removing sourced information! it is really getting annoying now and i am surprised that no one have seen it yet. In the Malik-Shah I article, he keeps removing the Seljuq statesman Nizam al-Mulk out of mention during the campaign of the Seljuq ruler Alp Arslan in Caucasus in 1064, when the source I added clearly says that he took part in the campaign;
Alp Arslān was quick to resume his military activity. In Rabīʿ I, 456/February-March, 1064, he undertook a campaign in the northwest which resulted in significant gains at the expense of Byzantine Armenia; Neẓām-al-molk and the sultan’s son, Malekšāh, operated separately during part of the campaign, each taking a string of fortresses. They rejoined the sultan to take Sepīd Šahr and Ānī.
And when Qara xan runs out of words, he suddenly keeps accusing me of being uncivil (or ignores me and continues his reverting). I seriously don't know what to do anymore. I have created over 320 articles and expanded even many more, and tried to expand the Malik-Shah I article too, but sadly he is stopping my progress. By the way, I have notified him about this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Take it to the talk page? I have already done that, and as i said, when Qara xan runs out of words, he suddenly keeps accusing me of being uncivil, or ignores me and continues his reverting. So I don't think that would work. A admin told me this would be the best place to fix this problem. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran: Actually, a lot of your comments can be taken as uncivil. For example:
if you randomly accuse me of vandalism (you probably don't even know its meaning) — User:HistoryofIran
Take a look on Al-Mu'tadid FOR EXAMPLE (writing it with caps lock so you actually read the word properly). — User:HistoryofIran
Or maybe because you speak a very broken and confusing form of English. — User:HistoryofIran
I don't know the Misplaced Pages rules well? that is coming from you? don't make me laugh. — User:HistoryofIran
didn't i already tell you that i had to convert it? is your English that bad? if so, then please leave the English Misplaced Pages, because you are making it hard for everyone here when you simply revert stuff and then don't understand a word of what others say. — User:HistoryofIran
I've bolded all the statements I consider offensive, and this is only from one of your discussions.... -- Orduin20:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but how is it uncivil when I tell him his English makes it harder for himself and me to fix the problem? seriously, you should read some of the stuff he writes and how he responds. About the caps lock thing, there are actually many times where he doesn't really want to properly read what I write (which can be quite irritating when I am trying to solve a dispute and he does such things like that, like he didn't even care). Yes, he don't know the meaning of the word "vandalism", or else he wouldn't randomly accuse of me being one in order to avoid discussing with me. About the Misplaced Pages rules, there are actually many cases where he breaks the rules, yet tells me and other users to learn about them, which is quite irritating and I am not the only person he has done that to. I think the problem is that the way I write can be easily misunderstood. Of course, I never mean to be rude or something like that. If it is really that easily misunderstood-able, I will write in a different way. But even if wrote in a different way I would probably still randomly accused of being uncivil, as it is not the first time Qara xan have done that and I am not the only one he has done that to (here is a example ). Anyway, now with that problem hopefully fixed, can we get back to the main subject? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Chaheel Riens (that's me) and Ghmyrtle being accused of both being the same user - sockpuppets.
There was a bit of an editing brouhaha over at Casual (subculture), and an IP editor seems to have now registered under the name of Richie bedfellows.
During the exchange he has accused GhMyrtle and myself of being the same editor twice in different edits.
I objected to this each time and gave him the chance to redact - his response is here, however, he invites me to not "be waiting around for the weekend to finish, my friend" - so I'm not.
Both involved editors informed.Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
He's posted provocatively on my talk page again, exactly one minute after doing so on his own page - inviting @Orduin: to message him, whereupon he will reveal his suspicions. I've replied, asking him to post here instead. His reply seems to suggest that he thinks Orduin is watching his talkpage (which may be the case - but also may not). Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Looking deeper, it seems that Richie and the IP editor are not the same - Richie was just duplicating the errors made by said IP editor, so I've struck that particular comment. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, given the latest posts on your talk page, the editor in question has pretty much confirmed that it is him editing while logged out. This also casts doubt on the previous IP edits to the Casuals page, which are not only similar in tone, but geolocate to the same region. That (somewhat ironically) suggests that Richie is in fact a long time sock puppet himself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Either he's stupid enough to do so. Or he did it accidentally. Whatever it is, you cannot know for sure without a CheckUser, so there's no point accusing. They might IPs in the same region but who's to say Richie's related. I'm just giving Richie the benefit of doubt. And tone's is something which only experts in linguistics can comprehend, definitely not us. The accusation was of course a grave offense. I believe his failure in providing evidence and not showing up here is of great concern. --Ankit Maity«T § C»13:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair point - I was just drawing attention to the fact that the duck test - if applied - would be more likely to pass Richie and the IP addresses, than GHMyrtle and myself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Thanks for catching the vandalism that I missed on this. It's been hard to keep up with the frequent vandalism to this article today. I have asked for page protection, which I do infrequently, for this page because of the high level of vandalism by several IP users today. Donner60 (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Slight correction on your recent ANI closure. I am pretty sure MyTuppence was only blocked for 1 week. The sock account was indeffed. Thanks for taking care of the close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I am currently using this IP address (it's a public computer). I was attempting to figure out how to propose for deletion the article Yonassan Gershom. The reason I was attempting to do so is because this page is written by the person of the article. It's a self-promotion biopic. Being from Minnesota, Mr.Gershom is not WP:Notable either nationally or regionally. In Minnesota, he is a local author and that's about as notable as he is. While the original AFD discussion added some thoughts about links to the Mineapolis Star Tribune - it was known to promote local books. If you asked soneome from Miami who Yonassan Gershom is they wouldn't be able to tell you. Even a simple google search produces limited results that appear to be self-promoted or discuss his books (of which have limited distribution). All respect to Mr. Gershom - he isn't wikipedia article worthy. Blanksamurai (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I have been trying to update the information on this page and you keep deleting it and putting the old information back up which is not accurate and true. Why do you keep doing it? and can you please stop. Michelle has not modeled since 2005, nor ihas she been with Next Model management then. Montana108 (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
My Userpage
Thank you for keeping my userpage clean of vandalism. I may not contribute stuff anymore, but your cleaning did not go unnoticed :) Lucky13pjn (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Michael Q. Schmidtis wishing you the happiest of Wikiclaus' Wikipedian good cheer.
This message is intended to celebrate the holiday season, promote WikiCheer, and to hopefully make your day just a little bit better, for Wikiclaus encourages us all to spread smiles, fellowship, and seasonal good cheer by wishing others a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Share the good feelings and the happiest of holiday spirits from Wikiclaus !
Backtracking about what, exactly? You seem to be under some misapprehension here. As much as you would clearly love this to be something else, this has now become nothing more than a slightly inconvenient, mildly amusing sideshow to the real issue for me... Which is unreferenced, personal subjective opinion, purposely undermining long standing appropriately cited contributions. Given the behaviour from both user-pages and the pattern of events, I made the accusation(which i still stand by). I then told you to do your worst after you 'gave' me the weekend to think about it before issuing me with a 'warning'. Unfortunately, you then decided to undermine the whole 'procedure' when hijacking Orduin's talk page with the kind of bizarre, semi-relevant self posturing that only serves to turn the whole thing into an absurdity . Now, obviously seeing as I'm a big believer in 'if a big mouth has something to say, let them speak', I simply ran with it. I have no qualms about 'showing up here' and presenting my evidence. If, as I have stated already, the accusations turn out to be unsubstantiated, then i'll also have no qualms over retracting the accusation before appropriately editing the posts in question. I'll then (if allowed) get back to the real issue. Also, Just for clarification, i may well have responded to Gymrtle over this issue then logged out before noticing the edit, then reverted the page without logging back in. There was no malicious intention.,Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The article itself is a completely different issue that has no bearing to this particular topic. You may edit there to your hearts content, provided said edits meet Misplaced Pages's standards. The issue here is one of repeated accusations of sock puppetry, and then a refusal to prevent evidence when requested. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I haven't refused to to pre(s)ent anything of the sort. As i have already explained, Orduin gave me the choice of submitting the evidence either here or on on his talk page. You chose to hijack that page and i simply went along for the ride.
This is presented this way because I am no longer able to access the 'highlighted comparison' changes. My suspicions were then felt to be unsubstantiated when Ghmrtle informed me he was now happy with the wording here: I wasn't "arguing a point about someone else not bothering to cite some dubious info". I was removing words which you added that made no sense. You've now come up with a better wording. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Then proceeded to argue Chaheel's subsequent change here: Your wording said, in effect, that something else happened before something that happened at the same time. It didn't make any sense at all. And, you ought to be aware that accusing two editors of being the same person is accusing them of sockpuppetry - which is a serious allegation. You might like to withdraw it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)This seemed strange to me at the time simply because he had now started to argue previous points already covered with Chaeel's exact same points after telling me he was happy with the wording just moments before.
I had no choice here but to highlight the whole conversation with Ghmyrtle simply because of the sheer amount of changes since the exchange and the highlighted changes from Chaheel are no longer obvious in their availability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talk • contribs) 15:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, my comment here that "Your wording said, in effect, that something else happened before something that happened at the same time. It didn't make any sense at all...." was a response to RB's comment here that "They made sense right from the start." It was not a comment on any of CR's edits. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Block evasion by Claudia McHenry?
Hello,
I'm Claudia and i'm a user on Misplaced Pages, and was blocked out of nowhere by ponyo on some block evasion grounds.
Several days ago, i forgot to log in to my account when i made an edit adding the birthday to the Christina Hoff-sommers page, and found that the IP address that my son usually edits from was blocked. It strikes me as strange that this block was put on the IP out of nowhere, so instead i have to edit from my appartment to ask the an/i to review the block on the IP address. I don't care about my account and there's no point blocking this IP as i'm moving march second to Vancouver.
Please review the block on the address, or explain where the block evasion accusation originates. Was there a user formerly known as Claudia McHenry that was an unruly user years ago?
Thanks.
209.202.4.50 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Its going to be difficult to review an IP block wihtout knowing the IP address. Could you provide further info. Also its a bad idea to come to WP:ANI and admit to being a blocked account socking via an IP. Unless the block also involved the talk page of the IP address you would have been able to appeal the block there. Amortias (T)(C) 23:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
To me this idea that someone who accidentally doesn't log in can then be blocked, and then later accused of being a sockpuppet evading a block, smacks of the same sort of backwards logic and everyone-is-a-criminal mentality that lets police arrest people for resisting arrest (when no other crime is evident). The details of the block are not difficult to find in User:Ponyo's log (date January 23). In any case, the chronology appears to be: (1) 199.101.61.190 (talk·contribs) edits Christina Hoff Sommers to add the day and month of birth, but without sources, and is immediately reverted (with an edit summary indicating that the reverter treated the edit as a good faith one, but unhelpful); (2) Ponyo blocks the IP for no obvious reason with the edit summary "block evasion"; (3) Claudia McHenry (talk·contribs) logs in, and politely asks Ponyo what the block was for; (4) Ponyo makes the block on the IP permanent, blocks Claudia, and prevents Claudia from appealing the block by using the setting that prevents her from editing her talk page. Unless I am missing something major, this seems like a gross overreaction on Ponyo's part. Maybe Ponyo can come here and explain? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, i'm sorry if i broke a rule by not logging in before editing that page. Serg, the guy who edits from the IP accoutn usually says his edits were undone or something like that.
Also if i'm breaking a rule by posting here, i appolojize deeply.
209.202.4.50 (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Clearly you are missing something DE and you should not use terms like "gross overreaction" (I have not seen P overreact to anything in all the years of their adminship) until you have "all" the facts. Ponyo has been working with SPI reports and checkusers for months now and this could well be related to that work. MarnetteD|Talk23:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
you should not use terms like "gross overreaction" ... until you have "all" the facts. Sheesh. DE said "Unless I am missing something major, this seems like a gross overreaction", thus hedging and softening his statement not one but two different ways. Seems like MarnetteD's objection to the use of gross overreaction was an overreaction, if perhaps not a gross one. MHO. ―Mandruss☎00:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Support unblock per the above. I have the same problem, as many of the IPs used by my mobile device are connected with known, long-time abuse accounts who use proxy IPs offered by my provider. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Really. This is an almost laughable case of jumping the gun. This thread needs to have "all the facts" and a reply from Ponyo before any decision is made on the block. MarnetteD|Talk23:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I travvle a wholel ot so if i seem to jump accross the map, it's because i attend different sociological events including talks, as well as i'm currently in the process of moving to Vancouver so i can get better care for my mesothelioma. So if people see me on bad Ip's, then you know why. I'll do my best to remember to log in from now on if that's the issue.
209.202.4.50 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I’ll do that from now on, apologies
I’m sure that ponyo’s a good person and I have nothing at all against them, nor do I wish to attack them in any way. I only want to know why they are charging me for a murder I did not commit.
I've attempted to contact Ponyo several times to ask him/her the reason for this block, and my post on his/her page gets promptly deleted and i get promptly blocked. I then sent an e-mail to their account using the e-mail this user function, no response, and it's been one week, which is plenty of time to get back to me. If something was truely wrong then i think Ponyo would have explained it or would be willing to explain it to me.
Instead, i question, the question is deleted, i get blocked and have to go accross town to have any chance of defending myself, it's madness is what it is.
I really hope Ponyo replies to this or is at least willing to leave a message on my account's talk page with an explanation, else i be unblocked or at least the 199 IP be unblocked.
I'd highly recommend that if people suspect any bad activity that they first notify the user of this activity and how they came to that conclusion before they even think about blocking and speedy-deleting it.
Even with 34 years of studying psychology and sociology behind me i still don't understand how this could be considered benefitial to Misplaced Pages in any way. Again, i don't think Ponyo's a bad person, i just want to know why he/she screams bloody murder when i did nothing wrong to my knowledge. I admitted my mistake to Ponyo and that should be enough. End with a "don't do i again please" then move on, not "block her," then move on and hope that this goes away.
I came here with the intent to help Misplaced Pages, and help it i shall, I'd like to follow the rules while doing it and if problems arise, i want a chance to address them before any punishment of any kind is dished out. That's all i ask Ponyo, you're a good person, but you made a mistake.
Sorry if i seem angry in this post, it isn't intended to be any form of attack, i'm just stating things from my point of view that's all.
Good night, i have a long day tomorrow and won't be able to reply for a while after, i'm going to be away untill the 8th, so won't be able to reply back untill then. Thank you guies for your help.
In case User:Ponyo didn't see the notification from the name-dropping earlier in this thread, I've left a note on their talk page asking for their input here. @MarnetteD: I agree with you that we should not unblock before making more of an effort to get all of the facts. And probably my "gross overreaction" was not a sufficient assumption of good faith: what I should have said was that we are no doubt missing some important piece of information, because if we look only at the evidence we already have then this has the appearance of a gross overreaction, but that seems unlikely given Ponyo's history of working the sockpuppet beat. However, until we see the evidence we should assume Claudia's good faith as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello all. Sorry for the late reply, I've been sick since Thursday and only logged on briefly to put up a wikibreak template as I won't be able to get back to regular editing for at least another 2 - 3 days. In an abundance of caution I have emailed Callanecc a detailed explanation of the evidence behind the block in order to avoid any possible privacy breaches. That being said, I have absolutely no doubt that "Claudia" is indeed a sock of a LTA account and that you are all being trolled. The messages from the 209.202.5.171 IP are textbook to many posted previously by the same sockmaster. It's striking that a mother with "34 years of studying psychology and sociology" displays the same blatant grammar and spelling errors as their blocked "son" as well as the many other personas they've used in the past couple of years to try to get around the block. The master account has been referred to BASC many times in the past - they know the path to a potential unblock if they want to pursue it. --Jezebel's Ponyo22:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
That may be so. But I am far more concerned with the lack of responsiveness, the appeal to secret evidence, the lack of non-admin oversight, and the transparency of blocking rationale, than I am with the effort made by one individual to resume editing. I have seen far too many false accusations made against users with trumped up, or in some cases, zero or invented evidence, to make a case, rather than actual evidence that the community can look at. This need to invoke secrecy, to claim that one is guilty before being proven innocent, sets a terrible precedent. Blackstone's formulation should be the guiding principle, with WP:ROPE our method. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a reason checkuser evidence is not publicy available. If we arent able or willing to trust the judgements that the users who can review this information make with regards to it then there are n awful lot of people who claim they arent socks who we are going to have unblock. CU evidence is one of those things that is given access to people who have shown suitable judgement and consensus for the tools by the community and on that basis I thik some level of trust has to be offered to those who can use it and the decisions they make from it. Amortias (T)(C) 23:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the newbie, wet behind the ears response, but I know how CU works. However, I will once again reiterate, the slow response to this user's request, the appeal to secret evidence, and the notion that the average editor cannot be trusted to comprehend a simple argument for keeping a user blocked, is and remains a serious problem. This authoritarian approach runs counter to the operation of a free society, to just application of laws, and to democratic oversight and transparency. As such, I do not agree with them or their application, no matter what the given rationale continues to be; time and time again, I have seen this kind of power corrupt "trusted" people, and evidence can be used to block the innocent, both intentionally and unintentionally. You may embrace this kind of unjust system, but I do not. There was no harm in unblocking this user, and a case could have been made that did not reveal "secret" information to restore the block. There is more harm in your chosen approach than there is benefit. Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
This rhetoric is all good and well and I wish the world online and off was more in line with these sentiments. But I would have thought that someone who is not a newbie would certainly have encountered WP:NOTDEMOCRACY before now. I accept the except Ponyo's explanation of why they could not respond before today and I would hope that you are not suggesting that P made up an illness. The bottom line is what do you think is going to happen now. Ponyo is not going to be blocked. Unblocks are not going to be handed out to any IPs involved. The system here is not going to change based on this thread. It should be noted that editing is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. As the person in question is, no doubt, enjoying all this fuss I would suggest that the thread be closed. MarnetteD|Talk00:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
MarnetteD, it would help greatly if you would read what you link, as NOTDEMOCRACY has nothing to do with this discussion. I apologize if the phrase "democratic oversight" confused you, but you seem to have evaded my points (and those of two other editors) and launched into a litany of red herrings. I already made my points, and your response is extremely unhelpful. Why should Claudia remain blocked? If your answer is, "it's a secret and we can't tell you", then I will say again, that's unacceptable. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Ponyo doesn't want to tell you who the sockmaster is, because then you will know the geographic location of the sockkmaster. Named accounts are not linked to IPs to protect the privacy of the account holder. This protection of privacy is extended to everyone, even to long-term sockmasters and LTAs. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Like MarnetteD, I accept Ponyo's explanation (and the fact that there are reasons not to put certain kinds of sockpuppet investigation information in public places). As an unblock looks unlikely and there is no other administrative action to be taken, I think this thread is ready to be closed. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I've looked at the evidence from Ponyo and I'm comfortable that the Claudia McHenry account and the 209 IP address are being used by an LTA sock master. As Diannaa says there's not a lot of information that I can give due to the privacy implications, especially because I'm not completely aware of how much information the sock master has released themselves. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I've never been interested in any private information, so that's a misunderstanding on the part of editors up above. What I'm railing against is the misuse of CU, either intentionally or unintentionally, and the "trust us, we're experts" line that non-CU's and non-admins are routinely spoon fed. I've seen editors falsely accused of being sockpuppets, and in my own case, I was falsely accused of being a sockpuppet by an admin on Wikinews who blocked me during a content dispute where he was involved, and then attempted to fabricate sockpuppetry evidence to keep the block in place. So I hope you understand that I am skeptical of so-called "trusted" members of the community, and I think that we need more safeguards in place to protect the accused. The burden is on those accusing Claudia, and if that burden can only be met in private, without community review, then I'm afraid this process is flawed and subject to abuse. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I haven’t been able to post, lately, I had a few meetings and I have to fly out again today.
I don’t want to start a bunch of Drama; I want any drama over this to end. I’m only asking for a chance to be able to defend myself from these accusations here which quite frankly came out of nowhere and are unfounded.
Even if you at least grant me talk-page access then I’ll at least be able to contest the claims made against me when I’m finished with my meetings.
I don’t expect a full unblock in the near future if some crazy person is going around creating accounts and causing problems here and my account is linked to it, but I do expect to be able to defend myself. It certainly wouldn’t look good for Misplaced Pages if people can just be blocked because of secret/invisible and probably non-existent evidence that nobody has the right to know of for reasons and not be able to defend themselves from these accusations.
Now if you guise don’t mind I have a 6:00 AM flight to Toronto to catch so I won’t be able to respond for a bit. Have a good day.
I would say that the admins unblock 209.202.4.xxx-206.202.5.xxx. Let's give some rope, I mean seriously. Ponyo, Callanecc and Dianaa are very respectable and sensible admins. I'm sure they would always give a correct judgement. Here, I believe a bit of rope is necessary. Even if we get trolled, how far would she get? We have ClueBot NG and 100s of editors patrolling edit filters and RC. She might hang herself with all that rope but atleast the community will not (can not) be blamed. --Ankit Maity«T § C»13:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
And good work, Viriditas. Your arguments were really interesting to read. MarnetteD, do not rush this up, please, this thread is quite a serious issue. Ponyo, your explanation might be correct but then there's reasonable doubt. --Ankit Maity«T § C»13:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
No, we will not be unblocking a confirmed sock account of a LTA sockmaster in order to give them "rope". They can appeal to BASC, the information has already been provided to them. Only another Checkuser, or an admin in consultation with a checkuser, can undo a checkuser blocked account or IP address. Another Checkuser, Callanecc, has already reviewed the evidence and endorsed the block. There is nothing left to do here except close this section and deny this sockmaster the attention they continue to receive. If Viriditas or others have concerns regarding the Foundations Privacy Policy then the discussion needs to be had here. If anyone believes that there has been an abuse of checkuser tools, the you can email your concerns to the Audit Subcommittee.--Jezebel's Ponyo19:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
There's no way for the majority of the community to know if any misuse has occurred, that's the point. What if an error was made? Let me give you a brief example using myself: within the last year or so, I've edited Misplaced Pages from two sets of IP addresses, one, my static home address, and two, a dynamic set of IPs used by my mobile device(s). If I try to edit using my mobile device without logging in, many times I'll get a message saying that my IP address has been blocked for being used by a LTA account. Now, obviously, I'm not that person, and that particular set of IPs is probably used by tens of thousands of people. But would the average CU distinguish between these things, if let's say, I was a new user? Little things like that make me very skeptical of the current process. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes it's very likely that CheckUsers would notice, even if the user agent is identical (which on a mobile range is less likely than normal) accounts with no edits are only blocked if it is sure that they are the same, which there are ways to tell with I won't go into. If it's not definite that they are the same, they're usually left unblocked (ROPE) and kept an eye on them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
There are of course times when the data isn't clear, which is when that particular phrase is used, and hence when blocks aren't handed out. There are also times (usually the case) when CheckUser data is helpful and indicates links between accounts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't get how are we giving attention to Claudia. We've blocked the Tor network completely, not to mention random IP autoblocks here and there and ofc the most reputed proxies are blocked too. Fine, but how about granting the IPBlockExempt right to Claudia and put her on some admin's to-do? Is it that hard? Well, not possible? Need BASC approval? But then think of all that BASC drama (it clearly says ~6 weeks and we know it's never less that that). In all that time, she might just edit through a VPN and that's that. Yes, and ofc we still expect editor retention. --Ankit Maity«T § C»15:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ankit Maity, your post above is indecipherable. "Put her on an admin's t-do". What does that even mean? There is no "Claudia". There is one de-facto banned sockmaster who is pretending to be "Claudia" in order to be unblocked. This is just one of many names/personas they have used to be unblocked over the years. It is the sockmaster who needs to have their block reviewed by BASC if they wish to legitimately edit here again, though the possibility won't be entertained until they stop evading their block. You are only giving them the attention they crave by continuing to discuss this particular case here. You can either take my word for it as a volunteer who has been thoroughly vetted and tasked to identify and block socks in order to protect the encyclopedia against abusive editors such as this, or you can continue to rail against the injustices levied against this "new" editor using only a fraction of the evidence publicly available.--Jezebel's Ponyo16:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, if she is very clearly related to the LTA master - and I'm inclined to believe two experienced checkusers on that front - then giving her a an IP block exemption would, to be blunt, be exceptionally stupid. It is very rare, after all, to see two checkusers be this certain about CU data, in my experience. IP block exemption is also only intended for highly trusted users who happen to edit from a LTA range, or something like that; a new account will not fall into that category. And you're absolutely not supposed to edit through a VPN, or any such cloaking device... although I've done so myself by accident a couple of times in the past, because some CyberGhost VPN addresses are not blocked. Look at the history of this IP; it's been CU blocked for block evasion on and off since 2013 - and if you don't believe that, the IP edited the same page in 2013 and 2014 and this year. It's clearly still the same person behind the IP itself. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)16:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Your argument (and diffs) supports Claudia's case. She claimed that "the IP address that my son usually edits from was blocked". That's entirely consistent with the diffs, which show someone editing an article about the PBS Kids series Cyberchase. Can anyone explain why Claudia would even touch these articles? Sorry, I'm having a difficult time believing the CU case against her. Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
And I'm having a difficult time believing that someone with mesothelioma - an absolutely vicious cancer caused by asbestos exposure where the victims in many cases have life expectancies of mere months, and for which treatment is pallative care / pain-relief rather than curative - is faffing around on Misplaced Pages when not getting 6am flights around the place. Or have I missed something? Bencherlite20:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
You are thinking of late stage mesothelioma. Early stage has little to no symptoms and can remain without symptoms for decades. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
And by the time someone develops symptoms, it's too late to do anything except make a will. I remain extremely sceptical that we are dealing with a "mother with '34 years of studying psychology and sociology'" (as Ponyo put it) who happens also to be an asbestos-exposure cancer victim and who happens to be one of the rare cases where death is not predicted within the year. Hey-ho. Bencherlite14:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) ???? If "Claudia" wants to be unblocked, they needs to make an appeal under their original account, whatever that is. (Alternatively they will need to convince a CU they aren't a sockpuppet.) From what I can tell in both cases, there would probably be no need for an IP block exemption, since the problem isn't that "Claudia" is editing from blocked IPs, but they are a LTA sockmaster. Nil Einne (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ponyo:, first to decipher my argument.
