Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:30, 27 November 2011

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability

Discussion moved to /WP:V RFC. Timestamp changed to future until the discussion is over. Alexandria (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, this move was made just after I made a comment that I intended to be on ANI. I hope, at least, that those who are paying attention will continue to watch the new page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing the RfC at WP:V (a preemptive request)

OK... we are now at 30 days (remember, October had 31 days)... we don't have to close yet, but we could close today if we want to. I could close it myself (as the initiator of the RfC), except that I have certainly been heavily involved (far more than Sarek was) and I don't want give anyone (on either side of the debate) grounds to object to the closure when it happens and cause more unneeded drama. Given the tensions and general bad faith that has permeated the discussion recently, I think we need the closer to be someone who not only is neutral, but also has the appearance of neutrality. That means someone who has not commented at all. So... I thought I would ask...who is going to close it? I would like to announce who it will be, so we don't get a drama fest of closures and unclosures and counter closures when it happens. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Looks messy! 115.64.182.73 (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• You need 3 closers to reach an agreed outcome to avoid further drama. Not me.. :-) Spartaz 07:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Valid idea... although I don't think anyone involved would insist on 3 closers. The point is, a) the closer(s) should be someone who has not yet commented, b) have the clout that comes with admin status so the decision (what ever it may be) is accepted, and c) we need to inform those who have commented who the closer(s) will be (along with a polite request that those involved not add to the drama by closing it themselves). So... could we get some volunteers please. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  I assume you didn't read ANI recently, as we have an ANI subpage devoted to this now. Over there at least 3 admins have volunteered to close it: User:HJ Mitchell, User:Newyorkbrad and User:Black Kite. I personally think a triumvirate closure, like recently on the China RFC is a good idea, but I will leave it to the admins in question to work this out amongst themselfs. I am curious where you got the idea that the an iniator of an RFC should close it? The iniator is by definition heavily involved, so that is always a bad idea. Yoenit (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yoenit. That is all I needed to know (I too am happy to leave the rest up to the admins in question). I got the idea that an initiator could close from reading the instructions at WP:RFC. Perhaps I have misunderstood. Doesn't really matter since I was not planning on doing so in any case. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletions by involved editor under claim of "close paraphrases"; Mkativerata

A colleague, Mkativerata, who is an involved administrator in respect of the Israel-Palestinian conflict as defined by WP:ARBPIA, has today deleted variations of 2 sentences in an ARBPIA bio of Ilan Berman (3 times in half an hour). Claiming that they are "close paraphrases". The 2 sentences were edited three times to seek to address his claims, and additional refs added.

Whether or not he may have been correct initially, certainly by his most recent deletion IMHO there was no merit to his claim. I'm concerned with the aggressiveness of his deletions, without talkpage discussion, especially given the ARBPIA aspect of this. I've myself opened up discussion of the issue on the article's talkpage, but not received any response there.

Perhaps an admin can keep an eye on this matter? I'm concerned that it is spiraling. I'm not asking for any other action as to Mkat. Full disclosure: In the past I've communicated concern to this editor about his behavior, and have felt that he responded aggressively and sought to exact retribution inappropriately for my having having voiced my view, so I am hoping that this is not a continuation of that, and that I will not suffer from retribution from him. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche is the subject of a long-running CCI that has uncovered a long history of copyright violations. I'm working through the CCI and I'm not going to be distracted by obstructionism. Working on a CCI requires the deletion of substantive amounts of a contributor's work. And I'm not going to be bullied out of it. And nor am I going to let the fact that I have declared myself "not uninvolved" in respect of ARBPIA stop me from removing copyright violations, being a non-POV matter. CCI needs whatever help it can get. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

My noting that you are "an involved administrator in respect of the Israel-Palestinian conflict" as defined by WP:ARBPIA is simply a reflection of what you have yourself indicated. Given the sensitivities in that area, and your being an involved editor, when you delete material such as the above under the claim that it is a copyright violation, and the claim appears baseless, that raises a concern that your "involvement" is an issue.

I agree of course that copyright violations should be addressed. Your most recent deletion, certainly, was nothing of the sort. You also failed to discuss the matter on the talkpage, despite making 3 deletions in half an hour. When unwarranted deletions are made by involved editors, that can perhaps be a problem. Involved editors can always alert other editors when they believe there is a problem, especially if it is not a clear-cut matter--I find it hard to believe that you felt that your last deletion, for example, was a clear-cut copyright violation. I'm not asking that action be taken against you. I'm simply asking for more admin eyes, as I feel you reacted with aggressive retribution in the past. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, in the Mkat matter now before ARBCOM, there are assertions of failure to communicate properly as well. As here, I personally don't believe that the asserted failure warrants sanctions. But perhaps it reflects a pattern. I do believe that communication is called for by wp:admin, and is important, in instances such as this one.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it's possibly a copyright violation, it should be removed immediately pending peer review. There is no suggestion being made that Mkati is using copyright policy to game the system, which would be a problem. This would also be a problem if Mkati were ignoring some discussion that had already taken place, but the petitioner doesn't suggest that is happening. According to the complaint itself there is nothing here requiring administrative action. causa sui (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Involved editors can of course delete blatant vandalism. And I would extend that to blatant copyright violations. Mkat's most recent deletion was certainly nothing of the sort, however -- not a copyvio at all, and certainly not a blatant copyvio.

As with involved editors in wp:admin, by analogy, "administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor ... and disputes on topics". As WP:ADMIN indicates, it is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a stretch. Involvement is construed broadly so that we can discourage administrators from gaming the system to enforce their own positions in content disputes. According to your own account there isn't any reason to believe that that is what he is doing, and I don't understand you to be implying that either. If I'm reading you correctly, your argument is strictly procedural. Since it is a much bigger danger to include a copyvio than to remove a non-copyvio, it would be better to convince the interested parties that the edits aren't actually copyvios. Then we could move on. causa sui (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a stretch at all. WP:ADMIN clearly indicates the concern: "involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about." Such is the case here. Repeated deletions, at an article in the ARBPIA content area, by an admittedly involved sysop. No credible claim of copyvio. Zero talk page discussion, while making the deletions. That this is being done in the highly sensitive ARBPIA area heightens concern as to the approach. There's no need to throw around an accusation such as "gaming the system to enforce their own positions", however apt it might be. Hopefully, the eyes of admins on this will help us avoid future problems.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you get it. You violated copyright policies for years. Our policies now allow the "indiscriminate removal" of the information you added during that period. You are fortunate that I am not taking "indiscriminate removal" to the full extent to which it is allowed. Any editor can remove your information -- it has nothing to do with being an administrator, I am not acting as one, but even if I was, I will not hesitate to block you if you continue to disrupt the resolution of your CCI. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Indiscriminate removal should mean being fairly liberal in removing copyvios that are discovered from Epeefleche's edits, it does not mean removing information Epeefleche wrote just for the sake that he wrote it. That is disruptive. Silverseren 16:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it does mean that. Policy is that "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately. See Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations." --Moonriddengirl 18:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Basically, once things reach the point of a CCI, all contributions by an editor are to be assumed copyvio unless proven otherwise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems like it could be very disruptive though, especially when you're considering articles that other users have likely worked on and expanded afterwards as well. Silverseren 21:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of "assuming copyvios". We are talking about Mkat's deletions yesterday -- years (and 50-80,000 edits?) after I wasn't familiar with our copyvio rules. And the material Mkat deleted here was by no means a copyvio. His assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. Mkat wasn't "assuming" anything. He looked at the language and the source and made a completely unfounded assertion, without tp discussion, in his COI area.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In that case, uploading copyvios is what is disruptive. That subsequent editors then rework the copyrighted content (making the Wikimedia Foundation a distributor of an unlicensed derivative work) that then has to be removed is disruption caused by the person who uploaded the copyvio, not the person who removed it. A lot of thought has gone into this and the legal implications of unlicensed derivatives combined with the high ratio of (effort to detect copyvios:effort to add copyvios) make wholesale removal of legally dubious content a cost of doing business around here. causa sui (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue here, above, involved Mkat hiding behind the dubious assertion of copyvio. I doubt an objective editor would find this -- his most recent deletion -- to be a copyvio. When an editor deletes material under such a dubious claim of copyvio, that could easily be seen as disruptive if it is part of a problem. He also failed to use the talkpage for discussion -- or even respond to discussion opened on the talkpage. That is also not good practice where one is deleting material three times in an hour. This is compounded by the fact that this matter is in the ARBPIA area, where sensitivities are heightened. And, of course, it is further compounded where (as here) the sysop is without question an involved editor. I've no problem at all with real copyvios being struck. But that's not what was at issue here at all, as you can see if you look at the diff provided.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

My initial concern was prompted by the fact that Mkat: a) deleted material 3 times in half an hour; b) with a wholly dubious claim of copyvio (see his most recent deletion), c) failed to communicate via talkpage; d) in the sensitive ARBPIA area; e) where Mkat is an involved editor; f) without modeling best behavior as called for by wp:admin. I raised the issue here so others could keep an eye on this, and ensure that it does not inflate, as I've felt he has lashed out in the past when I've disagreed with him. I agree with Silver that Mkat's edits here were leaning towards the disruptive.

Mkat today appears to be reacting to my having disagreed with him, by seeking retribution. As background, when I first started at wikipedia -- many years ago -- I followed what I saw as wp practice; practice that was not in compliance with our rules. Not knowing our rules in this area, I did indeed make errors at that time, and years ago added some material that should properly be cited, revised, or redacted. I have years of editing since then, with tens of thousands of edits, and now that I have read our rules I've complied carefully with them.

But Mkat -- directly after I disagreed with him yesterday -- has now undertaken to delete in toto some articles I've worked on. Articles of Olympic athletes. As in this deletion of the Yves Dreyfus article today. And this deletion of the Vivian Joseph article today I can't see what he deleted, so I don't know whether some level of deletion is appropriate ; it may be. But certainly, I can't imagine that there is a need to delete such articles of Olympic athletes in toto. This is just this sort of retribution by Mkat that I was afraid of.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche, this is what happens to serial copyright violators. I had to do it to User:Gavin.Collins. If it makes you feel any better, I'll do the next batch of content removal. If you could provide a list of all your copyright violations...but given the volume, I doubt you'd remember. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Elen -- as we discussed elsewhere, though it goes beyond what you were requesting above, I'm happy to and have now volunteered to look at old articles I created, and delete or fix copyvios where I see them. Hopefully that will not only help fix them up, but also allow us to focus us on the issues that prompted this AN/I.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a very transparent modus operandi: file an ANI report and then claim that any subsequent action is "retribution". Then canvas (for which you've been blocked before) your mates who tried to prevent a CCI being opened (, ) under the guise of being neutral (soliciting the uninvolved Yoenit as well ). --Mkativerata (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. causa sui (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Mkat -- you've not addressed the concerns I raised above about your recent deletions. Instead, you seem to be seeking to deflect the discussion. Weren't you an involved editor, deleting material multiple times, the last time (at least) clearly not a copyvio (though you claimed it was), who despite being an involved editor failed both to engage in talkpage discussion and to -- given your being an involved editors -- post the issue elsewhere so it could be addressed? Rather than seeking to engage in character assassination, over what happened years ago (and I don't have clear recollections as to edits from five years ago), and many tens of thousands of edits ago, when I did not know our rules -- let's focus on what you did the past two days. As to your accusation of canvassing -- are you serious? Take a look at wp:CANVASS -- that is an absurd and unwarranted accusation -- it does little for the conversation when editors make baseless assertions. That's not canvassing -- quite the opposite, it is what wp:CANVASS indicates is not canvassing. As to "M.O." -- let's be clear. You are the involved editor who under the baseless (certainly, as to the most recent edit) guise of copyvio deleted material in an area you are involved in, refused to use or respond on the talkpage. And now in retribution, immediately after I disagree with you at a wholly unrelated article, you delete in toto bios of Olympic athletes. I've no problem as I've indicated with copyvios being redacted. But the fact that your reaction to someone disagreeing with you is to do this is problematic -- surely, the entire articles are not copyvios, and surely, the fact that athlete x, from country y, won medal z in the Olympics of xxxx is not a copyvio ... yet you delete even that.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Mkativerata began working on your CCI in January 2011. It's pretty obvious looking at the history of the CCI that what brought him to the article in question was resuming work on your CCI. (<http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Epeefleche&action=history>) He had never touched that article before. It isn't wholly unrelated; it is in fact intrinsically linked to the copyright work -- midway down this section, and he had moved to the next article in that list before you ever disagreed at the other article. Given that Mkativerata's approach to the CCI now is the same as it was in January, it's hard to see this as retribution.

I have in one capacity or another worked on most or perhaps all of the CCIs we've completed. Your CCI has not had much progress yet, so you may not know, but blanking articles listed at CCI where any copying is found is common. This flags that concerns have been located. Reviewers are not expected to rewrite content, although of course they can. They've done a service simply by confirming the problem. Once the article is blanked, you have a week at minimum to work on it. (Anyone else may work on a rewrite, too.) If a rewrite that fixes the problem is not proposed, the article may be stubbed or deleted if the content added by the subject of the CCI is extensive. This is standard operating procedure for CCIs. --Moonriddengirl 14:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Moon -- I think its pretty obvious that, in this edit that kicked off this discussion, Mkat was not doing "CCI work", looking at old edits. But -- hiding behind an unsupportable and baseless assertion of "close paraphrasing", deleting material written that same day, that was nothing of the sort. Moon -- tell me honestly: Would you have deleted taht language under the assertion of close paraphrasing yourself? There have been attempts by some to ignore this issue. There have been attempts by some to ignore that he was doing this in a COI area, that he was making repeated reverts without any talkpage discussion whatsover (and not even responding to talkpage discussion), and that he was doing this in the sensitive ARBPIA area. It is perhaps telling that some editors who have commented here in his support have completely ignored these facts, and ignored how this diverges from the strictures of wp:admin as to how an admin should behave.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to answer this below, since in substance it ties into your last note. --Moonriddengirl 12:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Come-on people; let’s cease with wikislogans like If it's possibly a copyright violation, it should be removed immediately pending peer review. Even Misplaced Pages sometimes uses *real evidence* here at ANIs. “Close paraphrases” are not copyright violations by any stretch of the imagination nor do they constitute plagiarism if it they are merely a “close paraphrase”; the litmus test is stricter than that. Anyone who editwars under such pretense has no leg to stand on. Given that Mkativerata is an involved editor, he must abide by the 3RR and edit warring restrictions everyone else are expected to abide by.

  I note Mkativerata’s fine posturing like how he won’t be “distracted by obstructionism,” but there are only so many ways short pithy English-langauge sentences that are grammatically correct can be constructed. The proper test for whether close paraphrasing must also be accompanied by an in-line citation is paraphrasing very closely. It is irrelevant whether a collaboration between Zeus and Oprah “uncovered a long history of copyright violations” and this caused Mkativerata to role his eyes *extra-extra* far into his forehead, nor does it matter if these two editors hate each others guts, nor does it matter if Mkativerata postures with Great Determination®™© and speaks of overcoming obstructionism; the only relevant issue here in this ANI is whether Mkativerata’s serial reverting has a proper foundation. And that means the basis must pass the “Reasonable Man” test: Let’s see hard evidence one way or another as to whether the deleted text is a paraphrasing “very closely” and is deserving of having an in-line citation.