"I don't get how are we giving attention to Claudia." means that this isn't a thread for giving someone attention.
"We've blocked the Tor network completely, not to mention random IP autoblocks here and there and ofc the most reputed proxies are blocked too." means that we've blocked most anonymizers of the internet. "Fine, but how about granting the IPBlockExempt right to Claudia and put her on some admin's to-do?" means that we give the IPBlockExempt explicitly to her and put her in some active admin's checklist, to verify that the edits are fine.
"Is it that hard?" means exactly what it means.
"Well, not possible? Need BASC approval? But then think of all that BASC drama (it clearly says ~6 weeks and we know it's never less that that)." means that even if BASC is the only way, it's also the last straw. Who would wait for 6 weeks to get unblocked?
"In all that time, she might just edit through a VPN and that's that." is the display of human nature, that's it. By hook or by crook.
"Yes, and ofc we still expect editor retention." means that this community expects its editors to stay after pasting 100s of boilerplates on their user talk pages and everyday is nothing but a new scene of a continuous drama. I have nothing more to say. I am placing my faith in Ponyo (talk·contribs) for now. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C14:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Evidence-based decision making demands that we dispense with "faith" and place our confidence in the evidence itself, not the person. However, when the evidence is secret, this is impossible. Viriditas (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh come on. You've been around here long enough to know how CheckUsers work/that they are not allowed to reveal the private information they have access to. If two experienced CheckUsers are certain that this account IS a sockpuppet of a long-term abuser, not just that they use the same IP, then I'm inclined to agree with them over the sock account, particularly when the evidence that the IP has been consistently used by the same person for two years is clear, and it's well established that "my brother did it"-type excuses don't hold any water (which this is essentially a variation of). Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)21:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
You're certainly welcome to close this thread. I'm not asking anyone to reveal any information and I'm not saying I believe that "Claudia" is who she says she is. I'm just making it clear that arguments based on secrecy aren't subject to greater scrutiny, and can be misused and abused without necessary community oversight. The wiki model lends itself well to decentralized administration, and there are other methods for dealing with socks that could be used that don't depend on any secrecy. One of these is WP:ROPE. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't exactly remember where I said it and nor do I remember what - must be some RfX or at ANI 3 years ago. As far as I remember, I said - Misplaced Pages's like a house of frosted glass. Opacity is the way but transparency remains a mystery. I would believe that Ponyo is more experienced than a on-and-off ANI reasoner like me, and I place my faith in him at the moment for that. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C06:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Topic-ban proposal for Robert Walker (2)
Unfortunately, there is not enough consensus of any kind for the drastic measures that are proposed. Indeed, a one-way interaction ban isn't even an instrument, just a recipe for disaster. An interaction ban has barely any support, and a a topic ban, which appears to have most support, needs more than what is presented here.
There does seem to be some evidence of harassment by Robert Walker, at least of inappropriate behavior. My suggestion to Robert Walker is to cut that out; my suggestion to other editors is to attempt and treat this, if it requires treatment, with the usual warnings, templated or not, and an appeal to an administrator for a block--if indeed this is required. I'm sorry: given the amount of words you all have invested I am sure you want more, but this is all I see a warrant for. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If you came here because someone asked you to, then please be unbiased towards the rest. The overwhelming amount of unjustified votes need to be disproved. This applies in general and is very much in effect. --Ankit Maity«T § C»16:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC), please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
After a previous ANI-discussion, which ended stale-mate, Robert has continued his disruptive behaviour.
4 january 2015 he followed me at the Dzogchen talkpage diff. I asked him to stop Wikihounding me diff, which he didn't diff. He even admitted "Yes I did find this article by looking through your recent edit history, but that's in preparation for posting about your edits to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard" diff.
26 january he posted comments at the Anatta talkpage which I consider to be WP:HARASSMENTdiff.
"Also am preparing a DRN Notice about the author who rewrote this article. In the case of the articles on Buddhism one of his main characteristics is that he chooses a single POV which he presents as "the facts" and does not mention any articles critical of it and does not mention any competing POVs in the article. And also includes unsourced material in his articles. He presents an impressive case for his views which convinces other editors - that is - until you do a literature search and read the citations. Robert Walker (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)"
"Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion."
Neutral as presented and at this time.Comment It isn't clear, at least without hearing from the subject, that a topic-ban is the right remedy, or that the scope of the topic-ban, as proposed, is appropriate. It is clear that at least one editor, Robert Walker, has conduct issues in the area of Buddhist-related topics. That was obvious a month ago. It was also apparent that there were content issues concerning Buddhism. At the time, I advised Robert Walker to request dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard concerning the Buddhist content issues. He continues to say that he plans to do that, but he has had plenty of time. At the time, I also recommended a restriction on his talk page privileges to restrict his use of walls of text; that was archived without resolution. It now appears, but I haven't researched in detail, that Robert Walker may be disruptively editing with regard to an India-related fringe theory about the origin of languages (that Indo-European languages originated in India rather than elsewhere). I don't see any connection to Hinduism. (The fringe theory is commonly supported by Hindu nationalists, but is not limited to Hindu nationalists.) I haven't researched the diffs by the filing parties in detail as to harassment. It does appear, based on first glance (without lengthy research), that Robert Walker is now stirring up trouble by campaigning for the involvement of new editors on his side of the controversy; and that raises the possibility that he has become a general trouble-maker for whom a block or a site-ban is more appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Support in order to prevent "silent interaction", that is, following JJ and opposing without making the interaction obvious. This stalking needs to be dealt with. The combination of a topic-ban and an interaction ban is less drastic than a site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Send to arbcom. After seeing the explosion of anger at the FTN thread it seems clear to me that arbcomm could at least allow for discretionary sanctions so that administrators could act to stem the tide of aggravation that our good faith content contributors are experiencing. !Voting to ban this one editor is only a bandaid on a wound much too large for a bandaid. jps (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
If discretionary sanctions are in place then we should send this over to WP:AE. If they aren't, then we should ask arbcom to broaden them. jps (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The basic problem is that I cleaned-up the Karma in Buddhism article, and Robert didn't like that. He wants a roll-back to the version before my clean-up, and a discussion of my edits, without wanting to participate in that discussion (the talkpahe already contains extensive explanations of my edits, and they are supported by several competent editors). He's been filling several talkpages now with his demands, repeating over and over again that I'm a POV-pusher who's ruining articles. He's also stating for a couple of months now that he's going to file a DRN-request, without doing so. And now he's started to canvass other editors, and trying to re-open a debate about which he knows nothing at all, en passant attacking me again. So, I'm through with him. Let him use the normal dispute resolution, that his, file his DRN, or just stay away. But not attacking me over and over again, without even remotely trying to or engaging in a form of concencus-building. He's only making it worse and worse. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!05:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment Joshua Jonathan has given three diffs as instance of Robert Walker harrassing him: 1, 2, 3. I am afraid I do not see any uncivil language or attack. --AmritasyaPutra09:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment Further comment on the third link provided by Joshua as proof of harrassment: well, a discussion getting closed in less than 24h with a clear verdict is a mockery of a discussion. I also think the appeal is fully justified and a patient hearing is due instead of attack on those who chose to question the closure. Or rather haunting those who questioned the closure is a clear case of attack as it has been done rightfully within due limits in a civil manner. --AmritasyaPutra09:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment Amritasya, I'm talking about "harassment": following me around, stating at various talkpages that I'm a POV-pusher who's ruining articles, without substantiating those comments. What he also did when he requsted to reopen this debate, suggesting that I'm biased and a poor editor. As if I'm the only one thinking, no, recognising, that the "Indigenist" position is fringe, or that I'm incompetent. I think it's quite clear from my edit-record that I'm a competent editor. So yes, when those kind of insuniations happen again and again, it feels like an attack. Robert keeps repeating "I'm working on a DRN", but we're still waiting. Instead of brandmarking me, he should actually try to resolve his "dispute". He's not doing so; he's only repeating his allegations. So yes, I've had enough of it.
I can only follow the diffs that you provided. Provide more diff to substantiate the "harassment", those three diff are not harassment. --AmritasyaPutra15:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Neither do I. Those diff are not attack that anyone can see. It should be simple to provide diffs, since it is being requested. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra05:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
If you think that's too much, here's the diff for the Dzogchen talkpage. Here's my intitoal response, in which I already noted his Wiki-hounding. Also read Jim's response. He even admitted "Yes I did find this article by looking through your recent edit history, but that's in preparation for posting about your edits to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard" diff. Also have a look at the history of the Zogchen talkpage to see ho he goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and ad infinitum.
Thanks for detailed, clear response. Now it makes sense. Wikihounding. I have faced it too. I hope admins take appropriate action, I have withdrawn my oppose vote in-place. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra06:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
"Skip the "intimidate", and try to understand, for one time, what's going on. And if you want to help Robert post his DRN, you could have closed your RfC weeks ago already, as I've asked you before. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!05:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Support although I'd rather see a one-way interaction ban. To me the problem is that Robert Walker is following Joshua Johnson to pages that the latter has edited, and this disruptive behaviour needs to be addressed. While a topic ban would prevent RW from following JJ to pages related to this topic, it doesn't prevent RW from following JJ to other topics should JJ choose to edit them. However, a topic ban will prevent some such disruption and it's better than no remedy at all. Ca2james (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Support General: If I filed a report, making false claims that Joshua Jonathan has stolen my self-grown carrots, I would be running the risk of facing WP:BOOMERANG. If I just roamed around different Talk Pages however, declaring that "in my opinion Joshua Jonathan has stolen my self-grown delicious carrots", and that "I'll file a report of that incident" but without ever doing so, I'd be using the article Talk Pages as a "Wall of Shame". Similarly, RW is roaming the article Talk Pages, voicing out claims on Joshua Jonathan's "behaviour". Technically WP:HUSH is about harassment that takes place at user Talk Pages. Well, the substance is exactly the same but RW has just chosen a venue more public, the article Talk Pages.
I see so many aspects to this. WP:BOOMERANG would require a filed case, but since RW hasn't filed any even though he has kept saying for months that "soon he will", he dodges the boomerang. Does this make it okay to roam around article Talk Pages and voice out such claims? Certainly not. It seems we are somewhere in the middle of boomerang and personal attacks, and some administrative judgement is needed (even WP:WIAPA comments on "What is considered to be a personal attack?" that "These examples are not exhaustive."). IMHO, a topic-ban could make the case. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Interaction ban
I found Robert Walker's entry into the WP:FTN thread whose closure he has requested be reviewed, in the middle of the thread. I concur with User:Joshua Jonathan and User:VictoriaGrayson that he has been stalking Joshua Jonathan's edits, since WP:FTN is not a place he had previously edited. Recommend a one-way interaction ban on interactions of Robert Walker with Joshua Jonathan. That is, Robert Walker may not respond to any posts by Joshua Jonathan. This may seem harsh, but following another editor is harsh. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Support as Robert Walker is clearly following Joshua Jonathan and disruptively inserting himself into conversatios where he has shown no previous interest and has a lack of expertise. I'm not convinced a topic ban is necessary because once he stops following the other editor around, his disruption in those areas should stop. Ca2james (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment But he still can posts at talkpages where I am active? I see a complication there... And if we interpret it strictly: what if he starts to engage a talkpage on a Buddhism or Hinduism related page, and I start editing there too? It would give me a strange kind of "privilege", as it means he would have to back-off. That's not fair, nor clear. So, I'm afraid a topic-ban is still more appropriate. Plus, indeed, also avoidance from my part of areas where Robert is active. Although, he's merely editing a very selective range of talkpages, so in practice this may work. Some admin-feedback would be welcome too, at least for me. Anyway, thanks for the efforts, Robert McC.! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!19:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Joshua is correct that a one-way interaction ban does work like that. It does not require any avoidance by Joshua. It is true that this is a harsh remedy, but stalking another editor is harsh. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. One-way interaction bans are fundamentally unfair. We should ban both of them if they've both been behaving badly, or if Robert's been the only one causing problems, we should block him. If JJ wants to antagonise RW, he can annoy him with impunity (like Foghorn Leghorn with the dog), and while if JJ acts in complete good faith, someone else could come in and cry "ban violation!" on a page where RW was still trying to obey the ban. See JJ's comment, too, "what if he starts to engage..." He's right. Too much room for wikilawyering and too much room for bad-faith participants to game the system. Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose as per Nyttend. To reiterate, one-way interaction bans are unfair. Either make the ban run both ways, or come up with a different solution. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 11:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment: why should I receive an interaction-ban, when Robert is following me around? I am already avoiding him. It might mean that the first one to edit on an article or talkpage "owns" the page. With due lack of humility from my side, it would be a loss for Buddhism and Hinduism-related pages if there is a possibility to stop me from editing on those pages in that way, because one editor objects to my edits. That would be basically unfair. So, if that option is to be ruled out, something else must be thought of. At least it should be clear to him that "dispute resolution" does not mean throwing around accusations at the pages where I am editing, and that he should actually post his DRN, instead of repeating he's going to do so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!16:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't saying that you ought to be banned: I meant that he shouldn't be I-banned from you unless you deserved to be I-banned from him, and that he ought to be blocked outright if he's been causing problems and you're innocent. Not having investigated the situation carefully, I don't want to support any sanctions on him or to oppose the idea of sanctions in the first place; that's why I offered no opinion about your proposed topic ban. I just want to ensure that any sanctions be reasonable and workable, and a one-way interaction ban isn't either of them. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Since some respected administrators think that a one-way interaction ban is inherently unfair or unworkable, and since there is evidence that Robert Walker has been stalking the edits of User:Joshua Jonathan, I have to offer a second-choice greater remedy, and that is a site ban.
!vote - Can someone do me a favor (since you voted) and summarize what happened? I believe stalking someone's edit history is perfectly fine. But an one-sided IBAN is not. --Ankit Maity«T § C»16:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Stalking is fine when someone's edits are structurally problematic, not when you just don't like someone's edits. Here's my summary:
The editor in question, Dorje108, has been critisised for three years (tags: diffdiffdiffdiffdiff)(talkpages: diffdiffdiffdiff), without a change of habit, but defending them with WP:IGNORE (diff) ;
I've explained my changes extensively at the the talkpages. Nevertheless, Dorje has hardly, if not, responded there, just like he hasn't participated in the thread and the RfC which he has opened himself (Rewrite & Secondary sources);
Four concrete concerns have been raised by Robert:
He objected to my clean-up, which I did in response to concerns which have been raised for three years now:
He likes the details and the quotes, and wants them to be re-inserted; other editors don't, following Wiki-policy; those details have been condensed, and the quotes have been removed or put in notes;
He disagreed with the statement "Intentions lead to further consequences" (or something like that); that sentence has been changed;
He also objects to some of the new information that I added:
He objects to Anderson; I've explained that she's been published by solid publishers, builds on the work of Norman, Schmithausen, Gombrich and Bronkhorst, who are the best scholars available of Buddhism;
He objects to the statement that "karma" was a minor concept in early Buddhism; this statement is voiced by multiple scholars, including Schmithausen.
Of those four objections, only no.1 still stands. The detailed info is still available, but appropriately condensed; if he wants some more quotes included (preferably in the notes), he can point out which quotes, so we can discuss them;
I've offered to Robert to go through those edits again several times diffdiffdiffdiff. Nevertheless, Robert doesn't want to discuss these changes as listed at the talkpages diffdiff, and he doesn't want to edit those articles diffdiffdiffdiff; he only wants a rollback, so other editors can discuss my edits one-by-one before I make them.
NB: Robert McClennon has been following Robert W. for a longer time yet, and adviced him to pursue a DRN; VictoriaGrayson is an active editor at Buddhism pages; AmritasyaPutra and Kautilya3 are active at India-related pages. Dorje108, on the other hand, was informed by Robert W. diff. Dorje voted diff, and two minutes later responded to Robert W. at his talkpage diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!19:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the detailed summary. Well, next time, just do me a favour and call editors by their usernames, it gets more difficult otherwise. I would oppose a site ban and go with an IBAN. But then, we'll have to wait till an admin comes. --Ankit Maity«T § C»15:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I want to keep this short as I have warned in the past about length of my post. Do I get a chance to reply? If you are interested in my POV on this proposal, please see reply to the topic ban. (Here I am using the third of my Work arounds for lengthy talk page posts which I developed in response to the previous ANI action.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertinventor (talk • contribs) 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I was posting this response but the topic was archived when I saved my edit; since this has been re-opened, I figure I'll post it now.
DRN is for content issues, not conduct issues, and it isn't necessary to look through an editor's contributions to file for dispute resolution.
Whether you went to a page because you found it by looking through his contributions or someone pointed you there, you went there because he was there and that's WP:WIKIHOUNDING, which isn't allowed.
To me it looks like you don't like Joshua Johnson's edits or approach to editing and so you're following him to pages and posting about his edits. That's harassment and not allowed, and it's why I support the one-way interaction ban. If the iban isn't going to pass then I support a topic ban. Ca2james (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Well - whether it is a user conduct issue is one thing that needs to be determined. Robert McClennon advised us to post it to the DRN first. This is explained in the DRN notice: See DRN Notice Draft. He did do BRDR instead of BRD and it seems to us that he breaches POV and many core wikipedia guidelines with his edits - on all five of those articles. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of wikipedia policies and did all this in good faith. And I don't understand what makes what I just did such a big deal. Of course if it is prohibited then I have to go by wikipedia policy! But if it is, I didn't know that at the time. Note, that I am no longer interacting with JJ or posting to talk pages on India, Buddhism, or Hindusim until the notice. Robert Walker (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Do please read my reply to the topic ban where I say that both things that were represented by JJ as edit stalking were in good faith. For the Anatta article, then I saw ScientificQuest's post to JJs talk page User JJ: Anatta and so went to the article where I saw that JJ had reverted 47 of SQs edits with just a cryptic comment. And SQ is a newbie editor doing his first attempt at a major edit, on a topic he could consider himself to be expert on as he is doing a masters on it. And this was his third attempt to add material to the article, all of which was removed with cryptic comments a newbie would not understand . It was not in support of the DRN indeed makes things harder to rollback - it was just out of sympathy to support an editor I felt was being treated badly. For more, see Anatta talk page posts
And in the other debate - first note that when I posted the suggestion for a closure review, the response was overwhelmingly overturn and it was finally closed with Consensus - overturn. Also, I didn't join it in an article talk page, but in a forum where there was a reasonable expectation that a contribution from an editor not involved in the debate would be welcome. Of course since the objections to me taking part I have since left that discussion. For more on all this, see Migration hypothesis debate. Robert Walker (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems wisest not to reply to JJ since he has proposed an interaction ban with me, and this is not the place to discuss the dispute itself. Robert Walker (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
(Note, this discussion was auto archived by a bot. That was because of 36 hours of inactivity when nobody responded to my reply. It has just been restored from the archive)Robert Walker (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Robert Walker, it is definitely a conduct thing. I actually agree with you on the Aryan Migration content and am opposed to Joshua Jonathan regarding the content.VictoriaGrayson01:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It was more than a month ago that I suggested to Robert Walker that he take his issue to WP:DRN. Since then he had repeatedly said that he is planning to go to DRN, but for whatever reasons, he doesn't do it; he only talks about doing it. Because one request was filed at about that time that was much too long, like his own talk page posts, he may have thought that requests for dispute resolution at DRN are supposed to be tediously long. That particular thread, by the way, was closed as failed. By this time, his statement that he is planning to go to DRN has become stale and implausible. I know that he doesn't like User:Joshua Jonathan or his edits. He asked me whether making extensive rewrites to a "mature" article was a conduct issue for which he could report Joshua Jonathan. I said that it wasn't, and that it was only a content dispute. Robert Walker: Either file a DRN request, or don't file one. Stop using it as an excuse to stalk Joshua Jonathan's edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment Robert, first of all, JJ warned me long ago that any attempt to deal with this through actions was likely to boomerang on me. See Get over it and move on. As a result we have been extremely cautious and careful, to have the most accurate presentation we can. I have nothing at all perseonal against JJ, it is because of the content. As for whether it is a user conduct issue - we hope it is not, and our sincere hope is to be able to return to collaborative consensus based editing, as was the norm on these articles before about July 2014. But in the circumstances it did seem necessary to research it as a possible user conduct issue, and that's why I felt it necessary to search his edit history.
Then, these ANI actions have delayed the DRN draft by about a month. It was nearly ready at the beginning of January. But JJ first took me to ANI for my overlong talk page posts, most of which I posted in December and earlier. After that I was quite shaken, and even though it was resolved as "no conclusion" and I was given a second chance, I felt necessary to log out of wikipedia completely and forget about it for nearly a week. During that time I decided I want to go ahead with the action, to preserve core wikipedia values as I see it, even if I get topic banned or site banned as a result. So we started drafting it again - and he takes us back to ANI again in response to what seems like us to be minor issues, as I had no intention at all of edit stalking him and didn't look at his edit history (that was research I did long ago now). But I understand how the synchronicity - that I was given the link to the fringe noticebaord discussion off-wiki soon after the discussion on the Anatta talk page can seem like edit stalking, and if I'd thought of that it would probably have been wise not to interact.
Then this ANI action was auto archived and we were getting ready to submit it again - when it is restored from the archive and the proposal for a site ban added. We have just continued with drafting the notice through all this, but I have posted here a few times. If I am site banned or get a topic or interaction ban, of course the DRN notice can't go ahead. But in case that doesn't happen we will have it ready, as good and accurate as we can make it.