  It might also be interesting to see if we have an 800-pound gorilla in the room no one is talking about. Is this about a pro-Israeli editor and an anti-Israeli editor bashing each other, trying to make substantial changes to the message point of the articles, and are trying to justify their actions by hiding behind the apron strings of misapplied policies? Who is *really* doing what, and why? Is there *really* “very close” paraphrasing? If that’s the case (and I see no evidence yet that it is) are Mkativerata’s remedies (wholesale deletion of text along with accompanying citations) best serving the project(?) or is are his edits just POV-pushing under a pretense that can’t be buttressed with real evidence? Greg L (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A close paraphrase of a copyrighted work is indeed a copyright violation as an unauthorized derivative work. T. Canens (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Can be, but not always. Paraphrasing a single sentence is out of a long article is generally fair use and thus not a copyright violation. A cited statement that is reworded from a single sentence of a source is, AFAIK, generally acceptable in any setting as long as it is cited. Academics do this all the time (summarizing someone's work by using a close paraphrase of a sentence or two of an abstract is extremely common). Hobit (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The blanking Epeefleche describes is typical procedure in copyvio situations, and you need merely to look in the history to find what has been blanked. As to what has been covered over, let's take the Vivian Joseph article. The major source says:

They finished in fourth place, but in 1966, the silver medal-winning German team of Hans-Jurgen Baumler and Marika Kilius were stripped of their medals after they were alleged to have signed a professional contract prior to the 1964 Olympics. The Josephs were then moved to third place and awarded bronze medals. In 1987, however, the German duo was officially reinstated by the IOC and the original results were restored; the Josephs, who had held the bronze for over 20 years, were moved back to fourth place and the USOC does not officially recognize them as medalists.

This is what Epeefleche placed in the article

They finished in 4th place. But in 1966 the silver medal-winning team of Hans-Jurgen Baumler and Marika Kilius of Germany were stripped of their medals, after they were alleged to have signed a professional contract prior to the 1964 Olympics. The Josephs were then moved up to 3rd place, and awarded bronze medals. In 1987, however, the Germans were officially reinstated by the IOC, and the original results were restored. The Josephs, who had held the bronze medal for over 20 years, were moved back to 4th place. The USOC does not recognize them as medalists.

The rest of the Joseph article contains similar copy-and-paste-with-a-few-words-changed blatant copyright violations and its blanking was both utterly necessary and required. If Epeefleche does not want this to happen, then the best course of action would be to actually work with the CCI to correct the problems that s/he admits exists, before they get blanked. A much more productive course of action. --Slp1 (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, "I can't see what he deleted, so I don't know whether some level of deletion is appropriate; it may be. But certainly, I can't imagine that there is a need to delete such articles of Olympic athletes in toto. This is just this sort of retribution by Mkat that I was afraid of. BTW -- can you tell us what date that edit was added? Also, Mkat -- directly after I disagreed with him yesterday -- has now undertaken to delete completely some articles I've worked on on Olympic athletes. It stretches the assumption of good faith past the breaking point to think that the timing of his deletions is not accidental, but rather direct retribution. And it is hard to believe that there is not material capable of saving--without any risk of copvio whatsoever--along the lines of "Joe T is an American boxer who won a gold glove in boxing as a heavyweight at the 1976 Summer Olympics".--Epeefleche (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll try again. Mkativerata has deleted nothing. He has blanked an obvious copyright problem, and the complete history, including when you added the information is still in the history. Mkativerata has posted it on the WP:CP board where other editors and administrators will, in 5-7 days, process the listing, checking Mkativerata's claim of copyvio and acting upon it or not as they find appropriate. At any point, you could rewrite the articles to avoid deletion or stubbing. This was explained to you by Moonriddengirl in January, and it is clearly written clearly on the page blanking the articles. Please stop these disruptive claims of "retribution". You added massive copyright violations, and have done nothing to participate in the clean up. Somebody else obviously has to do it for you, and you don't get to obstruct the process by attacking the cleaners. --Slp1 (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Very good. Thank you for providing the much-needed, hard evidence, Slp1. Indeed, that is not merely the “close paraphrase” that Mkativerata cited for his deletions but passes the “reasonable man” test for being what plagiarism states as requiring an in-line citation (very close paraphrasing). So why doesn’t someone (Epeefleche?) just add in-line citations to the paragraph? This seems to be an edit dispute where the content and thrust of the article is being changed by the deletion. If Epeefleche objects to that, why not add a citation? Greg L (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You appear to have a very serious misunderstanding of copyright issues. In-line citations will not solve this issue in any way. This is neither close paraphrasing nor plagiarism. It is a very clear cut copyright infringement. May I suggest that you read WP's policies on this matter? WP:COPYVIO.--Slp1 (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What I actually understand and what you think I understand are two different things. I’m done with you today, too. Adios. Greg L (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism is pretty clear that adding an in-line citation to closely paraphrased content taken from non-free sources is not a solution; of "works under copyright that are not available under a compatible free license", it says "They cannot be closely paraphrased for copyright concerns, but must be substantially rewritten in original language." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

But ... the edit that Mkat most recently deleted, under the dubious guise of copyvio, wasn't copyvio at all. The fact that he failed to engage in talkpage discussion, and did it in a sensitive area in which he has a conflict of interest, merely compounds the matter -- if there were even a gray area of concern as to copyvio, and for some reason he was opposed to talk page discussion, he could simply have posted his concern on the appropriate noticeboard so that an uninvolved editor could address it. But the main point is -- Mkat seems to be asserting copyvio where there is none, in an area where he has a conflict of interest.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It is your opinion, not an objective truth, that there were not copyright problems with that revision. Your judgement on copyright matters have to be taken with a pinch of salt, frankly, given your history. --Slp1 (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The above-indicated diff speaks for itself. Anyone can read it. One needn't rely on anyone else's opinion. And it is an objective fact that he has a conflict of interest in the ARBPIA area -- he admits as much himself.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If Greg L thinks close paraphrasing is "not copyright violations by any stretch of the imagination" and indisputably not plagiarism then Greg L's opinion on this matter is to be actively mistrusted. In fact, given the precedent of long-standing editors turning up at ANI and making such statements, it'd be good if someone took a fine-toothed comb to Greg L's longer contributions to confirm that this wasn't indicative of additional copyvio problems. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can’t understand what others write, then you ought not spout off as you just did Thumperward. I now know I can ignore the nonsense you write here. Greg L (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

An ad hominem response to a serious copyright situation is not helpful. Actively suspicious, in fact. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Now you are just trying to bait me. Try looking in the mirror next time when it comes to ad hominem responses. You started it with your “actively mistrusted” bit and then jump up and down and cry foul when someone gives you a dose of your own medicine. Then you further tried to bait me by writing it'd be good if someone took a fine-toothed comb to Greg L's longer contributions to confirm that this wasn't indicative of additional copyvio problems, which is straight out of 6th grade. How the hell old are you?? Stop acting childish and attacking others and try reading what they actually write before spouting off with something half-baked; the operative point in my above point was the adjective “very”; that point was obviously lost on you. I’m done responding to you today since I’ve got your number now, fella, and it’s obvious you enjoy personal attacks and baiting (I’d sorta bother with an ANI of my own for that hogwash, but that would be lowering myself to your level). Why not find another venue at which you can be an ornery, miserable cuss? There is ample electronic white space to get the last word. Happy editing and goodbye. Greg L (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I've little interest in being drawn into some interminable flame war, especially not with you. My comments were directed at that wider part of the community whose concern with copyright both in the hard legal sense of "we are liable to be sued here" and in the broader sense of "Misplaced Pages is best avoiding a reputation for a lax attitude to potential copyright issues". Your comment in defense of presented diffs showing at least the latter was troublesome. My experience in this area on WP strongly indicates that editors who make statements defending such things are more likely than average to have made such considerations regarding their own edits in the past. Your response to this was "I now know I can ignore the nonsense you write here", which as a rebuttal is seriously lacking. Forgive me for also not taking you at your word that you're disinterested in having the last word here when my current edit conflict indicates you spent at least five minutes editing this response in order to add the "ornery, miserable cuss" comment, a readaibly blockable personal attack only overlooked because there are bigger issues here (serious allegations of copyvio). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we just topic ban someone for refusing to work on their own CCI? Why isn't the same thing done here, especially since this CCI has now been around for about a year and Epeefleche has yet to help clean up the mess he created? T. Canens (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Support. It seems more appropriate to ban someone who still hasn't helped after a year, rather than ban someone who's CCI has just opened. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record, here are the two sentences in question (AFICT)

Source

In the new book "Tehran Rising," author Ilan Berman notes that the U.S. war on terrorism has inadvertently removed two of the major brakes on Iranian power in the region: Saddam Hussein's dictatorship in Iraq and the Islamist Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan.

Misplaced Pages

He wrote in his 2005 book Tehran Rising: Iran's Challenge to the United States that in displacing Saddam Hussein, in Iraq, and the Taliban, in Afghanistan, the United States had unintentionally taken away two significant checks on the power of Iran in the Middle East.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=36

I think that the "inadvertently" is arguable a WP:OR problem (though common sense probably applies). I think that there are only so many ways to communicate the idea of the sentence and this one would seem reasonable to me. But others, more versed in copyright issues, should probably comment. Hobit (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if you think that this version is adequate, it is worth noting what Mkativerata first removed as a paraphrase.

What mkativerata removed

In his 2005 book Tehran Rising: Iran's Challenge to the United States], Berman noted that the U.S. had inadvertently removed two major brakes on Iranian regional power: Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan

which is much, much too close to the original source. Epeefleche made incremental changes all of which which Mkativerata stated, I think legitimately, remained too close to the source, before arriving at this current. --Slp1 (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Does making incremental changes to a copyvio until the wording is sufficiently different from the original make it no longer a derivative? INAL but my sources say "no". causa sui (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly hope so. Otherwise we should just delete, rather than fix, any detected copyright violations. Plus, a quote that short in a non-profit (yes it matters) is almost certainly fair use so the issue is fairly moot. I personally think the first version is highly problematic, the last was fine and shouldn't have been deleted. Hobit (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you don't overcome close paraphrasing with a thesaurus. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I don't have anything better. Could you provide a way to say that same thing without being a close paraphrase? Or is it the attempt to say the same thing, in a single sentence, that was in the original, as a single sentence, that is a problem? (Sorry that sentence sucked, did I mention I don't write well?) Hobit (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If an editor lacks the skills to do it (and I don't mean that perjoratively), in-text attribution is a safe way around the problem. And does the sentence need to be in the article in the first place? If the sentence derives from one sentence in one source, it's probably not important. So yes, it can be the very attempt to say the same thing, in a single sentence, that was in the original, as a single sentence, that is a problem --Mkativerata (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe I understand your points, but I will disagree. There are times that a single sentence can and should be paraphrased from a source. Ignoring if this is such a case, I think that the (final) paraphrasing used is about as far from the source as it could be while still making the same point. Would "In his 2005 book Tehran Rising: Iran's Challenge to the United States], Berman claims that by displacing Saddam Hussein and the Taliban from the Middle East, the United States left room for Iran to fill the vacuum they left." be any better? Eh. Like I said, I think the final version was acceptable, but I agree the first was certainly not. YMMV. Hobit (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• I agree w/Hobit. And my focus is, as well, on the third deletion that Mkat made (in half an hour, without talkpage discussion). I don't think that unwarranted assertions of copyvio should be used by a sysop, who is bound by wp:admin, and who is without question an involved editor, to delete material he doesn't like. Copyvio is a serious and important concern. But simply saying "I assert it is a copyvio" does not entitle Mkat to bludgeon other editors, where there is no copyvio.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of what hobit says but would make the further point that we are dealing with here may not even be a close paraphrase of the source stated - that is if the source "Tehran Rising," by Ilan Berman contains a sentence reading

the U.S. war on terrorism has inadvertently removed two of the major brakes on Iranian power in the region: Saddam Hussein's dictatorship in Iraq and the Islamist Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan.

then the first version is a correctly attributed quote. From memory epeefleche's CCI was mostly filled with examples like this where one secondary source correctly attributes a piece of information to another secondary source and this attribution has been closely paraphrased to wikipedia. The material being paraphrased in these cases does not begin to approach the threshold of originality required by law to assert a copyvio. That said in these cases our concern should be one of sourcing we should endeavour to cite the claim in the book rather than citing an article discussing the book as the latter is more likely to appear to be a copyvio even if it isn't. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This issue involves an article that has not received attention for most of a year, but appears to be being investigated as part of a CCI investigation.  However, the current dispute does not involve copyright violation, because we would not allow a copyright violation to be retained in the edit history of the article.  Instead, this is an editorial dispute over non-copyright-violating "close paraphrasing" by the target of the CCI investigation.  Regarding the initial recent edit to the article, the target of the CCI investigation does not dispute the concern of "close paraphrasing", and does not dispute the initial revert of the material, but instead seeks to restore the work product of the encyclopedia without the concern.  This is where the dispute begins, because the subject of this ANI review refuses to allow improvements to the encyclopedia, refuses to engage in talk page discussion, and on this ANI page escalates by threatening to use administrative tools.  This discussion can be resolved by reminding Mkativerata to discuss editorial disputes on the talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not really an accurate understanding of how we handle copyright problems. We allow them to be retained in the edit history of articles routinely. User:Flatscan and I have just been talking about how that should be addressed. But even I only revdelete extensive issues. (And Mkativerata is more conservative there than I am: ) --Moonriddengirl 18:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Unscintillating--Actually, there is nothing in Mkat's immediately prior edits to suggest that Mkat was looking at Ilan Berman as part of a CCI investigation. Nor did Mkat assert it. BTW, though Berman had not been edited in a year as you point out, Berman had just before Mkat's edits written a NYT article that brought him onto the radar screen. Second, I appreciate your bringing the focus back to the facts here. Finally, it was only after I differed with Mkat that he began deleting articles just now ... before I questioned his approach, he had not touched any articles that were part of the CCI investigation for many months. Immediately after I questioned him, he began vigorously deleting articles of Olympic medal winning athletes in total, not even leaving a stub.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This is in response to this note and this one, as if I answer them separately I'm going to be doing a lot of repeating myself. :)

Mkativerata picked up working on your CCI (which is much appreciated, since nobody else has been doing it and your CCI was cited at AN a week or two ago as specific evidence that nobody cares about copyright problems) at 19:07 on 17 November. Before you edited that article, he had documented his change and moved on to the next article in line at 19:12 before you first "differed" with these two edits (at 19:16 and 19:18). I watch articles I clean for copyright problems routinely (although not always long enough, as yesterday I cleaned the same pasted content out of an article I cleaned up in 2008). If I disagreed with your rewrite, I would have left you a note at your user talk page explaining why after I reverted you, but, then, if I disagreed with admins actions related to my work, I would have left them a note at their talk page explaining why. I would not have opened an ANI without this step. I haven't looked at the text in question; I've been pretty much unavailable for CCI work myself for months. But the point isn't that Mkativerata may or may not have been wrong in his action. Sometimes there are good faith disagreements about what constitutes a close paraphrase. It happens. The point is that you are assuming a bad faith motive on Mkativerata's part (an agenda), and I do not see any evidence to support that. While Mkativerata had not done work on your CCI lately, Mkativerata has been a CCI regular in the past - this is why he is listed as a CCI Clerk. (Which just shows how out of date we are, since admins don't need to be...and that I really need to get User:MER-C some help here.) He's also been doing some much needed work at WP:CP. Sure, we can look at this in such a way as to suggest that he's been doing all this as some kind of smoke screen to allow him to press an agenda, but not without squinting really hard. :) WP:AGF says if we do any squinting, we should be squinting in the direction of assuming that people mean well.