Note also that User:Dorje108 is an editor with less time for wikipedia than most of us. He has most time for wikipedia at weekends. As a result collaborative work between him and me on the DRN notice tends to happen at weekends - and during the week - slower pace of interaction. And as I want the DRN notice to be a collaboration - essentially I'm doing it for him because he hasn't got time to do it himself and because we both feel that there is an issue with these edits which needs to be addressed. But he is the editor of the articles most directly impacted of the two of us. I have never edited any article on Buddhism except for fixing one broken link, because in my view the articles were already excellent (before these edits) - and my concern there is as a reader. My own main interaction in the past, before this dispute, was just to suggest areas of wikipedia that might need attention of the editors of these articles. Robert Walker (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation, Robert. It brings us back to where we started: Dorje108, who's been ignoring the issues with WP:UNDUE, WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:SYNTHESIS for three years. This comment pretty nice summarizes it:
I have inserted an over-quotation tag because "using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style" (WP:Quote).
As a first step, I propose to remove the "Contemporary glosses" section ("Do not insert any number of quotations in a stand-alone quote section") and the quotes in note 2, 3, 11, 12, 24, 27 and 30 (but keep the refererences).
We're all grown-ups here, who can take responsibility for our own actions and edits, so let Dorje108 take care of his own affairs. The talkpages are still waiting for his replies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!14:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Requesting an Admin to assess and close the above discussions
I concur. There is nothing new to be said here. Please close the discussion so that Robert Walker can submit his DRN (which I am supporting) and we can deal with some of the underlying content issues. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
For the sake of the admin who will need to evaluate this case, I would like to clarify the sequence of events leading up to these latest accusations:
I have been a wiki editor for several years, focusing on articles on key concepts in Buddhism, such as Four Noble Truths, Karma in Buddhism, Nirvana (Buddhism), etc. Until these latest circumstances developed a few months ago, I had managed to avoid disputes with other editors.
This past fall, RobertInventor initiated a dialog on the Karma in Buddhism talk page, suggesting improvements to the main Karma page (concerning the presentation of karma in Buddhism on that page). I agreed with RobertInventors points and made some edits to the Karma page as a result of RobertInventors suggestions.
Soon afterwards, Joshua Jonathan did a massive rewrite of a different but related article: Four Noble Truths. As is the custom with Joshua Jonathan, he did his rewrite quickly and without prior discussion, calling it a “clean up”. In the process, he removed a lot of carefully researched content that I had added to the article.
I strongly objected to Jonathan’s edits. I had developed the article over a couple of years based on extensive research and I felt his edits were unjustified.
Joshua Jonathan paid cursory attention to my objections but he essentially ignored my concerns and his edits remain intact.
Having little time to focus on the issue, and not wanting to get into an edit war with Joshua, I stepped back and disengaged.
Soon afterwards, Joshua Jonathan did another massive rewrite to another article that I had carefully researched and developed: this time the article was Karma in Buddhism. Again, Joshua did his rewrite quickly and without prior discussion, calling it a “clean up”. In the process, he removed a lot of carefully researched content that I had added to the article.
This time, RobertInventor strongly objected to Jonathan’s edits. I also objected. (Another editor would later concur with our objections.)
Joshua Jonathan objected to our objections and Joshua's rewrites remain largely intact. (VictoriaGrayson supported Joshua's edits.)
At this time, I informed RobertInventor of Joshua Jonathan’s massive rewrite to the article on Four Noble Truths. RobertInventor also strongly objected to Joshua Jonathan's edits on that talk page.
RobertInventor sought advice from Robert McClennon on how to respond to Joshua Jonathan’s aggressive rewrites. Robert McClennon advised it was not a conduct issue, but a content issue. Robert McClennon advised a DRN notice.
After discussions with RobertWalker on my talk page, in which RobertWalker shared the advice from Robert McClennon and other research he had undertaken regarding Misplaced Pages guidelines, I initiated two threads on the Wikiproject Buddhism page:
RobertInventor, Joshua Jonathan, VictoriaGrayson, myself and other editors participated in long discussions on the WikiProject Buddhism page; side discussions continued on several of the affected talk pages (primarily between Joshua Jonatha, RobertInventor and VictoriaGrayson).
Around this time, Joshua Jonathan made large rewrites to another article that I had carefully researched and developed over a period of months: this time the article was Nirvana (Buddhism). Myself and RobertInventor objected to Jonathan’s edits on this page as well.
RobertInventor then began developing a DRN regarding Joshua’s edits as advised by Robert McClennon
RobertInventor took a break and then resumed work on the DRN; as part of this process RobertInventor investigated Joshua Jonathan's edits on related articles (such as Annatta) and posted brief comments on the talk pages of these articles. (Note that anatta is also a key concept in Buddhism and directly related to the other articles that have been under discussion.)
Jonathan submitted a second ANI accusing Robert of Wikihounding and Stalking
IMO Joshua Jonathan’s accusations are without merit. IMO Jonathan and (to a lesser extent) Victoria are basically trying to assert ownership over all of the Buddhist-related articles and assert their own POV. What RobertInventor and I are seeking through the DRN is to have experienced neutral editors review Joshua Jonathan’s edits to the articles mentioned above to determine if Joshua Jonathan’s edits are justified per Misplaced Pages guidelines. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User Is not a
Is not a (talk·contribs) WP:NOTHERE Attempts to obstruct and my participation and disrupt sourcing discussions at notice boards, doesn't address content issue at hand, asking me to stop looking for sources.
Insinuates I’m associated with Larouche, making a personal attack and casting aspersions.
Denies evidence of my association with Larouche, harps on about defamation, suggest blanking the page in his edit summary.
Fails to follow WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD and WP:PUBLICFIGURE
Removes this tertiary source, which has been in the article continuously, it appears, since May, 2007, when it was first added as an External link here, and then used as a reference in January 2008 here.
He failed to get consensus for the removal on Talk, claiming that it was an “attack site”. I decided it didn't need to go in the article anyway, as it was a tertiary source and other sources could be used in the main body, and added it back as an external link after he removed another external link, and I was reverted without discussion, with a threat of taking me to AN/I while repeating a BLP claim he has refused to answer queries about. I re-reverted, he didn't file the AN/I, but simply reverted again.
Finally, he has made some spurious claims in an attempt to derail a topic ban appeal I have pending at AE.
--Ubikwit見学/迷惑17:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I shall leave this to others to discuss, since I am busy. Administrators should read the talk pages of the associated articles and at WP:BLPN and note that Ubikwit's SPI investigation request was closed with a suggestion that Ubikwit read the SPI description before filing another. Ubikwit received similar advice on at least one occasion here. isa17:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
That must just be an action of poor judgement. Otherwise, can you give us the diffs. in a list, so that it's easier to review. I can understand your exasperation but if enough, admins will declare an IBAN. Till, then fix this thread, please. --Ankit Maity«T § C»17:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The user "is not a" arrived at Misplaced Pages with longstanding experience and knowledge of old Misplaced Pages matters. I got very suspicious when this supposedly new person mentioned the incorrigible sockmaster Herschelkrustofsky here. This is not a new user; usually such persons are evading a block or ban rather than simply abandoning an old registered account in good standing. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I would rather focus on content issues at appropriate talk pages, but here let me give an example of the biases I have been trying to clean up at the BLP Robert Kagan:
OMG! Binksternet!! What are you doing!!!! Don't you know that WP:AGF requires you to throw away all your accumulated past experience and treat this editor like a long-lost friend, your best buddy from college or your cousin you haven't seen in years? Ask him in, serve him tea and crumpets, put him up for the night -- nevermind that your Spidey-sense is tingling away to beat the band, that he arrived at your door with a blackjack and brass knuckles, you must give him (or her) the benefit of the doubt. Not very cricket, sniffing him out like that. BMK (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Ubikwit, alas, has had major problems in the past with edit war behaviour, and has been cited for such by ArbCom. On Neoconservatism he has 4 reverts in just over two days, in Robert Kagan he has 4 reverts in just over two days, and so on. Some of his edits on Kagan were clearly problematic in the past, was a revert to call Kagan "Jewish", etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree somewhat. Both editors have been problematic on this page. I am not made a slew of edits removing any neocon reference and spamming templates. But they've correctly removed some EL and other BLP issues. Same with Ubikwit; some good edits, some not (like the one Collect linked above). EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 22:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Collect referred to an edit regarding a BLP issue I had encountered for the first time, with respect to which consensus was reached on this Talk thread there is other relevant background here and here.Owen (talk·contribs) appears to have "recused" himself from the article due to the dispute over that issue.
Meanwhile, regarding this exchangestarting herebefore being hattedhere, the text on the page could only have been in English because there is not Japanese translation of the book, and no translation function. Is that gaming the system (claiming he can't read the source)?
With these links, Ubikwit documents his discussion about "double loyalties" to Israel and the USA of American Jews, his linking to an antisemitic site, and his other soapboxing about American Jews and others adopting a "democracy" argument for supporting military aid to Israel and opposing aid e.g. to Egypt, the topic of The Israel Lobby.
This is so distasteful, that I'm done here. Do what you want, here in public.
@Is not a: those are serious allegations. Please substantiate them or strike your comment. And by substantiate I do not mean refer to some unspecified link somewhere else in the discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@Is not a: So you linked to somewhere else where you made this accusation? And then I followed your link there and I was unimpressed. Let me try to make this simpler and take this one step at a time: Specify, here, by name, with your next edit, the anti-Semitic site allegedly linked to by Ubikwit, or strike your comments to that effect. Gamaliel (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, this is quite enough of that. As one who tries to be a righteous gentile, I take accusations of antisemitism quite seriously. I also think it is not an accusation that should be thrown around the encyclopedia lightly. User:Is not a has responded to this matter on their userpage with a link to a news article on a particular publication whose name I will not repeat because the name of one of its founders is in the publication name, thus making the claim of antisemitism a BLP violation. According to the Misplaced Pages article on this publication, a publication with which I am completely unfamiliar, it has been accused of antisemitism in the past in the rough and tumble of political discourse, but I can find no evidence that this publication is actually antisemitic. Neither the Anti-Defamation League nor the Southern Poverty Law Center label it antisemitic. The ADL does call it "anti-Zionist", however, but the SPLC has used it in some of its articles as a reference regarding cases of actual bigotry. Most significantly, its founders are Jewish. Thus I conclude it is both a BLP violation and a violation of WP:CIVIL to repeatedly hurl that accusation against this publication and this editor. Given this, the gamesmanship on display here, and the dubious edit history, I am imposing a 24-hour block and an indefinite one-way interaction ban on User:Is not a preventing them from further interaction with User:Ubikwit. I also think it would be appropriate to consider evidence on the matter of stronger sanctions. Gamaliel (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
You know, I have to say that Misplaced Pages it's sometimes hard on to tell the players without a scorecard, but if the link that "Is not a" (stupid name) posted on his talk page is supposed to be antisemitic, I just don't see it; and I say this as an unabashed liberal who is generally (but not knee-jerkingly) pro-Israel, but who has found value in the writing of both Robert Kagan and his father Donald Kagan. Some of this kind of crap comes about because people insist on things being either black or white, even though the geopolitical world is much too complex for that to be true.
In any event, it appears that Gamaliel has blocked "Is not a" (still a stupid name) for his personal attack on Ubikwit, and I support that block. Which camp that puts me in I have not the slightest idea. BMK (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: Note that "Is not a" has a personal attack against Ubikwit on his userpage at the bottom (and a similar one against Binksternet on his Talk page under the subheading "Clean hands"). Softlavender (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@Gamaliel:Now that I see what source he is referring to, I think that a simple reference to the WP article's "Reception section is revealing.
It should not be permissible to attempt to impinge editor's integrity by launching a blatantly POV attack aimed at undermining the competitions sources, so to speak, especially where such serious allegations are being made. That is an offense beyond violating NPOV at the article's content level, and represents a sort of preemptive personal attack because one editor has a POV that is opposed to the POV of a reliable source (note that the source itself was not even challenged in that thread) that another editor has proposed.
I note that the subject of this report has retired, but he caused a lot of trouble in a very short time, and I agree with Binksternet that the editor is not a new editor, though the SPI I filed failed and it is not easy to connect such people to past accounts. They will resurface and again skew the editing environment off balance, trying to take out the competition through a smear campaign.
All the more reason that en.wiki needs to drop the proscription against so-called "fishing expeditions" and allow CUs to be run when there's a reasonable probability that a "new" user is a returning one. Too many times these malefactors get away with their abuse of the system simpy because who they are is not immediately apparent. We should not be in the position of rewarding those who use the system to hide their connection to previous identities when we have the tools to identify who they are, and block or ban them if appropriate. BMK (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with that, and don't understand the privacy issues that are claimed to prevent doing so.
The way things stand, hypothetically speaking, any individual of organization with resources to pay someone to sock for them on Misplaced Pages can wreak havoc, exercising far too much influence on the editing environment, at the expense of individuals that contribute their time and effort as individuals. There must be a better way to implement preventative measures.--Ubikwit見学/迷惑12:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
In regard to sourcing, it should be noted that I made it to the Kagan article via the Nuland article, to which the subject of this thread referred. I made it to the Nuland BLP via the Ukraine conflict in connection with a content dispute over the "F--- the EU" remark. A pro-US faction was negating all sources from Russia, including an official statement by Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, published in the state owned media. There were numerous RS/N threads, and I opened a thread at IRS that was inconclusive. The Lavrov statement (and by extension, the Russian pov) was barred, and I withdrew from editing about the Ukraine crisis. --Ubikwit見学/迷惑 08:54, 10:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
break
As an individual that has been associated with the "Israel lobby", it would seem that such categorization is merited, but two reverts have been made, with the reason given in edit summary, "request by article subject on talk page" and a link to blpcat. I don't know whether the assertion about the Talk page request is verified or not, or whether it matters, as it would seem that Kagan is a public figure.--User:Ubikwit (signing was on the original page) shows Ubikwit does regard the "Israel Lobby" as being important to Kagan. Note also that had been warned in the past about his positions and topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict "broadly construed" primarly due to his battleground attitude. There is no doubt in my mind that labelling a person as "Jewish" in such a case while asserting they are part of the "Israel Lobby" might be deemed problematic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
You appear to make insinuations impinging my character, WP:NPA. This is not a guessing games forum, so if you have something you might want to allege, then do so in a straightforward manner. Also, signing my signature in your post is incorrect practice.
Have you read the article I cited on the talk page that you quote above.associated with the "Israel lobby" If you have, and, like Is not a, don't like the source, either, and would rather condemn the entire site, then just say so. You're entitled to your POV.
HJ Mitchell stated that the diffs didn't show that I violated the topic ban.
Open Frederick Kagan thread at BLP/N at 11:15 on 1/31
After some discussion of first round of sources, Collect agrees that F. Kagan could be characterized as a neocon with proper attribution.
At the Neonservatives talk page, he reverses himself, and attempts to impede further discussion, claiming that the BLP/N thread opened only hours early had “was a “Fail”.
I state that his statement is a unilateral attempt to curtail discussion.
He then accuses me of “quote mining” and claims consensus.
I ask him for the second time to cease with the pointy disruptions, and not to falsely accuse me of misrepresenting sources.
Meanwhile, The Four Deuces (talk·contribs), to whom Is not a referred, was also involved in impeding that discussion, claiming that he disagrees with the existence of the lists on Misplaced Pages in the first place, because he doesn't like the criteria for inclusion.
I cited your precise post. That you find this to "impinge"(sic) your character is sad. I corrected the "signing" lest anyone think you somehow just posted here. And as I did not say you violated your clear topic ban, I am unsure why you need to iterate that bit - what is clear, sadly, is that you appear to be highly interested in Jews and the "Israel Lobby." You recently edited History of the Jews in Afghanistan, Ten Lost Tribes, Menasseh Ben Israel, British Israelism, Jewish Buddhist, Judaism in Nepal, Lev Tahor etc. all dealing with Judaism. And accusing TFD of "impeding" anything is a non-issue here - the fact is that you appear on the basis of your edits to be exceeding highly interested in Jewish issues, and have been topic banned in the past from Arab-Israeli articles broadly construed. And my advice that you consider that when you are the only person making a claim and others demur that you consider the very slim chance that you might be in error is standard Misplaced Pages advice. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC) (impinging no one)
Do either of you have any sanctions you want imposed or actions you think should be taken? If not, this discussion should be hatted. Gamaliel (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd like a 1-way interaction ban imposed against Collect. He has been responding to my posts in a somewhat erratic manner, sometimes changing his position abruptly, which generates friction and consumes time to clear up misunderstandings. I find that disruptive, and it impedes the overall discussion on Talk pages when it sidetracks the main focus.
Above I asked whether one interaction that was hatted as just such a distraction was a form of WP:GAMING, and that is a case in point.
The above comment demonstrates that Collect read the currently open AE thread, but
I suggest Ubikwit be told not to accuse other editors of being socks or of editing based on a POV without very strong reasoning based on diffs, that he not continue to specialize in "Jewish" issues, that he be told that the use of edit war on multiple articles at the same time is unwise, and that he be told not to attack or interact with "Is Not A." I suggest "Is Not A" should also be told to avoid direct interaction with Ubikwit.
I point out that I made no "allegation" that Ubikwit violated his topic ban, and I do not appreciate his iterated claim that I did so. Thus a two way interaction ban between Ubikwit and "Is Not A" along with the suggestion that Ubikwit avoid his "Jewish article specialization" seems to make sense.
I further note that I have not sought any interaction with Ubikwit, that I was going to oppose his ban from AN/I were it not for his accusation that apparently almost everyone else is against him.
His use of AN/I is problematic vide , and then attacks me at , , all pretty much at the same time with a great many editors. I seek to ignore him, and have not sought here for any actions against him, and find this request that I be the one banned from mentioning him to be Kafkaesque. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Further evidence of his possible antagonistic attitude toward almost everyone is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive810#Ubikwit for which he was blocked for two weeks for insulting User:AGK by saying Listen, AGK, your actions have consequences in this world. Isaac Newton pointed that out to the physicists, and I'm pointing it out to an undergraduate wannabe attorney from Scotland. Capisce? I fear his accusations against me are of the same ilk. Collect (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
And to make it clear: Ubikwit: I specifically and abjectly apologize for any instance here where I said you violated your topic ban. I trust that apology is sincere and accepted as such. Collect (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC) (please try to avoid making edits within a continuing sequence by another editor - it amonts to refactoring his comments which he expected to be read as a sequence)
Note also that had been warned in the past about his positions and topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict "broadly construed" primarly due to his battleground attitude. There is no doubt in my mind that labelling a person as "Jewish" in such a case while asserting they are part of the "Israel Lobby" might be deemed problematic.
Which is a basically indecipherable passage, seeming to imply either that you agree that the source Is not a smeared as anit-semitic, or you assert, like Is not a, that I violated my topic ban. I don't see a third reading of your statement, so consider that you intended the later, based on an oversight, rather than the former, a more serious WP:PA. So I queried you about it, and your response was indeterminate. It seems that maybe you actually didn't read HJ Mitchell's comment, and upon recognizing that deny that you too asserted that I violated that topic. Otherwise, you have no grounds to comment on my editing what you refer to as "Jewish topics" on Misplaced Pages. Your POV in that regard is exceedingly narrow. You do not own those topics, and Jews do not own those topics.
Interesting since you had written on the Kagan talk page:
The blog by self-identified progressive Jews might not be an opinion piece, but it did mention the two points in the same article. I do see xxx's point about the possible implication of "divided loyality". On the other hand, there are plenty of politicians (Jews among them) that present themselves as being loyal to the USA and pro-Israel without worrying about that presenting a possible COI, emphasizing that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East", etc.
Which some might accidentally read as an editor specifically connecting "Jew" with "divided loyalty" and the Israel lobby. Of course, I am sure, of course, you would not make such claims. Collect (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Here again, if you still haven't read the article, "". And I would suggest also reading the "Reception" section I linked to for that publications, because the subject of dual loyalties appears to be something that they often address.
Moreover, such accusations in American politics are nothing new. It should be recalled that, before Kennedy was elected president, some Protestants and others used to say that a Catholic shouldn't be president because he would owe more loyalty to the pope than the Constitution, etc.
My position at Kagan's BLP was, of course, if it is common knowledge that Kagan is Jewish and associated with the Israel Lobby in reliable sources, why would Misplaced Pages not disclose the fact that he is Jewish. Once I learned about the current thinking on BLP policy regarding religious affiliation, that was the end of my participation. On the other hand, as I noted in the article, "divided loyalty" based on religious affiliation is not a foregone conclusion, as many people do not try to hide their religious affiliation regardless of their political stances on Israel.
The article, however, is unabashedly clear regarding the existence of various potential issues
"Middle East policymaking is now dominated by the Israel lobby and its affiliates. Advocacy of Israeli positions has replaced professional qualifications as the criteria for service.
That brings this discussion back around to your apparent insinuation that there might be something "problematic" with my edit, which only appears to exist in mind."There is no doubt in my mind that labelling a person as "Jewish" in such a case while asserting they are part of the "Israel Lobby" might be deemed problematic." I suggest that you cease and desist with what could easily be taken as making the exact same assertion here, albeit in a veiled manner, that Is not a made. Obviously, it doesn't matter if you don't like the POV of Mondoweiss about the neocons, Jewish and otherwise, and the Israel Lobby, with which I happen to agree. --Ubikwit見学/迷惑07:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Moreover, at the time, it seemed to me at the time, given my lack of knowledge about the defacto (it is not dejure, apparently, according to @Owen: WP blpcat policy about religious affiliation on BLP's, that since Kagan is not only a public figure but has served as a public official, the norm in American public discourse is not to hide information such as religious affiliation. So here’s one more passage from the article
Kagan pushed the Iraq war to George Bush as a battle to help Israel. He and his neocon friends wrote, “If we do not move against Saddam Hussein and his regime, the damage our Israeli friends and we have suffered until now may someday appear but a prelude to much greater horrors… Israel’s victory is an important part of our victory.”
Furthermore, a talk page discussion related to including religious affiliation, with reference to a public figure who may have a conflict of interest, is not the same thing as stating in the article that such is the case. The point of the Talk discussion was about including him in a Misplaced Pages category according to religion and ethnicity, which you have described as “labelling”. So your statement above regarding an editor specifically connecting "Jew" with "divided loyalty" and the Israel lobby exceeds the scope of the limited discussion about Robert Kagan. It should be noted that the issue at Kagan's article has been going on for years, I see, without any BLP policy statement being established.
BLPs seem to have a special consideration that does not fall under WP:NOTCENSORED,
@EvergreenFir: Why do you characterize that as an edit war? Are calling that a violation of WP:EW? The material (one link) removed from the article has been there with consensus since 2007, and there was no consensus on the Talk page for its removal. You introduce a new rational for your deletion with the edit summary "These do not seem to meet WP:ELYES", so I will study that when I get the chance, but we we'll have to take that discussion to the Talk page.
What do you mean by that baseless assertion? Do you have a logical rational? If so, present it, so it can be addressed in terms of reason, not you jumps of faith accusations from out of the blue. Why have you not commented above? The subject of the thread has had two sanctions opposed against himself, so your assertion is so out of line I consider it to be a personal attack. You false accuse me of filing a report that has resulting in sanctions against the editor I filed it against. Do you see the logical fallacy in your assertion?--Ubikwit見学/迷惑23:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Gamaliel and Binksternet
I requested that Gamaliel ask for a review of his administrative actions here, on my talk page (10:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)), to which he has failed to respond.
Here, I request first that Gamaliel's unilateral IBAN be made a two-way ban or removed, not only for fairness but to avoid violations of WP:BLP and other policies, which have been addressed in my contributions to articles (, ) (Regardless, I request an immediate suspensions of Gamaliel's unilateral IBAN for only this ANI discussion. 10:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC))
Second, I am also confused that others have been discussing problems with the treatment of Judaism or Israel in related WP space without having been cautioned, where I was blocked in the middle of the night when I could not respond or alter any offending text. This does not seem to be consistent with blocking policy or fairness, particularly since I had indicated the lateness of the time (, responding to Gamaliel's ultimatum here, despite the time. 09:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)) and there was no disruption being prevented by the Block, which seems to have been punitive.