In terms of avoiding distress, I'll offer you an idea: if you are unhappy with the way other people are cleaning up the CCI, why don't you do it before they get there? While you should not mark an article as resolved on your CCI, there is absolutely no reason that you can't put a note underneath the article title that you believe you have fixed it. Other CCI subjects have done this, and it can work well. --Moonriddengirl 12:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Moonriddengirl. Her remedy (get in there preemptively to fix things) is more of a challenge than it is a solution I think Epeefleche will avail himself of. I think the best way for Epeefleche to handle Mkativerata’s deletions of his content is—rather than revert Mkativerata—to just revise the deleted text so it no longer appears as a “very close” (or merely “close”) paraphrasing of the original cited work. Thus, if Epeefleche perceives that the deletions had a POV-pushing effect, he can easily fix that problem by taking the time to address the plagiarism concerns. Mkativerata, for his part, can just make sure to leave pithy but accurate edit summaries so that Epeefleche clearly understands the true basis for the edits. Greg L (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That is good advice. Unfortunately, it seems that Epeefleche has shown little interest in collaborating with the CCI, which has made little progress in a year or so since it has been opened. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

So if Epee is altering the text repeatedly to ameliorate the copyright violation, that's a good thing right? I'd imagine Mkativerata would, on reflection, agree that even limited cooperation from CCI subjects is better than no cooperation. Since the text has been adjusted significantly to the point that it no longer appears to be a copyright violation (demonstrating, by the by, how easy it is to avoid such a violation in the first place), and Mkat hasn't reverted it again, we're done here with this issue, yes?

And now the next issue: let's discuss (as with Richard Arthur Norton) if Epeefleche's activities should be restricted by topic ban to working with the CCI until his/her contributions have been fully cleaned. Nathan 23:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Let’s be clear about something, Nathan. Epeefleche is a mature and highly educated editor; he’s not some sort of 16-year-old kid out to make trouble. Notwithstanding his education, he dicked up with some colossal plagiarism and he’s admitted that he screwed up. But part of why he keeps finding himself embroiled here at ANI is because he works in a controversial area: terrorist-related articles. That sort of area intrinsically brings editors with a pro-Israeli bias into conflict with those who have an pro-Islam bias (known, using the standard wiki-quoloqialism, as “POV-pushing where the respective parties have a hard time comprehending other’s worldview”). So…

I have a better idea. Rather than give a productive and mature editor the equivalent of an atomic wedgie (with a splendid public-humiliation tar & feathering aspect to it), we just sit back and watch how Epeefleche and Mkativerata collaborate on Targeted killing; Mkativerata just got through blanking the article for copyright violations. I propose we keep a keen eye for the sort of behavior that these two editors accuse each other of: Epeefleche’s alleged failure to revise very close paraphrasing, and Mkativerata’s alleged use of copyright violations as a pretense to POV-push. Let the sunshine of public inspection reveal the truth of the matter. Greg L (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Greg L's first two sentences. I don't think there's a need for any editing restriction. Fact: Everything I've seen Epeefleche create since the CCI started is copyvio-free. It's irritating in a way that the CCI remains on foot while Epeefleche enjoys full editing privileges, but irritation isn't a ground for an editing restriction. All I ask is that Epeefleche stays out of the way of editors trying to clean up the copyright violations. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we can move forward with that consensus: Epeefleche isn't uploading any copyvios since the CCI started; Mkativerata is using a blunt instrument to remove coypvios uploaded by Epeefleche in the past, but that is sometimes necessary; anyone distressed by this is invited to clean up coypvios in the CCI in whatever other way they see fit before Mkativerata gets to them. Resolved? :-) causa sui (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Warning: This template – {{Userspace notes}} – is misplaced. If you have just placed this template on this page: Please remove this template from this page. If you are seeing this template but did not place it here: Please review this page and attempt to determine whether or not it is actually an article. This template should be removed from the page if it is. If you need assistance, place {{Help me}} on your talk page; your help message should mention the name of this page and explain that you do not know whether or not it should be in the article namespace.

I had some trouble understanding some of the positions taken in this discussion. I found the urls and references in the diffs made it harder to see just what had changed between the versions. So I created a scratch page, in user space, where i could strip out the hidden material, and just use diffs to see how the text changed.

It is my understanding that ideas aren't copyrightable -- only how they are expressed.

We are all volunteers here. No one can force us to undertake a specific task. But, I think once we have undertaken a task we have a responsibility to see it through.

As an administrator Mkat is authorized to excise passages he or she thinks represent a problem. He or she did that here. Mkat edit summary said "Rm a couple of close paraphrases and fix a couple of quotes." -- I suspect most administrators wouldn't have thought any further explanation was necessary -- this time.

However their 2nd excision only said "remains a close paraphrase.. ." And their 3rd excision said "Synonyms and syntax changes do not change close paraphrasing. As a CCI subject you are treading on dangerous ground."

The contributor who made repeated attempts to rewrite the passage says they hoped for more useful feedback as to why their subsequent attempts were being excised. It seems to me that Epee's good faith efforts to draft replacement passages deserved more effort on mkat's part to explain what was wrong with the replacements. Am I missing something? Has mkat made any effort beyond those edit summaries to explain these excisions?

In particular, others have questioned mkat's third excision. I really don't think this thread should be closed without greater discussion as to why that attempted rewrite merited excision. I too don't understand why it was excised.

As I understand it, blocks and bans are not punishment, they are tools intended to preserve the integrity of the project. As I understand it contributors who return from a block, or who have had a topic ban, or other administrative condition agreed upon, should be entitled to the assumption of good faith, so long as they seem to have learned their lesson.

I was not aware that epee had been the subject of a CCI -- whatever that is. But he seems to have made good faith attempts to remedy whatever lapses he made in the past.

It seems to me that one interpretation of mkat's edit summary "As a CCI subject you are treading on dangerous ground" was that this may have been mkat's way of warning epee that he would be blocked if he made another attempt to draft a replacement passage. This really concerns me. I am really concerned when I see an administrator making a vague warning to a good faith contributor that they may block them in the future, when that warning doesn't clearly say what future behavior will trigger the block and under which policy they think the block is authorized.

This warning -- if that is what it was -- seems very problematic to me, if mkat can't offer a fuller explanation for the excision that accompanied it.

Included for your reading pleasure -- diffs with extraneous hidden material excised, so you can see more clearly, how the different versions varied. Geo Swan (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

	target of 'close paraphrase' claim
	diff between target and version 1
	diff between target and version 2
	diff between target and version 3	If you only click on one link here, click on this one. It is the excision of this version that I think most clearly merits further explanation.
	diff between target and current version

• I left a message on mkat's talk page asking mkat to explain more fully the reasoning behing his or her third excision. I asked mkat for the reasoning behind his threats to block epee. I hope they will return here and do so. Geo Swan (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Mkat did respond, briefly, on his talk page. His response was basically a repeat of his or her original edit summary. Since several people here have said they don't understand why epee's attempt the mkat excised in his third excision should be considered a close paraphrase, I really think a more specific explanation is called for. Several other contributors seem to have endorsed all his excisions -- including the third. Since mkat seems unwilling or unable to offer an explanation, maybe one of the other participants here who endorsed this excision can offer their reasoning for considering it a "close paraphrase"?

    Mkat's response also did not address my concern that the warnings they left for epee were unhelpful because they didn't layout which behaviors epee should avoid to avoid triggering the block, and they didn't help epee, or anyone else reading the discussion, which policy would authorize that block. Geo Swan (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

New blanking by Mkativerata in his COI area; Mkat's threat to block

Mkat admits he has a conflict of interest in the ARBPIA area. In deletions that triggered this AN/I, he ignored his COI. (His claim of "close paraphrasing" was highly dubious, but even had it not been dubious his correct course given his COI would have been to post his concern on a noticeboard, where someone non-involved could pursue it). Mkat was alerted to this issue.

Mkat responded above: "I will not hesitate to block you if you continue to disrupt the resolution of your CCI." But -- I haven't been disrupting any CCI. That sysop Mkat would threaten me with a block, for reporting my concerns above, troubles me.

Mkat has just now, after the above AN/I discussion, gone 1 step further. Blanking the entire article targeted killing. An article that is clearly within his COI area. (which I contributed to significantly this past year).

As an aside, it is highly dubious that this 194-ref targeted killing article was a copyvio. And that Mkat's blanking of it was proper--even if Mkat had not had a COI.

Mkat is thus continuing to delete material in disregard of his COI. And of wp:admin. And he only began blanking articles I had worked on after our disagreement 4 days ago on 2 sentences in the Berman article -- before the Berman article, he had not blanked or deleted material from any articles I worked on for at least 10 months, as far as I can recall, but after I disagreed with him he engaged in the above behavior. That adds to the impression that his blanking here is part of a pattern of retribution. By an involved sysop.

I gather that Mkat is displeased I disagreed with him 2 days ago, as to what constituted a "close paraphrase". And as to his failure to use the talkpage for discussion. But I wonder whether his blocking threat and his article blanking here, especially given his COI, are what wp:admin had in mind.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You are attributing motives when there does not seem to be one. Frankly, at this point I'm sorely tempted to just write a script that adds {{subst:copyvio}} to all the articles referenced in the CCI. You are also totally confusing conflict of interest and involvement. T. Canens (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is interested, here is the explanation for my self-declaration of ARBPIA involvement. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

So the entirety of your "involvement" is having endorsed two views in an RFC in 2010? Honestly, I think you are being overly cautious here. That makes the claims here even more spurious... T. Canens (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have demonstrated, with diffs, that Mkativerata picked up on your work on CCI and was continuing to work on your CCI before you objected to the first edit. It's true he had not yet blanked an article on this go-around; had Mkativerata never blanked an article of yours before or if blanking articles for further evaluation at WP:CP wasn't standard, you might have cause for concern. But Mkativerata's behavior here is no different than Mkativerata's behavior was in January (for one example of many: ). It is the same behavior he has brought to bear on other CCIs in unrelated areas (for one example: ), and it is the same behavior others bring to bear on CCIs, where blanking articles is one of the standard operating procedures. (We even have a special template for articles that are blanked without evidence where presumption of copying is strong: {{CCId}}.) I have no reason to think that Mkativerata is handling your CCI any differently than anybody else's CCI has been handled. Actually, I think blanking is likely more prudent than text removal at this point given your presumption of bad faith on his part. That way, he flags the problem, but another administrator will oversee any proposed cleanup you place in the temp space and work with you through any disagreements on whether or not content has been rewritten from scratch. I have myself taken this tack when contributors personalize cleanup efforts of their CCIs to help minimize any feeling that I might be subjecting them to unfair scrutiny because I don't like them or because I have a bias against their subject areas. (That said, I don't at all mean to discourage Mkativerata from removing or rewriting the content directly.) --Moonriddengirl 11:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche, you're not doing yourself any huge favors here. You fail to mention in your complaint that Mkat first removed numerous specific examples of copyright violations, and only upon deciding that it was likely the entire article was suspect did he proceed to blank it. This thought progression is pretty clear and obvious just from the edit history. If you want to rescue the article, fix it. If you want to avoid having this happen to other articles of yours, fix them. If you'd rather go on working on new content and avoid any attempt to fix your past mistakes, just wipe your watchlist and start over. Nathan 15:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nathan. As indicated above, I've volunteered to fix old copyvios. I'm more than willing to do that. As to the more immediate concern-- the targeted killing article -- I've asked Mkat (at the article talkpage) to indicate where he believes there are copyvios. That way, the community can discuss if they are in fact copyvios (as indicated by a number of editors now, the Mkat-claimed copyvio that spurred this AN/I was likely not a copyvio at all, and it may not always be the case that a claim is in fact correct). Once Mkat indicates what he believes are copyvios, that will enable the community to understand what is troubling him that he thinks requires deletion of the article. Editors will be better able then to either discuss (though it is unclear to me at this point what import even consensus disagreement with his view would have) and/or "fix" the text.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Your text-walling on Talk:Muslim Arab Youth Association -- seven questions! -- is plain disruptive. Your demand at Talk:Targeted killing for me to identify each and every copyvio in a 130kb article you founded is even more so.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I came here from another users talk page where Epeefleche had left a message with a link to this thread in a section below a message I had left that user. As such I know little about this case other than what I haver read here.

@Greg L, I thought your tenacious defence of Epeefleche's behaviour over the introduction of the Targeted killing article was misguided, but there you are, it was a matter of opinion. To my surprise I find you here in this thread trying to defend the undefendable. Just out of interest can you provide a diff to the last time that you criticised anything Epeefleche has done, or vice versa? -- PBS (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I am amazed that Epeefleche opened this ANI and there are several points I would like to make: Epeefleche wrote above "Involved editors can of course delete blatant vandalism. ... not a copyvio at all, and certainly not a blatant copyvio." That statement shows that Epeefleche has no understanding of how much copyright infringement endangers this project. Blatant petty vandalism is annoying, but it does not threaten the project. Subtle vandalism that introduces libel that goes undetected for months does, and so do copyright violations if we are not seen to be using due diligence to prevent it and clean it up. This makes me wonder how likely it is that Epeefleche has seen the light and understands how much damage (s)he has done to the project.

I find this statement baffling "We are talking about Mkat's deletions yesterday -- years (and 50-80,000 edits?) after I wasn't familiar with our copyvio rules." Is Epeefleche stating the when (s)he wrote the Targeted killing article on 30 September 2010 (s)he was not familiar with the "copyright rules"? Or is it that there were no copyright violations in that article? If (s)he was not familiar with the "copyright rules" on 30 of September last year on what date did (s)he become familiar with them? -- PBS (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for block of Epeefleche

Almost two years ago, when Slp1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) raised copyright concerns with Epeefleche, she was attacked. When Wjemather (talk · contribs) filed a necessary CCI in December last year, he was attacked. Now I try to clean up the extraordinary copyright violations that Epeefleche has introduced, despite warning, over a long period, I am the subject of harassment, by virtue of this ANI and disruptive text-walling. Today the disruption has reached new heights, with absurd badgering (Talk:Muslim Arab Youth Association) and absurd requests (eg Talk:Targeted killing, asking that I specify all individual copyright violations in a 130kb article, when I have already given multiple examples in the article's edit history). This has to stop. It is plainly disruptive. The intention is obviously to harrass me with complaints and questions until I am driven away from the CCI. Epeefleche's intention to disrupt is evidence by his canvassing of others to participate here (evidence above). I'm calling for him to be blocked pending a discussion of an appropriate edit restriction to prevent him from disrupting his CCI.

The community has to get serious: does it support editors who do the hard work of removing large-scale copyright violations (and I'm acting as an editor in this CCI, I have not once used admin tools) or not? If Epeefleche is permitted to continue this disruption, the answer from the administrative corps would be an obvious "no". The CCI is less than 1% complete. It is part of a massive CCI backlog. Those who work on CCI need to be supported. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• The timing of this request is curious and is suggestive of rage and a personal vendetta. I just got through adding my 2¢ on Mkativerata’s talk page (∆ edit, here). Just 38 minutes later, he hit “Save page” on this request to block Epeefleche. The timing comes across as “Well then… eat this!” What I wrote there was exactly what I honestly feel about what is going on with him and Epeefleche. His escalation of this ongoing tit-for-tat seems to be an awful lot of wikidrama. I suggest he take a 24 hour wikibreak to cool down. Greg L (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The timing of this request seems suggestive of an understandable frustration to me. I am reluctantly forced to agree that something needs to be done. I have been trying to keep an eye on communication here, and I agree that the result of Epeefleche's "interactions" is disruptive. See and , where he continues to imply that this is all being blown out of proportion. It took me 20 seconds to find that he had copied this bit of prose from the New York Times in the former: "'Allah Akhbar,' roared the crowd, offering spontaneous praise." Mkativerata identified other text. In the latter? Well: from the Washington Post, for example:

I found this through a quick google search. Mkativerata had likely already identified it and others in edit summaries. If Epeefleche had spent even part of the energy on rewriting his content that he has spent in trying to imply that there's nothing wrong with it, both those articles would have already been repaired. His insistence on fighting every step of the way is going to make his CCI impossible to conduct, and I don't see any reason to believe that he is going to be willing to collaborate rather than combat. --Moonriddengirl 02:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Epeefleche should help fix the copyvios. But if I correctly understand the interpersonal dynamics here, the process by which Mkativerata is blanking article content and then telling Epeefleche to keep clear while Mkativerata unilaterally fixes the articles is a bitter pill to swallow for someone who was the shepherding author of an article. We all have to struggle against WP:OWN tendencies when someone runs roughshod on articles we created and it takes extreme maturity to remain civil. But everything I see about Mkativerata’s approach to communicating with Epeefleche and others betrays an arrogance that inflames the situation. We just don’t need that in an admin and currently, the en.Misplaced Pages has no great process to reign in admins who react passionately. On Mkativerata’s talk page, Geo Swan left a lengthy and mature post (permalink) asking Mkativerata to explain and justify his latest actions and Mkativerata left a one-liner response that wasn’t much more than “The edit summaries speak for themselves.” Mkativerata seems to be taking this all too personally (perceives all criticism as a challenge to his authority and a personal affront) and has lost perspective as to what Misplaced Pages is about. It is not about wikidrama and is all about decompressing and communication rather than brute force and escalation. Greg L (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

<blink> How else is there to take a statement like "I can see I'm wasting my time with someone who has let power go to his head" than as a "personal affront"? Is it really meant to decompress and communicate? If so, I'm afraid you may have missed that mark. :/ That said, I don't agree with you that this is necessarily a response to your edit. Had he taken you to WP:WQA, certainly. This seems a natural result of Epeefleche challenging clean up efforts rather than contributing to them. Can you explain to me where you see Mkativerata unilaterally fixing articles or why you think that's what's happening? In the past, when Mkativerata has blanked Epeefleche's articles, he has listed them at CP and left them for another admin to handle. This is common procedure. On what do you base your conclusion that this time is different? --Moonriddengirl 03:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I’m sorry Moonriddengirl, but I don’t agree with the apparent premiss of your posts here, which seem intended to paint Mkativerata’s dealings with Epeefleche as having been exemplary and his motivations pure as the driven snow. I assume that Geo Swan is an unbiased third party here. Am I wrong about that? But Mkativerata’s response to Geo Swan on his talk page (∆ edit, here) where Geo was asking him to explain himself amounted to “I don’t need to explain myself to anyone” and betrays that he perceives Misplaced Pages as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. And then his rushing here to post this request 38 minutes after my hubris to challenge his motivations and behavior was pure and childish “neener neener”. I find that claims of AGF and WP:SHEAR INNOCENT COINCIDENCE to be unconvincing after a modicum of WP:COMMONSENSE is applied. Those two just need to stay away from each other for a week. Greg L (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I realize that you don't agree; if you did, you probably wouldn't have left this message, much less the one at his talk page I linked above. The one you left at Talk:Targeted killing carries the same strong implication that you believe Mkativerata is rewriting Epeefleche's articles to include some kind of bias; I'm really curious as to why you think "Mkativerata is blanking article content and then telling Epeefleche to keep clear while Mkativerata unilaterally fixes the articles." Mkativerata offered yesterday before all this escalated to slow down on blanking articles to allow Epeefleche time to rewrite them (Full conversation). I just don't know where you got the impression that Mkativerata was intending to unilaterally fix these articles. The template with which they are blanked includes instructions for where to rewrite them; anybody can. :/ --Moonriddengirl 12:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

A block seems highly appropriate. Mkativerata has produced evidence of a long-standing pattern of behaviour by Epeefleche that involves attacking those who try to clear up copyvios. You don't even need to be an admin to help clear them up so all this stuff about being an involved admin is nonsense. We need to show support of those involved in the often thankless task of dealing with copyvios and help them protect Misplaced Pages by blocking those who seek to sabotage their efforts.--Peter cohen (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to say yea or nay to blocking but I think people ought to read: Talk:Targeted killing#Copyvio claim, look at Epeefleche edit history over the last 24 hours including the edits here and on the talk page of Talk:Targeted killing, and weigh up if Epeefleche is helping or hindering the copyright clean up. -- PBS (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Any admin may unblock when they are satisfied that Epeefleche will no longer disrupt the CCI. T. Canens (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Timotheus Canens has again shown his bias. Extra hard on editors he is opposed to and kind of forgiving to the ones he agrees with. Shame that any rfc will get bogged down in filibustering, shenanigans, and complete ridiculousness (recalling an admin is like pulling teeth). Time fore TC to stop making blocks for editors he has had any dealings with in the IP area since he gives those he prefers leeway. Evidence shows that he is involved even if it is not actual editing.Cptnono (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

So the gang are moving on from claiming that the person who was fixing the CCI is an evil anti-Zionist who imagines blatant copyright violations when all that the original editor was doing was to try to ensure that poor little Israel was given a fair hearing to claiming that the person who made the block is one? Unfortunately this is not the only page where this ad hominem sophistry is going on. Time for ARBPIA++. --Peter cohen (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

And the case is Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#ARBPIA 3.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That this all started a mere 38 minutes after I had the hubris to lip off to Mkativerata for his blunt dealings with Epeefleche makes this seem particularly unseemly. Both editors (Epeefleche and Mkativerata) were giving each others public wedgies. That is human nature. But rewarding an admin for “being right” on the principle of fixing copyvio problems but being way-wrong with his interpersonal dealings with a hard-working editor until the conflict escalated to this looks really poor.

And I don’t know why everyone pretends to not notice the 800-pound gorilla in the room that underlies this whole fiasco. Epeefleche has complained that Mkativerata waters down articles that are critical of radical Islam. Epeefleche errs the other way. The root of the enmity between the two is a battle of POV-pushing and it seems to me that Mkativerata exploited Epeefleche’s copyvio issues to go and strip out parts of articles Mkativerata didn’t like. Epeefleche saw that and the battle was on. Greg L (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That's just too bad. I have no knowledge of the accuracy of your claim, but even if it is correct, a person who has introduced copyvio problems has to get out of the way when others try to fix it. The situation is pretty simple: Are there significant plagiarism issues? Does the community support those willing to clean them up? It looks like yes is the answer to the first question, while the second has received a yes from T. Canens and a not really from others. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Greg L, it is easy to assert that Mkativerata is "watering down" articles that are critical of radical Islam, but Epeefleche's complaining that it is do does not make it so. And the hypothesis that Mkativerata is pushing some kind of pro-Islam agenda doesn't fit into the facts that his evaluation includes articles like David Blu, Isadore Schwartz, Herbert Flam and Marvin Goldklang, which are remarkably clear of anti-Islam sentiment. A far more plausible explanation is that Mkativerata is doing what we all do at CCI; reviewing a cross-section of the contributors' work. Your assertion that "The root of the enmity between the two is a battle of POV-pushing and it seems to me that Mkativerata exploited Epeefleche’s copyvio issues to go and strip out parts of articles Mkativerata didn’t like" requires evidence. Your certainty that your post, 38 minutes before this ANI expansion, was the catalyst for this ANI expansion is puzzling, given that a far more plausible explanation is that Mkativerata began working on an ANI post which he completed at 2:24 right after working on a response at Talk:Muslim Arab Youth Association at 1:54 and 2:01. --Moonriddengirl 13:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's true that removing Epeefleche's contributions has the effect of watering down criticisms of Islam; that is a consequence of the sort of content Epeefleche has added. What is missing is evidence that Mkativerata is doing this as part of a pro-Islamic agenda (rather than an anti-copyvio one). Kanguole 14:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I could just as easily write Of course Epeefleche's attempts to restore text has the effect of restoring criticism of Islam; that is a consequence of the sort of stuff Mkativerata deletes. As you wrote, we need evidence to judge this. But as we also all know, a blow-by-blow, edit-by-edit discussion to analyze the truth of the extent to with each party is POV-pushing is beyond the scope of this ANI. Why? Because Epeefleche doesn’t have any leg to stand on given his copyvio issues. I’m not defending Epeefleche and the slant he brings to terrorist-related articles, I’m merely saying that it is clear to me, looking at the totality of what is going on, that Mkativerata is exploiting the correction of copyvio to POV-push and that’s obviously the root source of a lot of the friction between these two editors. Since I know Epeefleche, I am ruling out the possibility that he has recently succumbed to schizophrenia and is imagining things.