Third, I would like a review of user:Binksternet's behavior particularly on my talk page. ( 09:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)) isa08:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC) 08:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC) 09:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
In particular, Interaction Bans are supposed to be imposed by a community consensus. Gamaliel did not have the authority to impose a one-way interaction ban. isa01:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
BMK Considering that Is not a was blocked solely on the basis of his personal attack, perhaps, as Gamaliel suggested above, a more serious sanction should be considered, like a topic ban from all "Neoconservatism, broadly construed".--Ubikwit見学/迷惑11:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Unilateral IBAN imposed by one administrator
Motion: Gamaliel's unilateral one-sided IBAN is void. Gamaliel or another editor is welcome to propose such a ban to be discussed by the community at ANI.
Support: Gamaliel's ban was improper because individual administrators lack the authority to impose bans. Gamaliel's ban did not represent the consensus of a discussion at ANI (although one can claim it represented agreement of BMK and himself, at least for an hour or so); also, it has not been entered in the community sanctions list, which is where ANI-sanction bans are supposed to be listed. Gamaliel's ban was not claimed to be a WP:BLP Arbcom-authorized ban, and it has not been entered into any Arbcom list of bans. isa09:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Gamaliel lacked the authority to individually impose an IBAN. If Gamaliel wants to impose a ban, then Gamaliel need to have a discussion for example here, and then have it authorized as consensus. Such bans are logged as community actions.
Presumably, complying with the policies on administrators and bans does not harm the encyclopedia.
Gamaliel, please point to earlier discussions at ANI that advocated a one-sided IBAN, if you claim you had such authorization. isa06:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Whether or not an admin ticked the right box is not really the point. This discussion is taking place at ANI, and anyone wanting their interaction ban removed would need to show how its removal would benefit the encyclopedia. The discussion above shows that attacks on an editor were made, and when pressed for evidence, none was provided, so the IBAN is justified. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
How am I supposed to answer Gamaliel's inappropriate question while I am allegedly topic banned? I prefer not to be indefinitely blocked. isa06:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
This topic is listed here only to permit it to be ridiculed or dismissed. Unfortunately, this proposal appears to be an attempt at wikilawyered bullying by Ubikwit to silence Collect.
Relucatant Support Noting how he wrote to AGK and the interesting phraseology therein, and a large number of editors seems to indicate the drama boards do not need this agita. Collect (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose*, for obvious reasons, and agree that RobertMcClenon deserves a WP:BOOMERANG of some sorts. And I would like Robert McClenon (talk·contribs) to remove the personal attack falsely accusing me of being a "vexatious litigant", or maybe to have him blocked for 24 hours if he refuses to do so. He did not participate, constructively or otherwise, in this thread at all until jumping in with these outrageous sanction proposals, and has been nothing but disruptive.--Ubikwit見学/迷惑 23:53, 3 February 2015 11:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose and agree that RobertMcClenon needs some kind of BOOMERANG for these two suggestions. Maybe a nice {{trout}} on his user page. Shii(tock) 00:22, 4 February 2015; 11:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Extend Topic-Ban to All Jewish-Related Topics, broadly defined
Comment An utterly groundless proposal, outside the scope of the thread and based on accusations that I posted source to an anti-semitic site, which I did not, etc., etc., etc. --Ubikwit見学/迷惑23:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
What is the basis for even suggesting this? As far as I can tell this is a dispute over a rather boring external link... Shii(tock)00:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe there's been a topic ban on the Arab-Israeli sphere so this would be an extension of that. I disagree with it though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Propose full two-way interaction ban between Ubikwit and Collect
Oppose As I never initiated all of this - and Ubikwit has repeatedly used AN/I to attack many others - and even attacked an Arb in the past. Sanctions made without any sound rationale are foolish at best. In fact, Ubikwit has had many problematic interactions with a great many editors, and singling me out makes zero sense here - truly. Collect (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - Ubikwit hasn't shown that Collect is harassing him or that Collect's reports of Ubikwit and complaints about Ubikwit go too far. Oppose, although less strongly than one-way ban, for same reason, that Ubikwit is trying to silence a critic who is within Misplaced Pages policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Propose Topic Ban and Interaction Bans all round
For everyone who has commented in this discussion, from anything unrelated to actual content writing.
This has apparently been going on for a few days now, with the same few people talking in circles. I'm going to take some bold actions in the interest of putting this thread out of its misery. First of all, Is not a (talk·contribs) is an obvious alternate account, and is being used to engage in combative and contentious editing. This is an inappropriate use of an alternate account. Our policy on alternate accounts is very clear: such accounts may not be used to segregate combative edits or conflict, per WP:SCRUTINY and WP:GHBH. I've therefore blocked Is not a (talk·contribs) indefinitely; the owner of the account is free to use his or her main account if s/he wishes to contribute to contentious topics.
I will recuse from any action regarding Ubikwit and Collect and leave the proper handling of their behavior to other admins, noting that neither has exactly covered himself in glory: Ubikwit has edit-warred to restore extremely dubious external links, while Collect has repeated unsubstantiated and irresponsible accusations of anti-Semitism against Ubikwit. MastCell06:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Kindly note I have in no place and at no time accused Ubikwit of "anti-Semitism", and I specifically apologized for any place I said he had violated his topic ban (so far, I can find no place where I made any such allegation), and I dislike being so maligned here by an admin who appears to be preternaturally involved with me regarding BLP interpretation., , , , , , , , , , , , , , etc. etc. etc. going back a long time to the Climate Change ArbCom case. shows, In My Opinion, a bit of edit following. shows an apparent disparity in out interpretations of WP:BLP. I would be exceedingly worried if our personal disparity in BLP interpretation is causing us friction, indeed, and apologize to MastCell for any such friction. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@MastCell: I would say that Collect flew under the radar of making overt accusations, so I've tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I do consider his insinuations of anti-Semitism, particularly with respect to the Monoweiss source related thread, to be a highly offensive and disruptive form of baiting, and requested the 1-way reaction ban partially on that basis.
The links are a content dispute, and an RfC has been opened. The user you blocked was continually removing sourced material without discussion or consensus, some of which was obviously unjustified. Both links have been in the article long term, with one since 2007 (and profiles from the site are used in other articles). I'm learning about the EL policy, but only restored here after EvergreenFir agreed that one of the sources, at least, was OK (3-1 consensus at that point), while the other hadn't been discussed after a BOLD deletion constituting part of a series of tendentious disruptive edits. After I restored, Collect reverted, and the RfC was launched by EvergreenFir.--Ubikwit見学/迷惑21:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
User repeatedly violates WP:POINT, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, is stubbornly Wikilawyering, and repeatedly edit wars in the process as he willfully pushes his view without considering other editors' input.
AGF: , , ,
Recent edit warring, & WP:POINT in article editing (in the first diff, he disruptively removes reviews I'd added from the album ratings box) - chronologically: + my response: + ; + ; + + + ; + + + (←linked to Wikiproject discussion in which he said himself recently it was only a guide)
I'd addressed his behavior in article and talk page with a cordial message on his page, asking him to stop disrupting and start working collaboratively.
I know I have a disadvantage here as Dan56 has promoted many GAs or FAs (reading over ANI, that apparently tends to give you automatic pardon of Wiki guideline violations), but this user has a history of eschewing collaboration, of disruptive and tendentious editing, pushing POV, OWN attitudes, WP:battleground, disrupting editing to make a point, not assuming good faith, genre warring, accusing others of what he is exactly doing or has done, and many editors have called him out on his behavior and editing practices in the past, on various article talk pages (particularly RfCs). Dan56 evidently is not interested in changing his behavior as he feels his promotion of GAs absolves him of any responsibility for his actions and that he's potentially answerable to no one (as his unsanctioned acts would lead him to believe), evidenced, recently, here and here. Most of my encounters with him have been on the band Garbage's articles, at which he arrived about 7 months ago after being canvassed by another editor (who possibly didn't know about the policy then) in a content discussion, and where he willfully employed the same editing tactics and violations he's still willfully and freely employing.
Please see see this relevant RfC here, which is the (recent) source of this dispute, and where much of the aforementioned is evident further.
Dan56 does not appear to want to contribute to a collaborative, disruption-free environment at this band's pages, where he has quarreled with me and engaged in all the aforementioned countless times. My request is a topic ban for this band's articles. What he's contributed (e.g., copy edit of reviews, date formats) (by essentially shutting out others, really) can just as easily be and have been contributed by myself or any of the other editors watching the article. And, as I pointed out in the RfC, If Dan56 had actually bothered to give me a minute or two to copy edit and fix issues and continue improving and augmenting the article, as opposed to just reverting and disrupting constructive edits none of that would occur. Of course, that appears to not be in his nature, particularly for these Garbage articles, for which he, going by all prior indication, has a bias against. --Lapadite (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Lapadite77 is personalizing a dispute which stems from my involvement at Talk:Garbage (album)#Album genres and the subsequent RfC for those genres, which didn't go Lapadite's way exactly, partly because I was invited by Andrzejbanas to weigh in and sided with him. Last October (), I began cleaning up and expanding a section at Version 2.0 and have been involved there since. My recent revisions to Lapadite's edits were justified by guidelines I don't feel he can fully grasp at the on-going RfC, where he canvassed two of his recent collaborators at other "Garbage" articles to weigh in. Lapadite argued for his version of the article by drawing comparisons to other stuff in the RfC, so I dont believe he had any intention to drastically trim and properly paraphrase the quote farm he added to the article in question. The section in question is essentially complete, considering the notability of the reviewers and the viewpoints researched, so this is appears to be another attempt at creative control. Dan56 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Did I mention Dan56 had a history of accusing people of things, never admitting he has done anything wrong, and creating striking lies and misleading statements which are easily refuted by the actual, readable evidence? In that Garbage album RfC, which one can readily see, toward the end, editors called him out on his intentionally misleading tactics (for which he took 0 responsibility for and ignored the comments, and which he again similarly employed in this recent RfC, which I commented on). I created a new poll, because the other was corrupted by Dan56's tactics and lies and more useful content had also been included in the article, with an updated proposal based on recent article edits, and it went smooth and successfully. Exactly the opposite of what he claims here. This accusation - "this is appears to be another attempt at creative control" - and the hypocrisy is utterly laughable. As you can see, in accordance with my report, Dan56 does not believe he does anything wrong. All of the aforementioned, articles and diffs linked, speaks for itself, regardless of how Dan disregards and reinterprets his actions and assumes of others'. If one were to bring all the editors that have called out Dan56 on his disruptive behavior and editing practices throughout various articles they would all agree with this. I don't link to past talk discussions not directly pertaining to this dispute because it may be tacky and doing so might be interpreted negatively but I have no problem doing so if asked. This is far from a personal dispute or vendetta, which I don't care for. You can see my cordial message on his page, and after that Garbage album content dispute he linked, I had very amicably discussed with him on his page some content matters on another article; unlike him, I don't hold grudges and I'm not here for battlegrounds and disruptive practices, only to improve articles. Dan56's presence at this band's articles has been continually disruptive as his POINTy, POV-pushing, OWN, Wikilawyering, NPOV/Stick to sources-eschewal, genre warring (a significant issue during that album article discussion he linked) and lack of collaboration inhibits progress. For instance, If he hadn't disrupted improvement of that article's section (specifically the start of my constructive edits which, as I said in the RfC were far from finished) that section would've been completed right soon and without the need of all that came after it. Of course he credits the current version (which needs a checking of sources and copyediting for POV, cherry picking, sticking to source) to his mighty self, since, liked I stated above, he shut editors out and steamrolled his edits, and while RfC had just started. Again, this isn't the first time here Dan56 inhibits or significantly slows down progress here, takes ownership of an article and disregards collaboration, in the process perpetuating an environment of only disputes (as I remarked near the end of the current RfC I linked: "Is there an RfC that's not a battleground with you? To which he replied, "that's cute and all".). I strongly believe a topic ban is best. --Lapadite (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
You need to file a report here. I recommend including only good evidence in the form of diffs. This thread will likely be closed, by someone else, accordingly. Or do you expect an admin to jump in and block the user per this report? Doctalk08:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I expected admins to comment on ANI and consider the irrefutable content in all the links provided. Why do you think I should file a report there instead? That page says it is inactive, and the topic dispute isn't limited to RfC conduct, it also, and primarily, regards editor conduct on this band's articles, hence my request of a topic ban, and not another kind; WP:TBAN →"The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Misplaced Pages.". --Lapadite (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Another tendentious edit and reversal of copyedit/improvements, demonstrating again WP:OWN, POV, and Wikilawyering issues:
I copyedited, as edit summary details:
He wrote, in another section on the talk page, at 10:08: and 2 minutes later, made the following revert (including restoring of his tendentious, NPOV, undue weight-violating ratings replacement ): . The pre-copyediting version (his) that he restored is in many respects cherry picking, giving undue weight, and not sticking to source.
My response to his talk page post: )
I sincerely hope what has been provided and continues to be provided (obviously, again Dan56 has no plans to change his habits here) is more than enough to see why I, with reason, request a topic ban for Dan56, due to his considerable, disruptive OWN issues on this band's article, his complete disregard for collaboration, his consistent tendentious editing, knee-jerk reverts of improvements he disagrees with, violations of WP:PRESERVE and all else aforementioned.
Can any admins bother to tend to this thread? All that continues to happen is disruptive and more disruptive editing from Dan56. Lapadite (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Pinging a couple of editors, spotted while skimming ANI, that I believe are admins, to see if maybe this could start getting some attention (sorry if you're not one): Drmies, Stalwart111
I understand what Lapadite is saying, as some of my debates with Dan56 were similar in the past, but unfortunately, I think he's one of those editors that treads the line carefully, where he can come off as rude or abrasive, not its not really bad enough to warrant a block. Unless it starts escalating to personal attacks or hounding, I think a better approach would be to just keep starting discussions or RFC's, to come to a consensus that combats the WP:OWN issues. Sergecross73msg me20:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the disruptive editing guideline mentions some "tread the line" behaviors these kinds of editors may engage in such as: "Their edits often avoid gross breaches of civility, by refraining from personal attacks, while still interfering with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article". Dan56 doesn't do blunt personal attacks, although others may disagree, and this isn't a report on personal attacks nor a proposal to ban him from editing Misplaced Pages but a request for a topic ban, to rid of his considerable, still ongoing (after 7 months) pattern of disruption at this band's articles, his considerable OWN and WP:POINTy behavior, and considerable disregard for collaboration. He's still doing it, still reverting. And presumably this guy has many editors not wanting to speak against him, perhaps admins. Pretty much every other thread at ANI has several comments. This is just ridiculous. --Lapadite (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Part of Dan56's tendentious edits, is (first mentioned above) the constant replacing of a positive score with a negative score in the album ratings box (which already contains 10 review scores). It has been called out and explained multiple times on the talk page, noted how it's not only tendentious, but violates WP:UNDUE and WP:PRESERVE, but Dan56 keeps restoring it. There's also the persistent claim that reviews that agree on some element of an album are virtually incompatible in that regard in a reception section; summaries of reviews can't include similar opinions, unless of course for something that contradicts positive notions. Any admin's care about this pattern of disruption, OWN and tendentious editing? Seriously, this article would've been completely improved by now if Dan56 hadn't gone (and still continue) on a disruptive, tendentious crusade. --Lapadite (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Is this thread still open? Dan56 does like to ram a point home when he thinks he's right, the problem with that of course is that sometimes he is right. He's been very helpfully sorting out the "critical response" sections to numerous album articles to the extent that when I start improving one for WP:ALBUMS/500 I look at that and think, "good stuff, Dan's done it". With that in mind I'm just reluctant to come down like a ton of bricks on him. As others have said, he's never crossed the line into personal attacks, so all I can really advise is to just stick to the article and forget about who's saying what. It's the only sane method. Ritchie33312:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I won't pretend I've read all of this thread, but I'm not at all surprised to see Dan56's behaviour become the subject of another discussion. Just over a year ago, I talked GabeMc out of opening an RFC/U on this user, when Gabe and several others were fed up with him, and, although I could be wrong, I believe this was the near-miss referred to in a subsequent RfC on Dan56, in August 2014. I chose not to have any input into that discussion either, but the references there to Dan56 being so obviously pro-Robert Christgau and overly controlling of article content were all too familiar. My direct contact with Dan56 has been limited mainly to tedious discussions about album genres at Talk:All Things Must Pass and Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#"Heavy metal album"; I've seen numerous, similar discussions going on over the last year or two – for instance, at Talk:Crime of the Century, Talk:Are You Experienced (can't access the archive for that page), Talk:Sgt. Pepper's – but, quite honestly, just the sight of his username is enough to ward me off, unless I consider speaking up really important. Ritchie's correct when he says that "sometimes he is right", but at the same time, Dan56 behaves as if, by divine right, he must be so at all times – there's no element of compromise, nor any awareness that he might be making working on music articles a miserable experience for others. He drives editors away from the encyclopaedia, I'm convinced of it – and I can't help thinking that's fine by him, if he alone is left working on album articles here.
Doc commented above that Lapadite needed to supply specific diffs rather than launching an unsupported attack. I don't doubt that that's the correct way to proceed, but I sympathise with the frustration that Lapadite seems to be expressing. As Sergecross73 says about Dan 56: "unfortunately, I think he's one of those editors that treads the line carefully …" So, by and large, everything appears correct per the letter of the law but (I think) at the same time he's continually falling foul of the spirit of Misplaced Pages – pillars four and five, as I understand them.
Dan56 is the only editor I've ever felt the need to watch, and for all the wrong reasons. I see him constantly laying down the law with new editors and regularly removing the protests that arrive on his talk page, when those editors are not time-wasters but have a case to present. He initiated the removal of terms such as "favourable", "mixed", "unfavourable" from the album reviewer ratings template without (as far as I can see) posting any notice at all on relevant project pages such as Albums or Rock; if those terms have to go in favour of recognised scores and ratings, then fine, but anyone proposing such far-reaching changes, you'd think, would want as broad a consensus as possible. A select few were similarly invited to a proposal on alphabetising album articles' personnel sections (after which Mudwater and I put the word out to a wider audience). To me, along with the other actions mentioned, these are examples of how this user wants to – and does, unfortunately – dominate album articles on the encyclopedia. I don't have bad feelings towards anyone on Misplaced Pages but I think admins need to address this behaviour. I said to John around the time of an episode in March 2014, it's not just about looking at diffs and specifics, it's about the entire way this user conducts himself on Misplaced Pages. That's the problem, that's why a thread like this gets opened, and it's why there'll be another one about him within six months. And as I've mentioned, there are other conflicts concerning Dan56 (the January 2014 episode) that don't even get the attention they deserve. JG66 (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
BLP with the whole nine yards (COI, Copyvio, NOT, MEAT, etc)
An editor with a self-identified COI (I won't give diffs here to avoid outing, but the editor uploaded an image as "own work", associated with his real life name, which is also given in the articles) added a large amount of NOT a webhost, directory, or indiscriminate list text to both articles (sample here.) Bibliophile227 (talk·contribs·logs) reinstated the text, that was earlier added by Ghz89med (talk·contribs·logs) without discussion on talk. Neither of them has engaged talk:
I have also removed several instances of copyvio or too close paraphrasing, and correctly cited information that was previously uncited, which new accounts are reinstating or removing.
When I listed on talk the problems with the article, including sourcing, copyvio and others, and that Bibliophile227, SPA Ghz89med and a Minnesota IP, SPA 50.241.48.62 (talk·contribs·WHOIS) had all edited User:Bibliophile227/sandbox, Bibliophile227 blanked the sandbox. Within minutes of the sandbox blanking, four new accounts were registered and began editing the articles: Gibsonten (talk·contribs·logs), Stellapensac (talk·contribs·logs), Convsa2 (talk·contribs·logs) and Jacsman (talk·contribs·logs). Jacsman and Stellapensac, for example, have made the same edit. It is a curious deletion since her well-known divorce was mentioned in the article already, albeit uncited.
So, there's a lot going on (BLP issues, COI, NOT, possible MEAT, instances of COPYVIO/too close paraphrasing, etc), and I'm not sure to which individual noticeboard this might go, including possibly MEAT along with COI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
And I now see (by scrolling to the bottom of the diffs), that the deletions made by the accounts is POV, since the source includes criticism of Tippett. Perhaps that text-- not the well known divorce-- explains the appearance of these accounts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like that source myself -- it's listed as a commentary, and it does have some rather snarky comments in the footnotes. This definitely appears to be a case of sock or meat puppetry, though. And I don't know about the outing issue -- I'm (perhaps unreasonably) suspicious of "own work" that appears to be sourced from Flickr.--SarekOfVulcan (talk)15:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to clear up any confusion, my name is Mariah (a little targeted googling will find my full name), and I am Ghz89med and Bibliophile227. You are right I am a producer for this radio program. The concerns you expressed are very valid. I should not have created other accounts and I won't do that again. I understand that my language might and in some cases will be biased, however, this page was in dire need of an edit and a build out. I will keep contributing to that, and I invite your edits as well. I will not revert edits by other users, unless there is a clear and legitimate (non-POV) reason to do so. I'm doing this in line with the standard practice for radio shows, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Radio, and as such, I will be adding an episodic list. Please edit and contribute so this can be the most in line with Misplaced Pages's best practices. I do invite collaboration, I know that's what makes Misplaced Pages great. I will be using this account for all future edits, because I want to be transparent. I don't like anonymity, so feel free to message me for an email address. Mariahism (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Mariah
Yeah, I know. I'm sorry. I got freaked out when you posted my IP address and my location (which I know, open source, fair game, but I got spooked). These are all the user accounts I have ever opened with Misplaced Pages. Going forward, I'll be using Mariahism for work edits and Bibliophile227 for personal. All other accounts that will going forward be unused: Ghz89med, Convsa2, Gibsonten, Artez28, Jacsman, and Stellapensac. Again, sorry about that. (unsigned edit by Bibliophile227 16:12, February 4, 2015)
And now you're posting from the Bibliophile227 account, so which account are you going to use? Can admins please advise if the others should be blocked? I remain concerned because there is plagiarism everywhere in the On Being article. I'm out of time for today, but it needs additional scrutiny. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I accidentally posted from Bibliophile227 because I couldn't find this page without logging into that account. Again, thanks for your patience, I know you are quite a bit better at navigating this world. I am committed to resolving issues on the On Being and Krista Tippett pages. I'm sorry that I can't do it faster. I think SandyGeorgia is referring to the section "Digital Convener" moved to talk, this is not plagiarism but original research, just to be clear, which I understand now, is not permitted. It will stay off the page until there are secondary sources for it. Again, please feel free to reach out (yourself or other editors) with concerns, my email is on my user page. Mariahism (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
No, I am referring not to that text (which was uncited original research that I moved to talk), but to extensive other text taken directly from sources without quotation marks or attribution. See my edit summaries at On Being for those I've identified as I've had time. I am concerned there is more, but have limited time today to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I note also the account User:Mhelgeson whose sole edits were to remove the speedy deletion tag from Sustained Dialogue Campus Network which you created. I assume that is also yours? How many more accounts have you forgotten? In my view, this editor should be restricted to one account only and make a full disclosure of their COI on that user page. The others should be blocked. There's no reason whatsoever why s/he should edit from "one account for work" and another as a "personal account", especially given the COI shenanigans and deliberate deception that have been going on since 2011 with every single one of these accounts. Voceditenore (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Block all accounts except one. User has so many accounts they may have temporarily forgotten some. Preferably do it through SPI so that a CU can be run for other accounts to block, e.g. sleepers. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I would allow an "at home" account, provided the two accounts are clearly linked. It might be preferable to rename User:Bibliophile227 to User:Mariahism (at home) or to make some similar arrangement. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 18:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
I'm fine with just having the mariahism account. This account already has a COI notice on the page. All other accounts can be deleted. If there's more I need to do to make the other account deletion happen, let me know.Mariahism (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
But now there is another thing that is becoming less and less clear as you post. You have uploaded images as "own work", and now it is not clear those images are your work, according to the different names you have used and the name you attributed those images to. Someone who deals with OTRS or I'm not sure what needs to verify who you are, because some of those images are still in articles. I'm not sure how this gets cleared up-- above my payscale. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
And now everything needs to be checked for copyvio and plagiarism. Here's the latest example, an edit just made (in spite of me raising plagiarism for several days): We've gone from uncited text everywhere, to now seeing that the wording is taken directly from the source, without quotation marks. ("The project resources have been used by ... Harvard Law School.") This is pervasive, I've found it on every source I've checked, and I don't have time to check it all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I've changed the language SandyGeorgia identified as offensive above. Many of the copyvio flags are for articles not available via web, and the others, referred to by SandyGeorge as the "Mook article" have been thoroughly checked against the source for wording similarities. If others want to verify, please do. For articles not available via web I have offered to share PDFs and full text for others to check against, but these should be flagged on the page as requests of quotes, not as copyright violations.Mariahism (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
This is becoming unpleasant. The instances of taking text directly from sources, without quotations, are quite different from the growing list of failed verification to offline sources, which are becoming apparent only as quotes are requested on talk. It is gradually getting cleaned up, but more eyes are needed, and I wonder if the necessary objectivity and competence are on board. I'd be most happy to unwatch if others indicate they are watching. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Where do things stand on blocking all of these socks? Should it be done via CU, or just done based on the admission above? I do have concern that there are more socks, since they were not all admitted, but am not sure a CU is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
They can be blocked by any passing admin, since M has said they are happy for that to happen. In the unlikely event that an account wasn't a sock they can be unblocked on request. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 02:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC).
User:73.11.72.255
User:73.11.72.255 has repeatedly changed sourced information on the pages of Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and Organizational Structure of Jehovah's Witnesses despite reversions by myself, User:Blackcab and User:Jeffro77. Upon being warned by BlackCab and myself on their talk page to discontinue their disruptive editing, User:73.11.72.255 deleted our warnings and put our names on a list of "Known Apostates" they created (since reverted by BlackCab with an additional warning by both myself and him). While I realize this is a quick request for a block, as they have only been editing for a few days, the reversions with no attempt at discussion and in particular the creation of the "Known Apostates" section I believe is warranted of an immediate block.
I did a copyedit after the editor's initial edits on the two articles indicated above. I retained some parts of the editor's initial changes where the changes did not misrepresent the cited sources. Since then, the IP editor restored their other changes and falsely claimed those changes were according to "consensus", but the editor has not made any attempt to discuss any changes. The editor's subsequent personal attacks on BlackCab and Vyselink strongly suggests that the IP editor is unlikely to make any reasonable effort to work collaboratively on articles related to the religious denomination that is the subject of the articles above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
A silly dispute about nothing. "User:73.11.72.255 has repeatedly changed sourced information on the pages of Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and Organizational Structure of Jehovah's Witnesses despite reversions by myself, User:Blackcab and User:Jeffro77." It is called editing, and is in the nature of developing articles at Misplaced Pages. Is the HQ in New York HQ for JW, Governing Body or "the Society"? Could it be both, or even all three? I've followed this topic for several years, and Jeffro77's and BlackCab's oneminded critical view of all aspects of the religion is way undercommunicated. To state the views of former members well known for their highly critical view of the topic, like the IP has done, as "claims" rather than "states", is may very fair. Dr. Penton have clearly stated the prosecution of JW during WWII was their own mistake, or at least a result of Rutherford's critic of the Nazi regime, a classic technique used by historical revisionists and right wing extremists about Jews. Further dr. Penton have, in the sourced book, expressed strong sympathy and long time correspondence for/with a mentioned Swedish historical revisionist. JW had disassociated with the revisionist because of his extreme views, while dr. Penton failed to communicate that the Swedish historical revisionist being one, and forgotten to mention the Swede's past as a former convict in Sweden (a modern, democratic country) for his extreme right wing Holocaust denial expressions. To use dr. Penton as a source for statements about JW, represents same quality of source selections as using nazists as a source for statements about the Jews: It is may worth mentioning his view, but as a view rather than a statement. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The IP editor has made no attempt to discuss their changes despite being asked. They are edit warring against a consensus view, which can be dealt with at the appropriate notice board, but it is unacceptable behaviour to label two editors with whom one disagrees as "known apostates". This is mindless hate behaviour and pretty extreme. BlackCab (TALK) 20:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Grrahnbahr's claim that I have a "one minded critical view" of the religion is demonstrated to be false by the many times I have also removed negative information about the religion. Additionally, far from being "undercommunicated", various editors—particularly Grrahnbahr himself—have frequently attempted to malign my motives (and those of BlackCab) when disputes arise about articles related to JWs. In fact, Grrahnbahr has previously reported me for supposed "edit warring" in regard to four words in one sentence that was the subject of discussion at Talk. (In that protracted ordeal, I actually restored the sentence to the same version that Grrahnbahr had restored five days prior, which had been the stable version for many months; yet Grrahnbahr still attempted to impugn me by claiming that I had introduced an 'unsourced claim'. Clearly Grrahnbahr has an axe to grind. The article Talk discussion is at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_59#Biblical_Christianity; the discussion resulting from Grrahnbahr's frivolous accusation is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive236#User:Jeffro77 reported by User:Grrahnbahr (Result: Fully-protected).)
Regarding Grrahnbahr's assessment of the content of the IP editor's changes, this can be discussed at the article's Talk page, and per WP:BRD, the IP editor should have done exactly that after their edits were initially changed (though they were not completely reverted). But the IP editor has made no attempt to discuss anything, despite the editor's false claim of restoring "consensus". Grrahnbahr's description of the IP editor's persistent reversions without any discussion as simply "editing" is quite dishonest. The IP editor's initial edit was "editing", but the subsequent repeated reversions without discussion is "edit-warring". Grrahnbahr is well aware that disputed changes should be discussed at the article Talk page.
In an attempt to distract from various distortions introduced by the IP editor about what the cited sources actually say, Grrahnbahr has attempted to highlight some of the minor semantic changes instead, such as the IP editor's less accurate description of the headquarters. Additionally, Grrahnbahr's deviation into Penton's supposed views of the Holocaust has no relevance to any of the disputed changes. Most of the changes are to text that isn't even sourced to Penton, and none relate to the Holocaust.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Several editors have been trying to straighten out articles in certain religious areas from pervasive bias. There are 2 or 3 editors who have userboxes proclaiming themselves to be formerly of a certain religion, and these same editors persist in re-adding negative information about that religion to certain lightly-viewed articles. There is a strong feeling of ownership over these articles by these few critics, and a reading of the talk page will show their continued attempts to overcome well-intentioned and clearly-sourced corrections. Jeffro, BlackCab, and to a lesser extent Vyselink have been editing these religious articles continuously for many years, and their apparent negative personal experiences with the religious group affect their edits. Perhaps they should step back and let fresh eyes wash away any unintentional bias. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The claim about "2 or 3 editors who have userboxes proclaiming themselves to be formerly of a certain religion" is a lie. Only BlackCab has such a Userbox. As I have previously stated when falsely accused by pro-JW editors on Misplaced Pages, I have never personally accepted JW beliefs, though I have relatives in the religion.
It is not clear what "negative information" has been added to the articles being discussed, and this is the first time the IP editor has made any attempt to discuss any of their changes. The editor is still yet to engage in any discussion about the specific content at the article's Talk page.
For several years, I have edited Misplaced Pages articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. The pro-JW editors call me 'anti-JW' and the anti-JW editors call me 'pro-JW'. Overall, it's a pretty good sign that my edits on the subject are neutral.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The IP editor has also added a bogus warning about supposedly 'biased content' at Vyselink's User Talk page, but Vyselink has only restored the stable version of the article that was already supported by existing sources.
When the IP editor initially made their changes, I removed only the parts of their changes that did not properly represent the cited sources, as well some mundane issues such as wordiness. Other elements of the IP editor's changes were retained. However, the IP editor has shown no desire to work collaboratively, or to discuss any element of article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that BlackCab has such a userbox, while Vyselink states the same in the text of his user page. It appears that your close coordination with them in attempting to override clear consensus caused me to lump you in with them unfairly. I thank you for your attempts to be unbiased, however after extensive discussion we have decided to move forward with the proposed changes. If you have any concerns, you are welcome to explain them in the usual manner. 2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I suppose that's as close to an apology as I will get from you in regard to the lie about the Userbox and religious affiliation.
There has not been any discussion of the proposed changes. If you believe there are problems with bias in the articles, you should start a relevant section at the articles' Talk pages raising your specific concerns.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Please stop saying I lied. You were working with two editors who had a disclosed bias against a certain religious group; I somehow got it in my head that you had the same bias. It was a mistake that was quickly uncovered. The repeated undesirable edits are more of a problem. 2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I haven't been 'working with' the other editors any more than I've been 'working with' you. Except that you refuse to discuss your changes. You haven't indicated anything about what is supposedly 'undesirable'. As an example, you've claimed in your edit summary that referring to the Watch Tower Society's publications as "Watch Tower Society literature" and calling their headquarters their headquarters and saying the Governing Body don't call themselves "leaders" are all "inappropriate". You need to articulate why you believe those things to be "inappropriate", since they are plain statements of fact that are more accurate than the wording you keep asserting. You should do so at the articles' Talk pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment - the editor User:2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0, who has been making the same edits in tandem with the other IP editor named above, is now playing tedious games. After I advised the editor that the changes they are seeking to introduce to the stable version of the article should be explained at Talk after they've been disputed, the editor is childishly claiming that it's actually me who introduced changes to the article. With this kind of behaviour, it seems unlikely that the editor will ever be able to meaningfully contribute to Misplaced Pages. See User_talk:2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (only one Talk section).--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Grrahnbahr has the correct view above. Jeffro and 1 or 2 others have been editing these articles for many years, and seem to strongly resist any changes not made by them. However, we have been working to resolve all the disputes, but Jeffro has not yet shown any willingness to work collaboratively. Instead, he and one of his associates have repeatedly made threats of blocking and banning rather than discussing using normal Misplaced Pages processes - processes I have used for over 5 years. He may need a preventative block for 24 hours to regain perspective if he does not stop the disruptive editing. 2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I have no 'associates' on Misplaced Pages.
It remains contingent on you as the editor who is insisting on changes to the stable version of the article to indicate why you believe them to be improvements.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
This is the sort of "I didn't hear that" behavior that has become troubling and makes me feel Jeffro has developed ownership feelings toward the article. He insists on his preferred version as the "good version", and pretends not to understand that by "associates" I mean "the 1 or 2 other people who are making the same types of edits you are - edits against the consensus" 73.11.72.255 (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I have not insisted on 'my' version of the article at all, but simply the stable version of the article from before you began making changes and then refusing to discuss them. No 'consensus' whatsoever has been established for your edits. Based on the principles at WP:BRD, after your initial edits were challenged, it is contingent on you to discuss your changes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment The IP editor has finally begun 'discussing' at article Talk, in a highly combative manner and apparently under duress after repeated warnings of their inappropriate conduct. The editor is continuing to misrepresent their changes to the article as the stable version. It seems unlikely that it will be possible to work with the editor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Block of Jeffro77 possibly needed - Jeffro77 continues making personal attacks above despite repeated warnings. He is dismissive of any views other than his own, and is determined to force through his preferred versions over the versions supported by sources and the other IP editors. I remain very open to discussion once he stops making attacks and threats and is ready to move forward in a collaborative fashion. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Now he's just lying outright about alleged personal attacks. There have been no personal attacks. The editors continue to misrepresent their recent changes as the 'stable version', which is another lie. It is not possible to work with these two IP editors, who are clearly working in collusion. (Earlier in this thread, one of the editors said "extensive discussion we have decided", but no on-Wiki discussion exists, so they are collaborating off-site.) I'm going to leave the article for a while until admins have addressed the edit-warring and belligerent behaviour of the IP editors involved here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Sock puppet alert: It is still unclear whether identical edits from the two IP addresses are being made by one person or two. This edit, however, from an IPv6 address, was signed as the IP editor 73.11.72.255. That same IPv6 address was later used to continue the edit war at Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses, using precisely the same edit as IP editor 73.11.72.255. (See and the whole edit-warring sequence at that article). In any case 73.11.72.255 on his own is on the verge of breaching 3RR.
It is also highly amusing that the declaration on my user page that I am ex-JW proves "bias", while the IP editor whose edits bear all the hallmarks of a JW member is just trying to, you know, "straighten out" the article. Let's not lose sight of the fact that this thread began with a complaint that the IP editor had decided on his user page to brand me and another editor as "known apostates". That sort of cranky religious hate language, a term widely used by JWs to denigrate former members, is a fairly good indicator of the motives of this editor in trying to "straighten out" the article and, indeed, have a long-standing editor blocked. BlackCab (TALK) 12:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
User:73.11.72.255's "warning" on my talk page is interesting, as I have (as has been stated by other editors above) not INSERTED any new information, but reverted to the original information which, at the time of my revert, had not been discussed. I see that they have now, belatedly, started discussions in a very contentious manner on those pages, while attempting to shift the blame to myself and other editors for "changing" information, which is categorically false and verifiable by anyone who looks at the pages edit history.
As for being in collusion with "1 or 2" other editors (I assume BlackCab and Jeffro77) this claim has been made in the past and it is false. I do not know BlackCab or Jeffro77, and my talk page clearly states that I was raised a JW, but have never believed, and that I rarely edit those articles except in the cases of obvious vandalism, such as the IP editors are currently engaged in. I have no bias against JW's, as (current IP editors aside) they have been nothing but great to me personally, and have changed my mother's life very much for the better, allowing her to stop smoking and drinking and generally be a much better and happier person because of it. I have made exactly 4 edits to the "Governing Body" page, all in response to vandalism, and until the recent vandalism, the one I had made before that was in 2012, which was also in response to vandalsim. As for the "Organizational Structure" page, the only edits I have ever made to that page have been to reverse the current IP editors vandalism. Both editors have mistakenly asserted that there is "consensus" for their changes, and I agree with BlackCab's sock puppet warning as being something that an admin should take a closer look into. Vyselink (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Time to close? - This complaint can probably be closed now. Jeffro has calmed down, and the other two editors on his side, BlackCab and Vyselink, are acting in a less militant fashion. The bit about sockpuppetry is a diversion. My IP address changes between IPv4 and IPv6, I don't know why as it is the same connection. There are some edits from an IP that are not me, so I think there are at least 2 IP editors, perhaps 3, editing under dynamic addresses. 2601:7:1980:5B5:21C2:E1D6:3861:74AB (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Er, no. The suggestion that the complaint "can probably be closed now" comes from the subject of the complaint himself who, after removing from his talk page warnings for 3RR and sock-puppetry continues to edit-war under dual IP accounts. . The user admits he is behind both IP addresses but disingenuously suggests other editors are sharing his IP address, presumably to reinstate his own material. BlackCab (TALK) 22:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Um, what? You and I have both been the subject of recent "complaints" and I want to encourage you to stop personal attacks and focus on the articles. I have said for some time that my IP address sometimes shows up as IPv4 and sometimes as IPv6, I don't know why. However, there are other IP addresses editing these articles that I have nothing to do with. There is nothing odd or suspicious about any of this... 2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any other IP edits in other ranges that have been editing the articles recently, and certainly not in support of your edits. Of recent edits to the articles you've been editing, which IP edits are you claiming are not your edits? There has actually been only one other IP edit on only one of the articles you've edited. That editor introduced a copyright violation, which you persist in restoring when I've tried to remove it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
There have been edits from seven separate IPv6 addresses on the relevant articles. All of the addresses begin with "2601:7:1980:5B5", confirming that they are all on the same network. If they are not the same person, they are different persons on the same network colluding together.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Jeffro77, BlackCab, and Vyselink conspiring to evil ends - I have tried at great length to deal with you in a gentle manner. However, harsher chastisement may be necessary to overcome the apparent wicked schemes that involve conspiring and colluding to produce lies. I will no longer be editing any of these articles. But you are put on warning that you will have to answer for your error. 2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, now I'm "evil" for pointing out that you lied about IP addresses being unrelated. You've edit warred for several days and only attempted to superficially engage in discussion after you were reported to admins. You have lied about the stable version of the article. You have lied about consensus for your changes. You have lied about providing new sources. I'm not sure what is intended by "harsher chastisement", but I certainly hope its not intended as a legal threat.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Consensus is that the box needs to go. Yes, Bgwhite is thin-skinned, but how one transmits that opinion is highly relevant here. EEng, please let it go. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Which section of WP:TPOC do you believe allows you to remove (as opposed to reporting and letting an admin handle) comments on a user's own user page that you believe violate WP:POLEMIC? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree here. EEng has been blocked in the past for personal attacks and harassment (by Bgwhite) and it seems like he strongly dislikes this editor, enough to make a disruptive userbox. I suggest trading lightly for a while and removing the userbox. Eurodyne (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
True if it is just directed at bg, but because it is hidden another way to look at it is that it is devious. I also suspect that the infobox in question changes each time the user is blocked and would have a link leading to another block if and when the user is blocked again so while bg might take it as a joke the next admin who knows. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't take it as a joke. EEng insults anybody disagreeing with him, so I just see it as yet another one. The box was added November 14 directed towards me and it still is direct towards me. The box directs to a section header that was written by me, but changed by EEng. I've changed it back, EEng levels an insult, and again adds the "thin-skinned" header. Bgwhite (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Well then if you aren't laughing then I see no reason why the infobox needs to stay and ask that an uninvolved admin make the call here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
You know, I'm not actually all that sure it's as clear cut as that. When I first saw the user box a couple of weeks ago I thought it was a more a general criticism of the subjective, and often personal, nature of a lot of admin blocks. That it linked out to a particular incident was acerbic play on "X number of days since a workplace accident" with the last accident report on the board. I didn't take it as a "fuck this guy" type of userbox. I thought it was pretty funny. Maybe this is less of a big deal when people just decline to make it one. Besides, don't we get enough hurt feelings reports without adding vicarious hurt feelings reports? Did anyone ask Bgwhite what he thought? GraniteSand (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Since this userbox seems to be directed at Bgwhite, if he is okay with it, I don't see an issue of having it up since it only is directed at one person. Eurodyne (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTHERE seems to apply on EEng, on August 2014 he did nothing but attempt to harrass other users, and call Bgwhite a thin-skinned admin just because he was blocked. I know that's old news, but still... --ToonLucas22 (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't. Honestly, so free you are to hold forth and proclaim on things about which you know nothing. But such a misapprehension on your part might explain a lot. EEng (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
EEng made it after Bgwhite blocked him, but the second instance was after the issue over personal attacks.User_talk:EEng#ANI_Notice is relevant. EEng decided to reset it and mock persons. I dislike EEng's attitude and his most recent edit to his user page was to add a section on "Museum of additional reasons that ((Dick Cheney|warmongers)) are going to hell" brackets swapped to quotes. in what is a petty and rude gesture in of itself. He tempts the patience of others with such edits. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I recently removed that section due to it being disruptive, along with the box at the beginning, also for being disruptve. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Andy Dingley I'll revert it. I believed I caused it, and I didn't link to a category, so I had just removed this then irrelevant category from the talk page. I didn't think someone else was to blame. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Remove userbox - Userbox is disruptive (per WP:POLEMIC). I tried deleting it myself, but it appears that due to the massive amount of bytes, the edit never saves. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Ignore it ... raising this ANI thread counter productively will probably give it more views than it would have ever have gotten, anyway. NE Ent02:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Remove userbox Bgwhite's opinions on the userbox are not relevant—it is up to the community to decide whether it is helpful for a sanctioned user to poke the admin—of course it is not helpful. Regardless of whether the block was justified, collaboration is required, and WP:POLEMIC needs to be supported to avoid people recording their thoughts on all the bad editors they have encountered. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Drmies, if I could put some prosciutto on your pizza, I would. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In my opinion, the above was prematurely closed without dealing with the two separate issues I discuss below, and I request that it be re-opened for further discussion.
There are two issues here.
First, there is the question of whether this violates WP:POLEMIC and should be removed. Given the fact that it doesn't actually name a specific person and the fact that traditionally, admins have to be somewhat thick-skinned and tolerate some level of criticism about blocks they make, I would say no, but I can certainly see how a reasonable person might disagree with me and say yes.
Second, there is the issue of a non-admin editor removing something from the user page of another editor. WP:TPOC is clear in this question. The removal was against our guidelines. You should only edit/delete the words of another editor on his own user page when doing so is specifically listed in WP:TPOC, and if there is any chance of ambiguity or controversy -- as there clearly is in this case -- you should ask an uninvolved administrator to decide whether to delete it, warn the user not to do it again, etc. When in doubt WP:DISENGAGE. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Bugs, someone noticed it was wrong and took it here if we were to just say to everything "Its no big deal" where would the line be drawn? If you want to amend the policies and guidelines that say "In general, users should not be nannying other users'" feel free. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Calling someone "thin-skinned" is not only about as lame an insult as they come, but many editors (including on this page) have been advised to not be so thin-skinned about one thing or another. I don't see how it comes close to the bar in WP:TPOC. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 03:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm as thick-skinned as Big Al, but I'm just doing what the people want, and the people seem to think the box to be disruptive. Guy, you are correct, the other editor probably shouldn't have been messing with EEng's talk page, and I am sure they won't make that mistake again. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Bad close, backed by poor logic, and premature consensus, then enforced in, what I have to say, is a rather obnoxious manner. Altogether, pretty lame. At least no user will be exposed to this transgressive horror of a userbox in the future. Well done team, feelings healed. GraniteSand (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Wow, closed in three hours? How were enough people supposed to have time to see and opine on it, and enough of a consensus arrived at in three hours? Some folks aren't even awake at this hour. I agree with GraniteSand , "It brought levity to my day, brought down the faux seriousness of this place by a notch, and acted as a signal of wiki-philosophy. Not unlike the multitude of religion and politic UBs floating around." If there's an actual consensus that it be removed after enough people have had time to weigh in, that's fine, but a close in three hours is precipitous, in my opinion. I have enormous respect for Drmies, however this is the second time he has removed material from that user's talk page without his express permission. Softlavender (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
OK. Some people weren't awake, others were in school, others didn't have internet. Not the point: ANI is for incidents, not for audience participation, and if a user has objectionable material on their user pages, it is within policy to remove it--that they won't like it is a given. What do you want this board to be, a place for Administrators (note the initial A) to take action, or an endless discussion? Don't answer that here: this is closed. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Drmies, I am asking you to please voluntarily remove the above premature close or at least to indicate that another admin may do so without you objecting. You have not established as a fact that what Mr. Guye removed actually was objectionable material, and you have not even presented an argument in support of WP:TPOC allowing Mr. Guye to remove the allegedly objectionable material himself rather than bringing it to the attention of an uninvolved administrator. And if you really think that ANI is "not for audience participation", or that giving folks like me more that three hours to reply is "endless discussion", I suggest that you attempt to get a policy change/clarification saying that community input is not welcome here. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Thanks, Guy, but I'm happy with things the way they are. For those who missed earlier installments of this saga, I was blocked in August by BGwhite after I referred to a group of editors (including BGwhite) as "self-satisfied roving enforcers" . That this infamous userbox, memorializing BGwhite's brave intervention to stifle criticism of himself, has now itself been removed by this same group is one of the most delicious pieces of unconscious self-parody I have seen in many years. I've even added a userbox to my talkpage celebrating it -- or must even this feeble light shone on what goes on here be extinguished? EEng (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks, Drmies, for recognizing how thin-skinned some people are. I hope you don't get blocked for it.
Most people get over things, I am sorry you got blocked there are many here who have been unfairly blocked over things but making user-boxes to remind everyone of the fact just screams WP:POINT. If you want change then I encourage you to do so with discussion on the policies Misplaced Pages presently has in place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I am over it, but that doesn't mean I can't leave a record of it for others to see. The userbox sat there for months until this recent nanny inspection. EEng (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Template:CueEEng, I only have one question for you: Do you intend on starting a section requesting some kind of intervention to prevent these editors from doing damage to the encyclopedia in any of the forums where such discussions are appropriate? — {{U|Technical 13}} 14:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Just so people understand, the problem is that certain editors mistake their personal vision of what articles should look like for WP policy and guidelines, and go around conforming articles to these preferences, often with automated scripts. They do this in direct violation of the injunction, at the top of each MOS page, that "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." As long as they don't bother me in articles I'm working on (as they haven't for six months) I'm content to let the community deal with them eventually, as I'm confident it will. Reminding people of what happened is, for now, the limit of my contribution to that. EEng (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
You didn't directly answer my question, so I'll have to assume that I'm content to let the community deal with them eventually means that you do not intend to pursue a new discussion about the behavior of these editors (which I consider a very good call and answer) and as such this section should be closed as I can't see anything else to discuss here. That particular userbox was childish if not inappropriate and your replacement is even more so which makes me hope you consider removing it for now. I'm not at a computer atm and won't be anytime soon, I'm hoping Drmies or someone can move the close bottom below this comment. EEng, I have a RL situation to deal with, but I would like to talk to you via IRC or email when I return about something. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} 15:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Naturally I'm intrigued. Drop a note on my talkpage if you email me, because my limited experience is that WP email goes into trash. EEng (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I watch EEng's talk page, and I never liked that box. I agree with Drmies that this board should be about resolving incidents and not about endless discussion, and I think that the editors who speculate incorrectly about EEng's supposed employer should find better things to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The recent version of that box supposedly targeted Bgwhite, when it was actually Seicer who issued the most recent block. What's up with that? ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 17:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Having it removed citing "consensus" after my attempt to seek consensus was shut down is especially grating. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
EEng has put a disruptive userbox again . It appears that he/she gets butthurt everytime he/she gets blocked or a "It has been x days since..." userbox is removed from his/her talk page and decides to put a userbox related to what he/she put, and he/she also calls "thin-skinned" admins just because he/she gets blocked. I suspect (again) a case of WP:NOTHERE. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I have not reviewed EEng's actions. He may be a real jerk; he may well not be here to build an encyclopedia. But, that latest userbox is 100% true. It is (IMO) not disruptive -- unless you want it to be.
To me this is just another iteration of a very old issue. It is a power struggle, pure and simple. When users do something that administrators don't like, but when the users not only disagree but have the temerity to object to the sanctions levied against them by administrators, is this an unacceptable dissent against the powers-that-be that must, always, be quashed by any means necessary?
I'm probably hyperbolizing here, but I think this is how the issue appears to the EEng's of the world. And some, at least, of the EEng's of the world are here to help build the encyclopedia. We say "The 💕 that anyone can edit", not "The benevolent dictatorship encyclopedia that docile and compliant rule-followers can edit as long as they remember their place and are always properly respectful towards ADMINISTRATORS." So, please, if that's not the message you want to send, just let these userboxes go. And if you want to boot a user off the project for not being here to help build the encyclopedia, please do it for a more substantive reason than that the user refuses to say "Uncle" when confronted by admins. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Just so. Let me just repeat something I said here recently :
And finally, to each admin who says, "Well, I wouldn't have blocked, but I don't feel like overturning it": what you're condoning is a situation in which every editor is at the mercy of the least restrained, most trigger-happy admin who happens to stumble into any given situation. Don't you see how corrosive that is? It's like all these recent US police shootings: no matter how blatantly revolting an officer's actions were, the monolithic reply is "It was by the book. Case closed." This character was way out of line from the beginning in deleting multiple editors' posts (as someone suggested, hatting would have made complete sense, and troubled me not at all) and when called on it above, he gives a middle-finger-raised LOL. No wonder so many see haughty arrogance in much of the admin corps around here. EEng (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
And let me be clear: I have no problem with 97% of admins, who do noble work in return for (generally) either no recognition or shitloads of grief, only occasionally punctuated by thanks. But the other 3% -- whoa, boy, watch out! EEng (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Now, I'm no fan of userboxes. And there may or may not be thin-skinned administrators on Misplaced Pages who exercise dictatorial control over mere editors and who can't tolerate criticism of their actions. But I can hardly think of a better way of proving that there are such administrators (and that their actions are condoned) than by banning userboxes suggesting such. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
This whole user-box thing is childish, removing the userbox in question prevents anyone else from having to click on it out of being curious. If you want your chuckles and giggles at another editor's expense then this isn't the place for you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Prior to this ANI complaint, no one would have known about it unless they frequented the user's page - in which case they would already know what's going on. Bringing it here only serves to advertise it. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 20:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
You don't know that as fact though, over time new editors who work with other editors visit their talk-pages or else we wouldn't have new editors commenting there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The main issue with the userbox originally complained about, is that it targeted a particular admin, as if that admin was the most recent admin to block the user - which was not the case. That's better grounds for having it zapped than complaining about such a lame "polemic". ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 20:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Under WP:POLEMIC: "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed" I have already said that new users can and do access talk-pages, having info-boxes like these causes the issue to sit there and fester while over time have the potential for more editors to see the admin involved as a bad person without getting the whole story. The only so called positive thing I have heard so far is that it is satire and a laugh which in my opinion isn't helping things either. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we should talk and talk and talk and talk some more. Guy, we definitely need more user input, and I propose you make us get that for each and every single administrative decision that's taken here. I mean, why close anything just because a decision has been reached? Y'all have fun--I got better things to do. (I know--cauliflower pizza isn't much better, but it whines less.) Drmies (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Earlier tonight, I was blocked by HJ Mitchell (talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA). He also added me to the ArbCom sanctions log. Apparently, the reason they did so was because of an edit I made to Emma Sulkowicz - a woman who claims she was raped and has since been carrying a mattress around her university as an art project. The man she accuses of raping her, Paul Nungesser, has recently come forward and given an interview to to The Daily Beast to clear his name. (He had previously been named against his will in other sources.) His family also came forward and named themselves in the interview.
I edited the article to add the name of the individual. It was reverted by SlimVirgin (talk·contribs) per WP:BLP. I did engage on the talk page, but I also reverted because I felt that this was a clear case of WP:CRYBLP - the individual obviously wanted themselves to be named, and their name cleared, in reliable sources. However, shortly after, I was blocked without warning or discussion.
I'm a productive contributor of many years - I just ask to have a notation added to my block log that this was an incorrect block, Also, I'd ask to be removed from the ArbCom sanctions log, or for at least a note to be added. Kelly00:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
If the name of "the accused" is widely reported, there can't be a BLP issue. And quoting him and his family should be considered, in order to give some balance to the story. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 01:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe that's a misrepresentation of the situation, and I do not believe the block as incorrect or unjust. The article in question is a BLP that has been the subject of problematic editing recently. An edit war broke out earlier tonight over a name which was added to the article and removed on BLP grounds. Twice. The edit war petered out and a discussion ensued on the talk page. Kelly, a third party, re-added the name. It was removed on BLP grounds, again. Kelly re-added it for a second time. I observed that Kelly had previously been notified of the BLP discretionary sanctions, so I imposed a short block to prevent a potential BLP violation from being restored again, and unblocked once Kelly agreed to stop. This is absolutely not a case of "crying BLP"—the objections have been explained and merit discussion, so the name should not be re-added until and unless there's a consensus for it. We should not allow editors to bat away good-faith BLP concerns just because they disagree with them—concern for the real people discussed in our articles comes before our theoretical policy discussions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Could you explain the specific BLP concern involved, given that the individual concerned had gone public? Also, could you show some evidence of the previous warning for BLP sanctions? Kelly01:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
(ec) The "specific concern" is that some people feel that naming him in the article could cause him harm; it's a reasonable enough objection that it needs to be discussed and a consensus found. I don't have an opinion on whether the name should or shouldn't be included. And the discretionary sanctions notification is here (type "discretionary sanctions notification" into the 'tag filter' box in the page history). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
A BLP violation on The Federalist (website)? What specifically was it for? It has to be bogus and probably related to Neil deGrasse Tyson. What exactly was the nature of my BLP violation on that article? Or are we just giving people unjustified warnings and blocking them later for other unjustified reasons? Kelly01:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Good block. Kelly was simultaneously edit warring against consensus on multiple articles under arbcom sanctions, including Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson. He says he's "productive", but he deliberately and consistently disrupts articles related to left-wing politics, liberals, and conservative causes. His idea of being "productive" involves misusing the file deletion process to delete images that go against his POV. I think we can do without that here. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Good block The specific concerns involved are nearly irrelevant; there was a reasonable discussion going on at the talk page, which you knew about; other editors had asked that there be a pause for consensus to develop before this information was re-added. Was it really so important that it be added again immediately and couldn't wait for a talk-page consensus? IMO probably a good block, if perhaps slightly - just the slightest bit, not more - hair-trigger.
As for the notification, it doesn't matter what the notification was for; you were notified and should have been aware of DS for BLPs. GoldenRing (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
So if someone throws a BLP warning against someone, no matter how flimsy or bogus, the receiving editor can henceforth be blocked for any disputed edit on a BLP? Kelly01:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes. It's a notification warning you that discretionary sanctions are authorized for a particular subject. The notice says clearly 'Please carefully read this information' and then outlines the scope of DS, 'for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles'. After that, you're expected to be aware that DS are authorized in that scope of subjects. It's not flimsy nor bogus; DS are authorized for that scope and you were formally notified of it. That you didn't read it, or didn't believe it, or thought it was idiotic, or didn't keep it in mind, or whatever justification you have, doesn't matter. That's the process. GoldenRing (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Bad block Blocking has one purpose, and one purpose only - preventing disruption in a situation where no other effective remedy exists. Blocking a well-established user with a largely problem-free history of years of constructive contributions without talking to them first is a bad call. Sure, there was a technicality that allowed HJ Mitchell to carry out the block and get away with it, but is that really what we want? When an admin considers whether to block or not, what I'd expect him to think is "Is there really nothing else I can do?" rather than "Let's see, if I institute this block, will I be able to plausibly explain it thus getting away with my questionable conduct?"
HJ Mitchell, do you honestly believe that simply TALKING to Kelly would've been ineffective in preventing him from doing whatever he was doing? If yes, what makes you think that? If no, why did you block him when there was another solution? Do you want to drive Kelly out of here perhaps? 70.189.56.157 (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Of course a concern/feelings is not the same as a violation of policy. Could you (HJ Mitchell) please answer two questions:
1. Is there any reason why you couldn't have just asked Kelly to stop adding the sourced content, on his talk page?
2. What part of WP:BLP policy was violated given that the name of the accused party has been published in at least one reliable source, based on that source's interview of both him and Sulkowicz?- MrX02:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Kelly appears to have violated the conditions of her unblock by re-adding name shortly after agreeing to not do so as a condition of her unblock request. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I raised the issue at the BLP noticeboard. What is the rush to re-add it absent thorough discussion? This seems pretty concerning given you just assured an admin you would not re-add it as condition of unblock request and then turned right around and re-added it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
A legitimate BLP concern had been raised, the name had been removed twice, there were two objections on talk to inclusion, and a discussion was underway. Kelly then went ahead and restored the name, and when reverted restored it again. After the block and unblock Kelly added the name to this AN/I report, then restored it again to the article.
Whether anyone agrees that the name should be in or out is a separate issue. The point is that this isn't a frivolous objection. It's true that the student has given two interviews, but only after he was outed, and he's still trying to maintain some anonymity by being photographed in the shadows. Publishing a name on Misplaced Pages increases its visibility in terms of reach and perhaps endurance, so we should consider this carefully rather than racing ahead. Sarah (SV)03:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Except that it seems part of the motivation for going public was to clear his name - interviews specifically cited that Internet search results were depicting him as a rapist. "And yet if you Google him, in half of the articles you´ll find, he is still labeled a serial rapist.” (a quote from his father)Kelly02:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
So keeping his name out of the article is a BLP concern, because it keeps him from clearing his name. The university cleared him of rape, our article is doing him more harm than good. Kelly03:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: What was the "legitimate BLP" concern? Was it "I would appreciate it if the discussion could wait until tomorrow, because I would like to take part in it but don't have time today. This needs some careful thought before we do it, because names on WP become more widespread."? - MrX03:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
We are not here to litigate the merits of including the name, that's what the talk page and BLPN are for. We are here to discuss the block and Kelly's conduct the precipitated it. The block was not for BLP violations in their own right, but for repeatedly restoring material that had been objected to on BLP grounds. A legitimate concern had been raised and was under discussion, so reigniting an edit war to restore it before the discussion has even fully got underway if grossly improper. Given the speed of the reverting, I did not feel that warnings or advice would have adequately prevented disruption. I feel this belief is vindicated by Kelly's continuing to revert, despite the sole condition of the unblock being that they stop. I suggest Kelly be re-blocked and/or topic-banned; note that this can be done under discretionary sanctions. Again, the issue of whether to name the accused is irrelevant to this discussion; the issue is that it was removed in good faith on BLP grounds and should not be restored (much less edit-warred over) until consensus is established. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
You are not hearing the message, so here it is again: Stop pushing your view. Wait for the community to deliberate. There is no rush. Good-faith editors have said there is a BLP problem, and such issues are not resolved by determining who is willing to edit war the longest. The only question for ANI has been answered by HJ Mitchell above. Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Check the edits. There was no view "pushed". It merely replaced "the accused" with "Paul Nungesser". That's it. Kelly03:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Kelly, you've pushed your view here in this discussion and on the BLP board. Your view is that adding his name helps him clear his name. That's your POV. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. This case (like many involving similar allegations) is an absolute minefield. Anyone curious to know more should read the abovementioned NYT article. Maybe one person is guilty, maybe another person is innocent, maybe it's a complicated mixture. Columbia University and/or the judicial system will be hard-pressed to determine Truth here; Misplaced Pages (let alone AN/I) certainly won't, and must do its best to follow RS and BLP policy in deciding what and how to report. Whether or not to mention the guy's name, whether that helps or hurts his case, whether it is what he would or wouldn't want -- none of these questions is trivial, they're all difficult, and not at all to be decided in a moment by one user. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
So we're supposed to write biographies without using the name of person now? How is using someone's name as the title of an article about them a BLP violation? GoldenRing (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Multiple reliable sources covering her story over a pretty decent amount of time or, in other words, "per GNG". You can play coy all you like, Bugs, but it doesn't help anyone, least of all Kelly. And restoring information when legitimate (meaning "not crazy") BLP objections are brought up is always going to lead to a predictable outcome. Next, Drmies (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
User has on at least four occasions added content knowing that it is unsourced, but attempting to justify the addition by adding citation needed templates. These edits have been opposed by two editors. The content added should be reliably sourced, and by now the IP is engaging in slow edit warring. User seems ambivalent and has been warned about this before via other IPs they've used. See also 98.196.41.58 and 50.171.11.116. They rarely participate in civil discussion, preferring instead to make changes per their own preference. When the user is contacted on their talk page, they typically remove all discussions and warnings from their talk pages and issue an antagonistic summary in response. Their behavior is inconsistent with community editing and they have previously been brought to ANI: . Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect I just can't take both Anguswoof and Cyphoid's bickering and being strict with their so called "rules" and on top of that I am not antagonistic I just don't like to be cyberbullied just like what happened in KHWIKI where the users were not being nice and fair. You want me to stop letting them mess with me then I'll stop already, besides I already found the sources were Yuri was in Skylanders thank you, I just feel I want to (Redacted) because of this conflicts and feel I'm a cotton headed ninny muggins. :(73.166.187.154 (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I already did that, but I thought I was supposed to make a post here too (the message above states "please also email"...). Erpert03:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Should this really be posted immediately below the said IP's comment? I can see everything all in just the bottom half of my screen without scrolling at all. Dustin(talk)03:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I thought about that, but I didn't want to waste any time with a threat of suicide. Erpert03:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
ANI is quite slow, firstly. He preferably should've gone to IRC and used the emergency !admin tag to attract attention to this issue. But he e-mailed WMF, so it's fine. Erpert's posting at ANI is no problem at all, take this in good spirit, please. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C14:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Edit request - removal of stub tags from hoax articles
There are currently a number of hoax articles that have been moved to Misplaced Pages namespace, but still have stub tags and are hence still categorized as stub articles. Normally we keep encyclopedia articles and Misplaced Pages administration (such as this) in separate categories. The stub tags should be removed (or placed in nowiki tags, or replaced by what looks like a stub tag but doesn't categorize the page). Note: I can't edit the talk pages to place an edit request there. The pages affected are:
Sorry, I didn't notice the final destination was also a redirect to a section on the band's main article. It still seems like the second-to-last would be a more useful redirect than the one that was spared, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There seems to be yet more block evasion from India Against Corruption by the account who did this. Please can someone deal with it as appropriate before things spiral out of control again? Semi-protection of Aam Aadmi Party would seem to be a decent starting point. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I initially encountered the user at ITT Technical Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where they inserted a long list of sites that were called out by USA Today as having default rates higher than graduation rates. I trimmed the list, and I moved the text of the criticism to the section "Investigations, Lawsuits, and Controversies" where the study results remained visible, just omitting the excessive site listing that overwhelmed the rest of the article.
The material was then restored by the original editor, where they posted on my talk page arguing that the material should not be "whitewashed" and that if I have questions I should email the user. When I then looked at the edits by the user, I noticed that they are adding comparable content to multiple articles, frequently using an edit summary asking that they be contacted first before any changes are made to the content or its inclusion in the articles. I am concerned that this pattern needs additional attention to address. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Barek, I welcome a peer review by people who are familiar with this field. At the same time, I would hope that I would know their names to assess their credibility and trustworthiness. If we could get Suzanne Mettler, for example, a Cornell professor who did six years of research in this area, that would be great.Dahnshaulis (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The fact that you want to only allow people whom you feel have appropriate credentials to edit the articles shows you have a misunderstanding of how Misplaced Pages works. The content and who can edit the articles is not determined by user credentials, but by what is stated in third-party reliable sources and structured in a way that meets our content guidelines. One of those, re: due and undue weight, was mentioned when I purged the bulky list of sites, but there are many others as well which you may want to review, such as WP:OWN and WP:SOAPBOXING. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Barek, the problem is bigger than that. This is For-profit higher education in the United States before Dahnshaulis really got to work; this is the "after" version. Note the POV phrasing in the lead, note the many unreliable (or really way too POV-y) references. It seems to me that Dahnshaulis is on a mission here, and while that mission is--in my opinion--a laudable one, Misplaced Pages should not be engaged in what are, for our intents and purposes, crusades. Those ITT edits are of course unacceptable, and there's too much naming and shaming in edits like this and this. The problem is the presentation and the tone, and, as you noted, in addition the editor has a somewhat skewed idea of how we are supposed to work here ("Please talk to me before removing this information", "Please review carefully and talk to me before editing"). I think a topic ban here is in order, unless this editor successfully undergoes reprogramming in our gulag in San Francisco. Seriously, Dahnshaulis, I'm with you, but not inside Misplaced Pages. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I think a topic ban would be useful. If the editor wishes to draw attention to problems with these institutions, he has to learn how to make his point without absurd lists, poor sources, and unclear accusations. BTW, I have just been accused of "whitewashing" for removing this uninformative and space-hogging list. However it's nice to know that I "may be an intelligent person". Paul B (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The more I look at the editor's work the more I am convinced that they are indeed on a crusade of sorts--for instance, on their talk page to another editor, "I'm not here to make friends, but to make entries that will be helpful in the democratization of education. As I have said in other places, your attempt at so-called 'neutrality is actually an act of complicity"--this displays the kind of us vs. them mentality that is counterproductive in a collaborative environment, and WP:NOTHERE seems more relevant by the minute. I am also struck by the comments by Bahooka and ElKevbo (editors with cool heads, experience, and common sense) and Dahnshaulis's response to their comments. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Seeming like they have the best of intentions but are unwilling to listen or incapable of understanding, either way an attention getting block might be in order. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't believe in those, and it would have to be phrased somewhat differently. An option is indefinite per WP:NOTHERE with an attached offer of "change your ways and we'll unblock you". An hour ago I thought that was way too drastic a measure. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the best thing to do would be to consult an expert in the field of discussion, such as Cornell Professor Suzanne Mettler, who spent more than six years doing research in this area. Dahnshaulis (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Before you put me in the Misplaced Pages "gulag" as you call it, why not also consult ITT Educational Services (ESI) and ask them about the entries? Dahnshaulis (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Dahnshaulis we cannot be expected to "consult" experts on the whim of an editor. If you wish to draw attention to the shortcomings of commercial universities, do so by quoting scholars and other relevant commentators with due weight. Your current editing comprises listings of often irrelevant material, such as obscure law-suits the content of which is often not even identified. You would be better served looking at good quality articles and learning how to identify key content and arguments. Nor can you expect us to defer to your own alleged superior experitise. Paul B (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Paul, for people doing research regarding higher education in the US, this information is not obscure. Nor is this information trivial for people interested in matriculating to ITT Tech. Please carefully check the USA Today article and see how many ITT campuses are "red flag" schools. ITT Tech dominates the list. If an organization dominates a list, does one just make a small footnote (e.g. years the Yankees won the World Series)?
(edit conflict) The best thing to do is to follow established Misplaced Pages policies as well as and content guidelines.
As to contacting ESI directly - that would only provide non-verifiable commentary, which falls under the category of original research - so their comments would not be directly usable within an article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Does that mean someone else has to write about the information first, for it to be credible and trustworthy for Misplaced Pages?
Barek, what happens when the media and other organizations systematically censor information? For example, no major news outlet has written about Richard Blum's relationship with for-profit colleges in five years, even as for-profit schools have gained greater public scrutiny. Conservative as well as liberal media outlets haven't touched the subject. Yet Richard Blum is a California Regent and Senator Dianne Feinstein's husband. Does that mean that this story is insignificant? linkDahnshaulis (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
You should read Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, and if you can't figure out how your comments here are completely at odds with what Misplaced Pages is, then you cannot edit here. I feel like I'm flogging a long-dead horse: no original research, and neutrality at all time. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Extra extra, all you Twitterers: you've read by now that Dahnshaulis told the world that "Misplaced Pages editors considering a ban on my activities for presenting too much information". Well, Dahnshaulis, they are not: they are considering a ban for your lousy and non-neutral editing, for your abuse of Misplaced Pages as a soapbox from which to declaim the rights and wrongs of the world. Misplaced Pages was not invented for that--that's what you have Twitter, MySpace, Wikia, and WordPress for. Let me just add that I am highly sympathetic to your cause, but you are going about it totally wrong--if you had had a bit less zeal and more smarts, you could have improved these articles and thereby bring out what some might refer to as the truth of, basically, taxpayer-funded "education" that does no one any service but the CEOs and stockholders. I would never say that; it's not a neutral statement.
I am this close to blocking you per WP:NOTHERE, so you can ponder the problem with statements like "no major news outlet has written about Richard Blum's relationship with for-profit colleges in five years" (hint: if no reliable source has written about it, it can't be in an encyclopedia). Drmies (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@Dahnshaulis: You wrote, "Does that mean someone else has to write about the information first, for it to be credible and trustworthy for Misplaced Pages?" Yes, that's exactly what it means. You may have thought you were being ironic, but in fact you've quite accurately paraphrased the formal, written Misplaced Pages policy on this. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
User intentionally editing while logged out
I know issues like that should be reported at WP:SPI, but I don't know who is the sockmaster, so I'll do the thing here.
The thing is that: An user was editing while logged out and has put an uncivil comment at User talk:Malik Shabazz, so I removed it and gave the user a level 1 npa user warning. Then, I went to his contributions and reverted an edit that was supposely "vandalism revert", but it was just a "revert of vandalism revert", since it was just a re-add of nowiki tags on a template that screwed it up. He then sended me a message which harassed an administrator, so I replied to it and gave him a level 2 harass user warning, and left a Talkback template just in case. Then, he replied to me saying that I was a "budding administrator" and that I was not here to contribute to the encyclopedia only because I removed his comment, gave the level 2 warning and left him a Talkback template, then the user said that I was not able to really improve articles just because I didn't know to spell "harass". After that, I replied to him saying I was not an administrator (since I accidentally misinterpreted the thing) and that I fight vandalism which counts as being here to build an encyclopedia, and told him to take a look at WP:NOTNOTHERE and that he is the one that appears to be not here to build an encyclopedia. Then he told me to look at WP:NOTNOTHERE, which I had already did, just because he said that he was expressing unpopular opinions in a "non-disruptive manner". Then I told him that he was expressing unpopular opinions in a disruptive manner because at least 85% of his contributions were uncivil comments which appears to meet WP:NOTHERE. Then he told me I was not civil just because I didn't add "Thanks" or "Regards" at the end of my messages, so I told him that that applies only to level 1 and some level 2 user warning templates. Then he told me he had made about a thousand constructive edits to Misplaced Pages on various IP addresses and an user account, and that he has edited while logged out just to not risk being blocked by expressing such unpopular opinions. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The learned administrators here can, as can anybody else, see what I told you and what you told me by looking at the discussion itself. Thanks, 223.227.222.20 (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The Ip address might be useful. Not sure what can be done without some more information but we might be able to do some detective work to figure something out (no promises mind you). Amortias (T) (C) 19:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
With this post here, ToonLucas22 has provided a public exhibition of his appalling writing skills. From writing "Then" repeatedly and without succeeding it with a comma, to the usage of incorrect English constructs like "an user" not one, but two times. His post should removed as soon as possible from here because if a normal reader chances upon this page, he would be left wondering whether this is the quality standard of those of who write for Misplaced Pages.
ToonLucas22 is unfit for editing Misplaced Pages because (i) he cannot spell simple English words, (ii) he easily misinterprets others' comments, and (iii) he forgets to sign his posts. All this happened in a single discussion (User talk:ToonLucas22#Reply to comment on User talk:223.227.98.130). Besides, he is prone to needlessly replying to the snide comments of fun-seeking editors, showing his mental and emotional incapability to continue on Misplaced Pages. Thanks, 223.227.222.20 (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Did you even know English is not my main language? And it looks like you changed your IP in an attempt to evade a block and/or avoid scrutiny. Lets begin answering: (i) As I said, English is not my main language, but I have a lot of knowledge, though not full knowledge. (ii) I know humorous content is acceptable, but your uncivil comments are just not humorous. (iii) It is common to forget to sign a post for when someone is rushed dealing with other editors. Now stop attempting to avoid blocks. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Continued personal attacks, despite warning and requests to stop, and apologies made
Princessruby has continued to throw personal attacks against me (1234) as a user, despite being asked and told several times (by myself) that she should comment on edit content, and not editors themselves. This user has exhibiting owning of a page they've created and incivility with their words. While I acknowledge I might've been harsh in my actions, they were never in bad faith at any given time and I did apologize for them, stating that if they felt attacked by my actions it was not the intention (which was ignored); I've tried discussing my edits and reasons for editing, as requested by another editor at Talk:Max A. George, and upon explaining myself, I'm still given personal insults thrown at me. This user exhibits extreme anger (as evident in their editing and their user page where they claim their edits as "their work"). They've expressed their interest in "not discussing with me" anymore, so I am bringing this here to the ANI. Again, my edits have remained in the good-faith of Misplaced Pages, and while they might've been bluntly bold and that pages are always a work in progress, I feel as if my attempt to further help pages grow are being over-looked and not accepted; instead, I'm being called names and talked about, as if I'm some evil-spirited human being, which I am not, even following an apology if I had made Princessruby feel attacked, as that would never be my intention at all. livelikemusic21:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay so it was wrong of me to call you stubborn and annoying and etc, and for that I' sorry. But what you have been doing lately isn't right either. You keep removing the citations and information added by me, its like it has become your hobby. It's like you're always after the articles that I create. This isn't the first time or second or third. User:Livelikemusic has already done that so many times that I lost count of it. Editors are suppose to help other editors and not make them feel down. I'd also like to point out that this user left me a warning message on my talk page on January 16th 2015 - "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Misplaced Pages, as you did at Max A. George". I found this message quite rude, because I did not disrupt Misplaced Pages. This person deletes every citation and information I add, and when I retype the information back and add the citation, he gets back at me by leaving me a warning message. I don't comprehend what his problem is. It's like he can never be wrong, he's always right, but it doesn't work that way. Nobody is perfect, when you're wrong you're wrong, no matter what. I've never had problems with other editors why just him? It's because he's at fault or maybe we both are. I've been a Misplaced Pages editor for a really long time now, and it's really frustrating when someone keeps removing the citations and information added by a user with the right sources. --Princessruby (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
As stated on the talk page of Max A. George, I apologized for the removal of certain citations; the complete removal was not made intentionally, something I did acknowledge when inquired by another editor, and have apologized multiple times since then (which continue to be ignored). As explained, I merely moved selected pieces of information to the appropriate places within the article, or I removed certain statements that were not appropriately written or stated within a source; again, all in good-faith. And again, I've stated my apologies if the user felt attacked, and that my editing is very blunt and bold (as pointed above), however, I feel they were all valid and justified. I'm following guidelines lined up by Misplaced Pages, and have even cited them in my reasons behind my edits, which have been automatically undone. livelikemusic21:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
But can't you see that you keep doing that all the time and that it's starting to bother me. So you keep removing the citations added by me unintentionally all the time? The source which I added to support the information was correct because I checked it. I know which sources to add and which ones to not. Yes, I felt attacked, frankly speaking I've been feeling this way for a while now, I even thought of quitting Misplaced Pages once because of the way you made me feel. But I didn't not to, because of my love for Misplaced Pages and being an editor. And btw everything was appropriately written, but yes about the elocution classes that he took it was right of you to add it in the career part, but the rest was just wrong. Like removing the "After The Wanted split up, George moved to LA to pursue an acting career. " This information is true all the way. I has also added the source that supports it but u removed it along with the information. Anyway....I've made my point clear. I will just wait for the Admins reply now. Whatever he or she decides will be for the best. Thanks. --Princessruby (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
As I stated on Max's talk page, multiple times, information concerning his elocution classes or move to Hollywood does not belong in "early life" as it has zero to do with his early life. Everything was re-worded and moved to the appropriate place within the article (his acting career portion), nor does that excuse the personal attacks that were made, which are in clear violation of Misplaced Pages's policy, as pointed out both at the talk page and here. I've apologized (as I've stated) multiple times; I don't know how many more I'm expected to do such. I'm not going to bicker back and forth once, and to refrain from speaking in continued circles, I will await for an administration to request my comments further. livelikemusic23:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment I've come here as a result of livelikemusic asking me to take a look at what's been happening at the Max A. George article as well as that article's talk page. After having read what's been going on there, I noted this report had been filed. From looking at everything at the article and the article talk page, I can see why livelikemusic was, and is, so concerned. In addition to the numerous and egregious personal attacks aimed at livelikemusic, it does appear that there is article ownership occurring on the part of Princessruby. The lack of edit summaries are also troubling -- over 2000 of Ruby's 3600+ edits have had no edit summary. I've always seen chronic lack of edit summaries as something that typically goes hand-in-hand with article ownership, but that's me. The article in question was originally created by Ruby, and on her own user page she states, "One thing I hate the most is when people mess my work up." Ruby is essentially saying livelikemusic is intruding on her "territory" and is an edit warrior. As far as the edit warring, it always takes two to perform that dance, but Ruby's EW behavior definitely has an intentionally disruptive (and not caring whether she's being disruptive) tone to it. Ruby has already established she dislikes anyone editing her work, hence, she's going to protect her "work" no matter what. There seems to be a severe lack of understanding on Ruby's part over what contributing here means, that it's a cooperative work, not something we do on our own with our "work" never being changed, altered, or improved upon. I do see good faith on the part of livelikemusic (he seems to be attempting to take the high road) and nothing in the way of good faith on the part of Princessruby. From my perspective, a come-to-jesus meeting regarding article ownership behavior and a subsequent attitude adjustment seems to be in order here. -- WV ● ✉✓23:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Meters has kept removing my messages on His talk page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Meters and is in a edit war its got soo annoying I also warned him but would not listen its gone way to far. Please get him blocked I wanted to have peace with him but he would not and say I am trolling my talk page even though i am not. I was just saying sorry about my mistake to him but made it an ego issue.
Thank you Admin
Ranabhai (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
He has been in an edit war and has no right to do that I was trying to cooperate and team up and was accusing me that I am trolling him for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranabhai (talk • contribs) 22:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
He has the right to delete messages on his talk page, and you do not have the right to delete messages he has posted there, especially when they aren't directed at you. It is YOU who is edit-warring on his talk page. And as the admin notes, you will stop it. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 22:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
No thanks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Managing to piss someone off enough to want you in prison in less than an hour and a half is good going by anyones standards... Amortias (T)(C) 23:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Cambridgebayweather please block Meters he is in an edit war with me becuase he kept deletin my messages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranabhai (talk • contribs)
Admin, meters never lisened to me but kept deleting my messages even though I said sorry for my mistake and don't block him but tell him that please stop removing my messages and listen to me for once all he does is bad things to me and a note to all comments from other editors who said I am wrong HE Needs to stop this arrogance and learn to forgive people instead of ignoring and Plus YOU people worry about yourself and don't interfere when I am talking to an administrator do your own thing And one last Thing Let meters know that he has made this an ego issue and must stop it or else you may get blocked in The future. That is my side of the story whether you agree with me or not and to the editor who is calling me obnoxious is that you should mind your language cause what you think is wrong. If you agree with me or not I will not talk with this Meters or even mention him ever again I am done with this Issue.
Ranabhai (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
If the complainant were pulling those shenanigans on my talk page, he'd have been blocked already. When an admin says a user is being "obnoxious", it is well to pay attention. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 01:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Stop arguing and get over with it you brat and how many times did I tell you to to mind your own business stop talking about it and shutup
Ranabhai (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's see how many how many ways this is wrong. Ranabhai
took me to ANI without letting me know.
took me to ANI rather than 3RR to complain about edit warring.
took me to ANI for edit warring 10 minutes after leaving a warning, when I had made no edits.
is complaining about me removing his comments from my talk page.
was told in my last response to him I explicitly stated that I would delete rather than respond to any further edits from him on my talk page. I also left this message on his talk page .
agreed to stay off my talk page
This is all after he was warned by another editor for edit warring on my page for deleting my comments (comments that were not directed to him). There seems to be a behavioral similarity between this user and the various socks of User:Theshitman that I have recently reported (a new account with an interest in Indian topics shows up on my talk page very quickly after creation even without any interaction with me). See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Theshitman
Could I ask for boomerang block for trolling and harassment please (unless someone sees enough for a sock block)? Thanks, Meters (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd be shocked if it weren't. Could be worth adding to the SPI, even though already blocked (and having named another sock in the process, Ian Doyle Capita). ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 01:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Gaming the outcome of a requested move
I have just closed the requested move at Talk:2014 Odessa clashes. RGloucester (talk·contribs) was against the move, and is apparently trying to game the outcome of the RM by removing all article content at the new title and turning it into a DAB page, presumably ending up with the other page being back at his preferred title.
Some action is clearly needed here, so can some other admins please intervene. Locking the article might be a start. Cheers, Number5723:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The scope of the article has changed. The move is fine, as the editors involved must've wanted an article on the other Odessa incidents of 2014. Therefore, I'm happy to oblige, as I said in the move discussion. This is now a summary article, and the individual incidents will get their own articles. There is no other way to move forward. The RM participants decided they wanted an increased scope, and I'm granting them that wish. If they did not want to broaden the scope of the article, they should not've have voiced support for this proposal. RGloucester — ☎23:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Can I have administrator assistance please? I've just finished writing the new summary article on the 2014 Odessa clashes, in line with the RM result. I now need the old edit history transferred to 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes, so that article can be restored. I'll start working on the December clashes article shortly. RGloucester — ☎01:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The scope of the article changed with the move to "2014 Odessa clashes", to encompass all 2014 clashes in Odessa. I've done this expansion, wrote a new article on the subject to match the RM result. The 2 May clashes have their own article, and a summary section in the 2014 clashes article. RGloucester — ☎21:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Back then, I probably would have been aware of the December bombings in Odessa. However, I was uncertain about its notability because no mainstream media have reported such event. Also, voters were not aware of it, and RGloucester neglected to notify us about the bombings. I requested that the mess be cleaned up, but I see that consensus must be adhered. Unfortunately, the discussion has become useless and void since the mess. George Ho (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
New articles should not be tagged with a {{speedy}} 43 seconds after their creation, and spamming talk pages with a speedy is utter dubious: If I'm a vandal or still working on the page, I'll simply remove the speedy and end with a disfigured user talk page. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The user in question has been advised about this (in a much friendlier manner I might add) by anotehr user only a few minutes before your warning and has advised they will be more careful in future. Amortias (T)(C) 00:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent harassment, sockpuppetry, and vandalism by long-term disruptive editor - Again
You guys have already had this incident brought up by another member of the Sims wiki community. I'm bringing this up again for the following reasons.
The issue originates at The Sims Wiki on Wikia, where IP 50.82.40.187 vandalized the wiki. I happen to be a roll-backer over there as well as an experienced editor, though not as experienced as this user.
But anyway, that user has since then tracked me down to Misplaced Pages, where they began vandalizing. They often leave me talk page messages falsely accusing me of being homosexual and wanting me to have sex with them, even though we're not in the same country. They said that they were sorry for creating all these sock-puppets on wikia, yet they are showing no signs of improvement, or any evidence that they have improved their behaviour.
In addition to harrasing me here on the wikipedia, they continually send me private messages on ModtheSims on how they think I should seek revenge against those who haven't supported my Sims wiki request for administrator-ship. Surely they realise that if I ever want to become an administrator on the Sims wiki, there is no way that I'm going to threaten to become a troll instead, or purposely land myself in the bad books of my fellow Sims wiki editors, not after being a dedicated and featured editor of that wiki.
Their behaviour at this stage can easily be ignored, but nonetheless it would be nice if an administrator could resolve this situation and stop this user from harassing me.
The username was taken from the username of a heavily disruptive sock-puppeteer from 2012. Apparently CoryMach (or as he is known on the Sims wiki Ilovethesims199) claims to be CoryMach7 (MachkovichMonster777)'s successor.
P.S. Do I have to report it to both the WP:RVAN and the WP:SPI? This behaviour seems to fall under both types of unacceptable behaviour. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Quick note: WP:AIV is the same page as WP:RVAN, but "AIV" is much better known; I've never seen "RVAN" before. Response to your question: AIV/RVAN is for stuff that's rather blatantly obvious, e.g. what Housecrasher157 was doing. You should generally go there in an open-and-shut situation for a quick resolution. When you have a more complex situation, like this one, you're better off coming here or going to WP:SPI, since they're set up to allow investigations, but even if you come here for a blatant vandal, it's not wrong: you just might not get as fast of a response. Nyttend (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
C.Syde65, whom exactly should we investigate? I began to create a report at WP:SPI to request checkuser (looking for sleepers, related accounts that haven't done anything yet), but then I noticed that all of these accounts are already blocked. I'm just not clear about which accounts, or which IPs aside from 50.82.40.187, have been causing problems. Nyttend (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Nola Carveth registered on Feb. 5, and within two hours was on Jimbo Wales' talk page making untoward, non-AGF "promotional" allegations about me, on circumstantial evidence that three other editors, none of whom I know, are also refuting. One of those disinterested third parties agrees that Nola Carveth appears to be attempting an Outing. And despite having four editors, myself included, telling him to lay off this harassment, he is obsessively combing through 10 years worth of edits to make accusations.
Other editors have told him he's off-base, and I have told him to stop obsessing about me and stop harassing me on Jimbo Wales' talk page, at this thread. When I finally, after one polite request, asked him to heed four editors and stop this remarkably personal harassment, he would not. When I said I would need to escalate this to ANI if he keep harassing me, he told me to go ahead.
Have you ever seen anything like this, where someone registers with the apparent agenda to go after somebody? No matter what I or anyone else says, he simply continues on this obsessive path — "building a case" from some 45 edits out of nearly 95,000 in 10 years. This is obsessive, and I sincerely request help to end this harassment. With thanks, Tenebrae (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One editor says this data is fodder because the "altercation" is only "possible". The other says it is an active police investigation and therefore is germane. Need eyes, please. —ATinySliver/02:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Happy? You won't get the needed response here warrior, head to edit war board, or better use twinkle for a nice neat report. EoRdE602:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
In that case I recommend a topic ban based on the BLP sanctions already in place. You have been edit warring over a TMZ source, contrary to the stipulations of the sanctions. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Unnecessary; I am fucking done with this article. If this is the response to good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia, I'll just revert to my own tiny sliver. —ATinySliver/05:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I am reporting a user named Mariaavamidouathens. I am reporting him for creating-vandalising an article called "Nikko Sunset". I tagged the article with a deletion tag due to copy-paste material and a wrongly formatted article, with no sources whatsoever. I am requesting the article be deleted and this user be blocked, due to him taking the tag down, when clearly that article should be deleted. I would like somebody to look into it ASAP! CookieMonster755(talk)04:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have now been threatened twice with blocks by this sysop; once for something that never happened and once suggesting I would "persist" in an "edit war" that consists of one partial reversion and one full reversion, the latter made more than two hours ago.
In addition, this sysop has engaged in circular, unsupportedreasoning in response to my cited arguments with respect to whether TMZ is a reliable news source.
Finally, "we are done here" is dismissive if not outright disparaging.
TMZ is a celebrity gossip site (it's their slogan!), not a reliable source. Anyone who persistsinadding unreliable content from a gossip site to an article, despite warnings to the contrary, needs to be blocked. Yes, it's reasonable to say "we're done here" when you're editwarring to force an article to include information from an unreliable source. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Good grief. My initial involvement was this post at EW where I commented on User:ATinySliver's self reporting of edit warring at Bobbi Kristina Brown. That edit warring involved this BLP issue, with a citation deriving from TMZ. TMZ is not a reputable nor a credible source. That's pretty well been established for some time now.
A Tiny Silver brought up the discussion again at Talk:Bobbi_Kristina_Brown#Reverts (I surmise not being satisfied with the responses he received at EW), where another individual commented on TMZ's lack of credibility. I linked to the EW discussion and added my two cents.
The content, as-was, was not blockable unless the user was edit warring and continued to do so past the self report. The BLP issue wasn't serious enough that a user had to be blocked or the content deleted from record. I gave a general warning that future offenses could be responded to with blocks/deletions (especially if there is any personal information included, such as who attacked Bobbi).
So you've shopped this around to two noticeboards and a talk page. And you haven't gotten a satisfactory response to your problem and you are blaming it on me. Swell. seicer | talk | contribs05:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I am seeing comments above such as "TMZ is a celebrity gossip site (it's their slogan!), not a reliable source. Anyone who persists in adding unreliable content from a gossip site to an article, despite warnings to the contrary, needs to be blocked." and "TMZ is not a reputable nor a credible source. That's pretty well been established for some time now."
While I would tend to agree in the case of BLPs (which have a higher standard ), in general, multiple discussions at RSN show that the reliability of TMZ it is not as open and shut as the above comments imply. See
Note that I am not commenting on any behavior by Seicer or ATinySliver. I have not examined the edits in question. I am simply pointing out that the reliability of TMZ outside of BLPs is not as open and shut as the above comments imply. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I took this away from one of the posts (you cited above): "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links." If the source is in doubt, it's best to not use it - it's always better to be accurate than to be quick. The article can always wait for a more reliable source, or a source to validate the original origin. seicer | talk | contribs06:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I did not start an edit war; I ended it. I reported myself as part of the "war" in an effort to be equitable while requesting clarity from editors and/or sysops who might actually be willing to provide an answer. Instead, I am confronted by someone who, in essence, is saying "the opinion of this single editor supersedes the opinion of that single editor" (despite circular arguments presented by this editor and actual evidence presented by that editor). I am perfectly willing, able and happy to abide by a consensus, were one actually reached; I am excoriated instead (and threatened with formal excoriation), for doing everything right, by a sysop who is saying, in so many words, "fuck consensus, I am consensus, and I'll block you if you go against me." The article in question is off my watchlist, and permanently. —ATinySliver/06:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 3) Come on, newspapers and magazines deal on the most basic of human emotions - fear, remorse and excitement. The use of the second one is gradually lessening, so... Anyway, I endorse siecer in this matter for his correct judgment. TMZ is not under any condition, a reliable source. NYTimes might but the Wikipedian community shall not approve the use of any such "gossip" websites as a source. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C06:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Non-administrator comment) The community consensus is that TMZ be not used for BLP purposes. Unarchived but collapsed discussion is now archived. Guy Macon and ATinySliver can go to RSN to address their concerns. That is certainly a place more apt that ANI in this case. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C13:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(edit conflict) There is no consensus that TMZ.com is not a reliable source. (Again, BLPs have a higher standard; I am talking about non-BLP uses.) The reliable sources noticeboard links I gave above contain the following quotes (which should be read in context -- the same threads contain plenty of comments expressing the opposite view):
"Based on reporting by the New York Times and the Washington Post], I'd have to say, yes. TMZ.com does have a reputation for reliability." --Dlabtot 16:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
"I would place it as borderline... it is a "gossip" site... but they are better than most when it comes to checking their facts on that gossip. I think it needs to be evaluated on a 'case by case' basis... carefully examining how the statement we are using it for is worded, and what exactly the TMZ article being cited says. In other words... we can not say it is reliable 'by its nature' but neither can we call it unreliable 'by its nature'." --Blueboar 16:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
"TMZ.com is owned by Time-Warner and run by a fully qualified lawyer who states that everything they publish is checked for accuracy. This is not a tiddlywink little personal gossip blog. The word 'tabloid' has no meaning in the context of a website. The site deals in news about celebs. So what, big deal. This does not mean ipso facto all its material is junk. TMZ is a BLP source in many places on WP, e.g. Mel Gibson, Britney Spears, and many more." --RATEL 15:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
"Not sure why you think this stuff in some way disqualifies TMZ as a reliable source. Nothing you've posted indicates that their reporting is anything but accurate." --Dlabtot 17:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
"I think it's fair comment to note that TMZ is being 'used' as reliable source in many Biographies on Misplaced Pages. From this article New York Times it is stated that 'The site has become a reliable source for the mainstream media' . I think it clear it's celebrity gossip site, therefore there are concerns regarding WP:NPV including WP:Weight, so care and caution must be used when citing with regard to WP:BLP (and I think all BL should be revisited in this respect) but I don’t think it can be argued that it is an unreliable source per se." --Amicaveritas 17:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
"I believe TMZ is a reliable source. It was controlled by Time-Warner, the outfit responsible for Time Magazine; it is still controlled by AOL News. My local newspaper, The San Jose Mercury News, often uses TMZ as source.... TMZ is not a blog, does not appear to be self-published in the sense of a single author, and claims to vet its stories. --Glrx 06:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
"TMZ.com certainly seems to me to be a tabloid site, and yet (perhaps because its chief founder is an attorney) it's scrupulous in citing and even posting public documents and quoting name law-enforcement sources. And reputable mainstream publications cite information attributed to TMZ (as they do not, perhaps with one or two exceptions over several years, things like the National Enquirer)." Tenebrae 15:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Simply asserting again and again that TMZ is not a reliable source is not a very compelling argument given the rather obvious lack of consensus on the reliable sources noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
BTW, is this the new standard here on ANI, where someone makes a claim that is unsupported by the evidence, someone like me tries to discuss the fact that there is no evidence for the claim, then the thread is slammed shut? Why the hurry to shut down discussions and suppress good-faith disagreements? Someone was warned that he would be blocked if he used TMZ because it is unreliable (proof by assertion). Does no one see that the appropriateness of such a threat hinges on whether TMZ actually is unreliable? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I can think of various occasions when TMZ was on top of a story, such as a celebrity death, and posting it on Misplaced Pages was delayed because of its alleged "unreliability" - despite the fact that their news story was borne out. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 10:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How long must a given IP address stay suspected of being a so-called "sockpuppet"?
When any given IP user gets accused of being a sockpuppet of a named user (which should only be done if the IP user was abusing the system at the time of their writing, but is unfortunately sometimes done even without abuse from that IP user), and then if, for some dumb reason, that IP user is given the suspected-sockpuppet label, how long must it stay there--even if that IP user was never blocked, and regardless of how long, if for any time, the named user the IP is accused of socking was blocked? Is it just like that for the remainder of the Misplaced Pages's existence, or... what, exactly? And whose decision is that supposed to be, anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Remainder of Misplaced Pages's existence would be more like it. It's the decision of SPI clerks entirely. And they can only be over-ruled by ArbCom. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C08:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, QEDK. But why, if most IP addresses are shared, and so a new person using that address then has to hold onto that label, as well as the named user never being let go of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Shared IP addresses are blocked for a short period of time (the maximum can be ~2 months) - keeping in mind that it's shared. However, if we find a LTA from such an IP for years, admins will indef block the IP. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C08:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe IPs are almost never indef blocked - static ones are blocked for long definite periods. By the way, I think the relevant term is dynamic (vs static) rather than shared - dynamic ones are re-allocated at intervals, sometimes very short ones, and I don't think sock tags would be left on those for very long. Squinge (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
By shared, he does mean "shared" i.e. when one IP is used by a number of people. For example, intranets which have only one exit point to the internet have one external IP address only and a WHOIS will only point to that intranet and not be able to pinpoint a specific computer in it, since all have the same IP address. Since, institutions and work places have a lot of computers, shared IP addresses save resources (i.e. hardware load and money) because only one or a few addresses need to be allocated. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C13:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I notice that Lowercase sigmabot III archives some of the open discussions here when they have gone quiet for a few days, but not other open discussions which have gone equally quiet. Is this a malfunction to be reported, or some subtlety I have missed? Either way, it's darned annoying. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's how it functions. The date of the last reply in a thread is taken into consideration. Add to that the no. of days defined in the template and that's when it will be archived. One more consideration is the no. of bytes and no. of threads remaining. For example, archiving will occur only when pages exceeds a certain no. of bytes and a talk page will not archive if the no. of threads falls equal to the one defined in the template parameter. If you could point me to the page, I could make more deductions. If you are sure, you can contact Σ (talk·contribs) and if you're sure that it's malfunctioning, you can go to the shutoff page and change the text to "false" with a reason in the edit summary and talk page message to Σ. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C13:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
This right here is the page in question.
Here is ANI moments before the bot ran:
Note the last edit timestamps in two discussions:
Conduct of J Doug McLean - last edit 10:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC), although the diff betrays it as 10:42:
At 00:41, 4 February 2015, Lowercase sigmabot III archived the topic edited more recently at 22:47 but not the topic that had lain unedited since 10:42:
I followed the link above regarding Tom Ruen, because I couldn't find the correct page where the discussion is taking place anywhere else, and I assumed that since there were no closing remarks or actions finalizing anything that the discussion was still taking place , and there I added a comment/note describing my view, which is what I believe you do when trying to come to some consensus. So next I hear about this I'm getting a warning about being disruptive of the consensus process, which in the light of my goal seemed like ironic duplicity and bullying ; Not accusing here, just saying that's how it looks to me. I don't mean to complicate anything and I'm not trying to be disruptive, I like what Tom Ruen does for Misplaced Pages and I think these two are bullying him for territorial reasons. I have already given my thoughts on that, and now it appears to be happening to me, so I thought I should mention it, and this seemed to be the most appropriate place given it's the only active mention of Tom Ruen and the slanderous petty accusations against him that I can find. Thanks. 24.79.36.94 (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Darkstar1st on a site-wide purge of any mention of "libertarian socialism"
None of these mentions of libsoc are the least bit controversial, to my knowledge, and the political groups in question all describe themselves as libertarian, as typically confirmed by native-language articles. Offering citations doesn't seem to make any difference at all, so I don't know how to proceed. fi (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Looked at the ref for PPK and Darkstar1st appears to be correct. All references to liberarianism are in reference to Öcalan, not PPK. Can't comment on others, but the user does seem to be editing specifically on this issue. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 01:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand. That document does specifically identify it as libertarian socialist unambiguously, in exactly the same way that a manifesto proclaiming Maoism would identify a group as Marxist-Leninist. Bookchin's communalism is a form of libertarian socialism, just like a lemon is a type citrus fruit. B ⊃ A fi (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, you're assuming the result you want. You say a lemon is a citrus fruit, but another editor objects, unless you have a citation from a reliable source that says that a lemon is a citrus fruit, you can't use that in an article. If someone disputes it, you need a citation from a reliable source that says Maoism is a form of Marxist-Leninism, or you can't use it. Does your source say specifically that "Bookchin's communalism is a form of libertarian socialism" (or words to that effect)? If it doesn't, then it's not the source you need. Your prior knowledge is not sufficient, you need a source. BMK (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
No, that's just patently silly. Misplaced Pages (on the articles for communalism, Murray Bookchin, libertarian socialism, for example) is absolutely plastered in references confirming that Bookchin's communalism is uncontroversially a type of libertarian socialism. What you're saying is like saying it's OR to call a "poet" a "writer" because a source explicitly called him a "poet" and there's no reference literally saying "writer." I'm not offering my personal knowledge as a reference; it's just documented all over Misplaced Pages that one is a superset of the other. A square is a rectangle, so we don't need a reference on something being a rectangle if we have a source saying it's a square. More importantly, the editor has not objected as you say and has brought no credible objection or dispute to the discussion. This is just a continuation of the abuse already on the editor's rap sheet. fi (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
"Common sense", for want of a better word, tells us that a lemon is a citrus fruit, and a poet is a writer. It tells us no such thing about the relationship between Bookchin's communalism and libertarian socialism. It is way outside the bounds of common knowledge, and therefore needs a source. BMK (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Then "common sense" tells us, in the exact same way, that a Maoist is a Marxist-Leninist, especially when there's dozens of citations, all over WP, saying B ⊃ A -- same as references describing Bookchin, communalism and (shockingly) libertarian municipalism as libertarian. You can pick your favorite reference, but you're the first person to challenge this, as User:Darkstar1st did not. So, I don't even understand why we're talking about it. fi (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
WSPUS was the US contingent of the World Socialist Movement, which was described as libertarian socialist, for example, in Anarchy Magazine, Volume 3, 1963, page 178 (can't link directly, so search for "World Socialist Movement" and "non-state libertarian socialists"), among numerous other sources. "Common sense" would just be transitive logic. If we know where a superset belongs, we know how to describe a subset. fi (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Finx may well be wrong, that is a content issue for discussion. However, if, as they claim, User:Darkstar1st is not discussing the disagreement, we have a behaviour issue. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 18:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
A quick look shows that, for example, this edit by Darkstar1st does have an edit summary that points to the a discussion section on the talk page. I think, therefore, that it would be a better plan to engage on the article talk pages than pursue this AN/I. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 18:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
In one edit Darkstar reverts the addition of a Spanish language source (in an article on a Chilean political party) with the edit summary "Engligh language sources only please". That is unjustified. We have no requirement for sources to be in English. For writing about political parties in non-English speaking countries particularly it would seem a particularly silly requirement.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·21:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
On the face of it, this certainly appears to be a behavioural issue - and if Darkstar1st thinks that it is appropriate to remove all mention of a significant trend in the historical development of socialist thought from Misplaced Pages, as appears to be his/her objective, we need to do something about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Note that, as of now, the user is still edit warring and Wikilawyering all over the place. I don't feel like getting into fifteen separate games of revert pong, so I'll just let this roll on until someone wants to do something about the continuing pattern of disruptive behavior. fi (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Recommend admin action. Well there is some pretty obvious POV pushing. It's a systematic removal of references to left wing libertarianism, presumably to POV push that it does not exist, and only right-wing libertarianism exists. So in effect it is vandalism, as a clear pattern has emerged. If left unhindered he may remove all mentions of left-wing libertarianism. --Mrjulesd(talk)23:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment: there's a larger problem involving libertarian editors and articles. For an example, look what's happened to our article on free society. This kind of assimiliation of a non-libertarian topic, takeover, and OR is going on everywhere. Darkstar1st is only one of many editors engaging in this kind of behavior. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I think part of the problem is that User:Finx is a bit clueless about citations and original research. (See example.) In the example, Citation A, did not support the statement, but Citation B did. User:Finx did not understand that Citation B needed to be by the statement, not Citation A. Regarding original research, User:Finx seems to think that if a party is socialist, and says it has liberal/libertarian values, that makes it a libertarian-socialist party. What Darkstar1st seems to be trying to do is to clean up this kind of thing.-- Toddy1(talk)09:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I don't stoop to personal attacks, but if you want to charge me with being "clueless" on ANI, let's review the absolutely mind-boggling level of incompetence you have displayed on the Freedom and Solidarity Party article. First of all, the citation already present before the titular POV warrior arrived used the word "özgürlükçü" which, beyond any reasonable doubt (as was explained), translates to "libertarian" in this context. So, no further citation was even needed. Assuming good faith, however, (and way beyond what is reasonable) the very first thing I did was add an inline English-language citation from a respected authority on the subject with a quote that just could not possibly be any clearer: "the ODP, or Freedom and Solidarity Party, is a Turkish socialist libertarian party founded in 1996." This was removed and ignored. When I pointed this out, it was ignored again by both yourself and the POV warrior, followed by complaints about the original reference using "özgürlükçü" instead of "liberter" -- which are synonyms, as can be seen here. When that objection clearly fell apart, the Wikilawyering moved on to ridiculous claims of OR: it's OR to assume that political groups claiming to be libertarian are... libertarian. I mean, this is just comedy. "Liberal" and "libertarian" are mutually exclusive groups: one is capitalist, the other, in this (and practically any) context, anticapitalist. That is also not original research. It's the most basic level of comprehension you can have on the topic. Libertarian, outside of its isolated use in the US as another word for advocacy of laissez faire "free market" capitalism, universally means socialist. The libertarian qualifier in libsoc qualifies the type of socialism (to distinguish from state-socialism), not the other way around, i.e. the type of libertarianism. When a socialist political organization declares itself libertarian, that means one thing only: libertarian socialism. If you are this confused or just know absolutely nothing about these topics, why not ask for clarification instead of calling others "clueless"? And, speaking of clueless, I invite you to find me one article on Misplaced Pages -- or anywhere else for that matter -- where "özgürlükçü" translates to liberal, let alone where that's a reasonable translation in the context of describing far-left socialist groups. The only thing in your contributions so far that would have even vaguely resembled a rational thought -- had it been concerning a non-socialist party -- is based off a funny Google translation error which you couldn't be bothered to verify when it produced an obvious absurdity. fi (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Normally I would recommend a topic ban from libertarianian-related articles, but the editor's history shows that he has not made a positive contribution anywhere, and has carried out this type of editing in other areas such as the Tea Party movement. He's had years to change, but seems more interested in conflict than improvement of articles. So probably best to ban the editor and avoid having to discuss him at ANI again and again. TFD (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Restored this section from archive: Request admin attention
He previously removed references to these ideologies, put on tags, and now he is removing the socialist libertariansim, pretending that he did not put on these tags.
I decided to report it here because at first I wasn't sure whether it is obvious vandalism. I thought it would be better if we discuss this first as this might be a newbie who doesn't understand Misplaced Pages's rules and warning system.--Chamith(talk)14:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, might be worth leaving a message on their talkpage explaing what they need to do rather than the templates? Are you able to throw something together? Amortias (T)(C) 14:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Aside from the abdomen thing, is there anything that's an outright problem? I mean, if we found a good source, there wouldn't be a problem with including the bit about the list; the problem with adding unsourced stuff like this is that it forces us to work to find the source, not that there's an inherent problem with the information. Definitely not obvious vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree. But the problem is half of his edits are about the same list rankings. I was getting suspicious whether he is trying to promote this list. And I've advised him couple of times not to to add unsourced content. But he keeps neglecting my notifications.--Chamith(talk)14:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Repeated censorship of politician Michael Portillo's page
Ex MP and cabinet member Michael Portillo appeared on a BBC television programme and said that he has dual Spanish and British nationality and that his Spanish name is Miguel Portillo Blyth. I add this fact. User:Smerus keeps removing the information claiming variously that the reference isn't valid - it is per Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source, or inferring that Portillo was joking - for which he provides no evidence. Smerus mentions on his biography page that he was involved in politics in the same political party and town as Portillo. Consequently I believe that Portillo's article is being censored. It's all been discussed on the talk page - Talk:Michael_Portillo#Spanish_name.3F. Thanks, -- John (Daytona2·Talk·Contribs) 16:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Correction is not censorship; the discussion on the talkpage does indeed speak for itself, and the opinions of other editors there will I am sure be taken account of by administrators. They may also note that I made a polite suggestion to Daytona2 today on that talkpage, at 13.39, about how this information could be used in the article if he wished. Instead of responding to this he has proceeded to make the above complaint (at 16.18 today). I am seriously upset at his utterly unjustified and aggressive suggestion that I am attempting to 'censor' Misplaced Pages; however, as I am not of a vengeful nature, I will merely suggest that he tries to be little less bumptious, and that he tries to AGF with editors whose opinions differ from his. I haven't a clue what he is seeking to imply by posting bits of my biography here. It is the case that nearly 20 years ago, Portillo was my MP; and it is also true that we were then (but are no longer) members of the same political party. I do not see why this should prevent me interesting myself in his article on Misplaced Pages, any more than my interest in classical music has been held against me in writing on Richard Wagner and others.
As Daytona2 has been going on about this since last September, I hope that the opinion of administrators can bring closure to his aggrievement.--Smerus (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Historical revisionism and use of an unreliable source
Furthermore, he uploaded an copyrighted image to the Commons which bears the POV caption "Muslims Protests Armenian Aggression Against Women".
He twice (1, 2) re-added the section. First time he called its removal by me "Vandalism" and the second time his edit summary was "it is a source for the subjekt about the Commemoration in Akdamar island". --Երևանցի17:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
nonsense and a ridiculous claim from the user Yerevantsi (talk·contribs). the subjekt is clearyly about Commemorated in Akdamar Island. It does not matter if this user like it or not, this commemoration takes place in Akdamar Island, and this topic isn't about genocide etc. Yerevantsi (talk·contribs) should stop his Vandalism, because this entry is comply with the rules Եalesgeriy
i have chose this source because is English written. This entry belong here because is strongly associated with Akdamar Island and its about Akdamar ısland's history. the source is reliable because this commemoration is held every year, denial about this fact would be a hypocritical policy which is don't belong to wikipedia terms. btw theire is many such informative entry in wikipedia. and yes, the removal act with his comment "nonsense" of user Yerevantsi (talk·contribs) is vandalism.
I'm not at all concerned with the source, or the information right now. (I have marked the source as unreliable.) I am most concerned that you insist on calling the edits by Yerevantsi vandalism. That is harassment on your part. -- Orduin19:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I view this as a content dispute, and was commenting on behavior. I am not saying the content is incorrect or correct, I am merely providing note that your behavior is not proper. -- Orduin20:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Rollback is undo without an edit summary. Please focus on resolving the content dispute without escalating it needlessly. If you see a pattern of abuse of rollback, you can complain about it, but as you admit, you don't want to spend the time to investigate it, so this thread isn't useful. Let's stop it early and refocus energy on deciding whether 1980 or 1979 is the appropriate date. The method used to revert a contested change isn't worth an argument. Jehochman19:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I bring to the attention of admins User:David Gerard who treated me like a common vandal at Love Will Tear Us Apart with this contribution. My reason for disappointment here is that I have read all the rules of rollback and have twice been turned down this feature yet I would have never used it where AFG is indisputable such as in my case. My reason for the change from 1980 to 1979 is that, apart from it not supported by a source, the article states in second paragraph that the song's debut was in 1979. Obviosuly there is the question of the version that is known to people and whether this was some kind of re-recording of a demo but these are all talking points, they are not reasons for flagrant abuses of rollback.
Furthermore, please see the following:
LibreOffice, evidently AGF since the reverted version contained summary.
LessWrong, another case of non-vandalism, just an unsourced change.
Not vandalism on Agent - attention being drawn to minor artist, not notable but nor a call for rollback either.
Windows Media Audio, again, removal of external link rightly or wrongly but not a case of spam or vandalism and clearly a case of good faith.
These are just a few I found by looking quickly at the past three/four weeks. I'm not about to investigate how long this editor has had rollback and what other abuses he has committed but it looks like he is using it any old time he doesn't like the look of something. There is no problem reverting but summary should be used every time in these cases. --!BSGT! (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Without commenting on the value of the report I want to point out that David Gerard has rollback by virtue of being an admin. I mention this because when it is a non-admin with rollback it can be taken away without much red tape. Chillum19:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
You changed it to something it couldn't be, without adding a reference. Did you have a reference? (That it debuted in 1979 does not mean it was recorded then.) Also, this is ridiculous - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User Binksternet deleting discussion of his deletions from his talk page
Diff
Diff
User Binksternet keeps deleting discussion of his deletions from his talk page, with claims of "vandalism"/ "trolling", in spite of admitting "the truth of what you were inserting". This is not constructive, only obstructive to well-meaning IP-editors editing.
Binksternet deletes WP-content he actually agrees with, according to himself, only to embroil IP-edits in edit warring where he then games the system to exclude the primary edits and their content. That seems unconstructive to WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.22.29 (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
He is free to delete whatever he wants from his own user talk page. You can discuss his edits on the talk page of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:: Tnx - didn't know that. It still seems an unfactual way of handling attempted constructive criticism, even though acceptable. Sorry to've forgotten signing. 88.88.22.29 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
In the comment you posted on his page, you called him "Binky" and signed yourself "Kris", as if this was a name he would know. Do you have an account on Misplaced Pages, and, if so, why are you editing as an IP? BMK (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Last month, the IP 80.212.111.41 tried to post the same material to Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and left a similar note on Binksternet's talk page. I presume this was you. The material you posted this time has been removed from the article by multiple editors, but not by Binksternet, so your current comment seems like an egregious and unwarranted slap at him. On top of what would appear to be block evasion, I wonder if an admin might consider blocking both of these IPs? BMK (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
User:85.164.61.86 joins the group. Editors with accounts are not allowed to use multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny of their edits, but editors without accounts who have dynamic IPs avoid scrutiny just by the nature of the beast. Perhaps we shouldn't allow dynamic IPs to edit, only static ones. BMK (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, these q's appear too fast to keep up. Tried re names and got an 'edit-clash', and lost the reply. The name, actual, was an attempt at being personal and constructive, acknowledging edits in spite of power-outage changed IP. As I'm not sufficiently familiar with the arcania of WP-rules, and not really interested in time-consuming learning to master it and the intricacies of wp-bickering, I'm outta here. No block evasion, though - rather the contrary by acknowledging by real name. Tnx for the discussion, it's been interesting. Now to real-world issues :-). Good luck to you all, and tnx for replies. * And 'edit-conflict' happened again (!). I'm deluged, sorry. 88.88.22.29 (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
No real need for an answer from you, those IPs are obviously all you. And calling a person you don't know by a diminutive version of their name is insulting, which I would guess (from the content of those "constructive" messages) was your intent. You were annoyed that your unsourced, OR, or poorly sourced BLP edits were being deleted, and you lashed out at one of the editors doing it -- but the very fact that multiple editors have removed your contributions from verious articles means that you're not getting it. BMK (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
'Edit conflict' happened again, with entry below. * Your claims and accusations are entirely subjective. E.g. abbreviating a long name according to convention, with first syllable + "y", is no insult. In addition, disparaging my clarification as "no need for an answer" is in itself a condescending attempt at insult - so you're overreacting and being unfactual. I repeat, my edits were/are all about including correct info on WP. E.g. why is the statement "Bootlegs exist" re Fogerty's "Hoodoo" unacceptable to you, when they most certainly do, as amply demonstrated on Youtube? - That's a fact just silly to delete. In spite of whatever pretext of sourcing-faults applied. Let it rest. Or btr yet, improve the ref.s yrself, accomplished WP-editor that you appear to be. (Unless, of course, you have some ulterior motive for deleting verifiable facts - like not liking that smbd tried to keep those facts on WP. But that wouldn't be the case w you, would it? - Sure hope not). - Still trying to get out of here, w/o too many misconstructions left standing.88.88.22.29 (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I was trying to remember where I had heard an editor call Binksternet "Binky" before and it was in the course of the hubbub prior to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics with one editor receiving an indefinite block and several others receiving topic blocks. I don't if there is any connection but since Binksternet has stated he doesn't like that nickname, I thought it was curious to see it again. Liz23:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Question to you all: Is there anywhere some kind of crash-course in WP-editing which doesn't lead to swamping in details and exceptions to rules?
Is there some way for sporadic IP-editors to make sure facts remain on WP without biased editors going hunting to keep those facts off WP?
Or is this last a currently unsolved problem on WP, where 'fair warning' needs to be presented all prospective IP-editors (or maybe such 'fair warning' is a good idea: a short txt telling of how a simple edit may lead to endless entanglement in disputes and accusations from up to 7.3 billion editors?). Or maybe simply a warning that there may be deep layers of incomprehensible attacks coming if one tries to contribute? Or is this smth one must risk wading into unwittingly, like an invisible quagmire? Maybe a simple, friendly warning that "there be monsters" off the map should be publicized? 88.88.22.29 (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Hard to tell why the IP isn't blocked yet, but if he's targeting just a short list of articles, maybe those articles could be semi'd, hopefully precluding the need for a range block. ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 00:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Targeting nothing, baseball-head - just contributing facts. Check it out. If you dare look at facts. - Gee, WP appears just chock full of people seeking fights not facts. 'Fair warning' should be served. :-)88.88.22.29 (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Tnx for nothing, Baseball-head et al. As for 'IP-hopper' - say that to the electricity provider, I'm sure they'll thank you for yr input (maybe they'll electrocute you as reward? ;-). 88.88.22.29 (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Guess you also think that calling someone "Baseball-head" is not insulting either.
Admin assistance requested, please This IP doesn't seem to be here to improve the encyclopedia. If the IP is dynamic, and he's not just IP-hopping to avoid scrutiny of his editing, is there nothing that can be done to put him on ice? BMK (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, 'Baseball-head' at least seems no worse than 'Baseball-bugs" (as the editor calls hirself). But if you feel insulted on hir behalf for some humor here, apoplectologies to you. Unless humor is Beyond Yr Ken? Why so aggressive about excluding others from WP? - You sure "seem to be here" to quarrel rather contribute to WP yourself. And you still haven't replied to why you insist the factual info "Bootlegs exist" re Fogerty's "Hoodoo" should be excluded, instead preferring to attack the contributer to be "put on ice" (killed?) - is that constructive? 88.88.22.29 (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Currently, that username is a blatant violation of our username policy. First, it begins with the prefix "Te-", which is good, but the suffix "-dickey", is not. I suggest that this account be blocked indefinitely.
Is it just me, or is it curious that this user has edited with no complaints about his username for over eight years, and this complaint is the IP's first edit? I think there's more than meets the eye here. Recommend no action against Tedickey. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Noted, could you add a Here/Not here line on your userpage so i know if your about or not for future reference :). Amortias (T)(C) 23:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Degen has entered into a revert war at Ministry of Defence Police with me and one other editor. When I tried to get him to take the issue to the talk page he ignored that invitation and reverted again . He has since reverted User:Rob984 bringing his total revisions to that page to 4 in less than 24 hours. I tried to engage him in discussion at his talk page and he responded at mine by accusing me of not reading an article I largely wrote . When I tried to work out a compromise with him, he responded with a highly uncivil message about how he's the reliable source in all this.
All this from a seemingly seasoned editor and one who was only this morning granted pending changes reviewer privileges. I propose that Degen Earthiest is blocked on the grounds of disruptive editing/3RR violation in light of his revisions to the article in question against two different editors and in light of pushing unsourced claims into the article. I also think his last message to my talk page makes his competence to hold pending charges reviewer permissions highly questionable. Bellerophontalk to me01:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Looking at it it does look more like a WP:3RR issue, the comment on your talk apge although not nessecarily very civl doesnt appear actionable on its own. There doesnt appear to have been an abuse of anything related to pending changes so I've filed a report at WP:3RR. I wont close this without your agreement though. Amortias (T)(C) 02:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
N Stale: It seems that everyone is ignoring this as a 'simple' content dispute. -- Orduin 23:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Somewhere