Dialing our Common-Sense-O-Meters to “100,” we also know that Misplaced Pages is a big place and everyone here is a volunteer. What would motivate an editor like Mkativerata to devote the tedious effort to clean up Epeefleche’s articles? To protect the project from a lawsuit? To do good for humanity? We all know that usually this sort of dedication requires a personal motivation and countering someone else’s POV pushing is the most common motivation—and it results in a lot of wikidrama here.

Now, this edit of Mkativerata’s, where he deleted text that began with He wrote in his 2005 book… and that introduction was followed with a close paraphrase is all the attribution required; since it is a close paraphrase and not an exact quote, it would be flat-improper to put quotes around it. Yet Mkativerata deleted even though the attribution was fully sufficient. I can scarcely see how that sort of thing does the project any good; Mkativerata thought he saw yet another thing of Epeefleche’s he could delete but stepped over the line in his zeal and got caught. It doesn’t take Dr. Phil to figure out what’s going on between these two and what their motivations are. It’s clear Mkativerata feels is in the right, as evidenced by his royally flippant response to Geo Swan on his talk page, when he left only a one-liner amounting to “I’ve said all I need to say about what I’m up to” when asked to explain himself.

I just want to see the interests of our readership best served. Epeefleche has had run-ins in the past when editors would change text that read like this: Another on the U.S.’s kill list is Anwar al-Awlaki (an American citizen who declared jihad against America) and change it to Another on the U.S.’s kill list is Anwar al-Awlaki (a conservative Muslim scholar). The latter one obviously does not focus on what makes Anwar al-Awlaki notable as judged by the preponderance of the RSs. We all know this sort of POV-pushing will occur a hundred times just today. Now, I’m not suggesting that what Mkativerata is doing is nearly that egregious; it is far more subtle from what I can see—but it is palpable and real, in my opinion. Misplaced Pages is a battleground for a tug-of-war between editors who have different worldviews and want to effect change in Misplaced Pages’s articles; that’s not what we want, but that’s the simple reality of a phenomenon that is real. I consider myself to be a middle-of-the-roader, where the proper balance in our articles should reflect the general tone of the RSs—I have a keen eye for that.

As for what Mkativerata does with these articles from hereon, the proof will be in the pudding when he’s done with Targeted killing and any other articles Epeefleche has had a hand in from this point forward. Epeefleche is blocked now. What with Mkativerata request here coming 38 minutes after I took him to task on his own talk page, indeed, my involvement certainly didn’t help Epeefleche; but then, Mkativerata coming here 38 minutes later had something to do with it and I think the stunt made him just look like he reacts in anger, which we don’t need on Misplaced Pages. So what’s done is done. The community is watching both these guys now, including me. Greg L (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The idea that the most likely explanation for Mkativerata's efforts to remove copyright infringements is that s/he is trying to promote a POV is absurd. There are many editors who do remove copyright infringements "To protect the project from a lawsuit" or "To do good for humanity". A little looking would have shown you that Mkativerata has done work on many other copyright investigations (see, for instance, this one, this one or this one). Making wild unfounded accusations about an experienced editor is not going to help your case. Hut 8.5 18:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You and I clearly don’t see eye to eye on this, Hut 8.5. The above linked edit-diff shows that my views of what Mkativerata is up to are not “unfounded” as you allege. Mkativerata has a lot of friends and they naturally come to his defense in ANIs like this against him. But nose-count of support does not explain away clear evidence. So we’ll just have to agree to disagree, OK? Greg L (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No-one's going to see eye to eye with you on this unless you can provide more evidence to substantiate your accusation of bad faith. I'm not a "friend" of Mkativerata and I have no prior recollection of interacting with him/her. The idea that putting a lot of work into cleaning up copyright violations is a good indicator of POV-pushing is ridiculous and downright offensive to anyone who does copyright work. Hut 8.5 18:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don’t mischaracterize what I wrote. For that, I think I am rather done with you today. Nowhere did I make an “accusation of bad faith”; POV-pushing comes not from bad faith but from a bias one can’t see in oneself. As for the personal enmity between those two and Mkativerata’s flippant and arrogant responses to Geo Swan when he was asked to explain himself: that is there for all to see in black & white on his talk page. You may make of the evidence in any way you like, but the evidence speaks to me clearly enough and I respectively disagree with you. Greg L (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This endless mudflinging about Mkativerata's motives needs to stop, Greg L. There is no sign s/he has bee editing in the PI area in any kind of one-sided way. He was and is in the right about removing obvious copyright violations and plagiarism, whatever the topic. Please stop, as you have been requested already. --Slp1 (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The copyvio problem has become more pressing recently with the discovery of more and more serial copyright violators who previously had an excellent reputation. I don't know how many make an appropriate effort to help in the clean-up. Normally we only learn about those who are unwilling or unable to do that. I wonder if WP:COPYVIO#Addressing contributors is still up to date. I would prefer a clarification that editors who contaminated Misplaced Pages on a large scale will be blocked, and that the they can only be unblocked as part of a deal. And that such a deal will require that any other contributions to the project and its community must not exceed a certain percentage of their clean-up contributions until the problem is essentially fixed. Hans Adler 10:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Endorsing Tim's block - I would have done the same. Disappointing, as Epeefleche and an I had a conversation, followed up with a convo with Moonriddengirl, and we thought we had worked it all out. And I don't think GregL has helped his case one bit, unfortunately. Hopefully an agreement can still be reached - indef is after all not infinity - but Epeefleche would have to up the cleanup, and dial down the complaints. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • For filing frivolous, retaliatory complaints, and sticking with them beyond all reason, Epeefleche should be banned from complaining about any editors cleaning up his copyvio messes or otherwise obstructing their work. GregL needs to disengage from this area. His involvement is seriously unhelpful. Jehochman 14:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Agreed. A community topic ban might allow Epeefleche to be unblocked and voluntarily add himself as a party to the new ARBCOM case I have created.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with block, at least until Epeefleche agrees to change his/her behaviour. Editors who severely and persistently violated copyright over a long period of time and on a large scale should only be allowed to edit if they acknowledge the scope of the problem and assist in cleaning it up. Not only has Epeefleche not done this, but he's actively harassing people who do the tedious, severely backlogged task of cleaning up. This is unacceptable. Hut 8.5 14:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, after looking through everything, I would have to support the indefblock placed, as it's become evident that not only are there more copyright violations than we originally thought, but Epee does not seem to want to fix them. These are serious issues for someone who has written a lot of articles. They're well-referenced so this is an easier situation for us and him to fix, but the problems are there. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I actually agree with that, Wizardman. The sentiments of those here who support the block could be summarized as Why let him edit anywhere he wants when he shows no interest in helping on all the copyvios in his previous work? So I would propose that the community formally give him a probationary offer: That he can take any of the articles he has had a hand in and and clean it up in his userspace. Perhaps he can create User:Epeefleche/TK sandbox, fix the Targeted killing article there, and offer it up for pasting into articlespace. Since he had 200 citations in the Targeted killing article and knows it well, I suspect that is the one he would be most motivated to fix and do a good job of it. Then the community can go from there with how to further handle his probation. Greg L (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "I don't see the copyvio that is claimed as warranted deletion of this article. Would it be possible for you to indicate to the community which specific sentences you believe are copyvio?" (Opening sentence by Epeefleche in the section (s)he created called "Copyvio claim" on Talk:Targeted killing)). How can you read that and then suggest that (s)he should take the lead in recreating this article when (s)he is either being disingenuous (as (s)he was in your words "someone who was the shepherding author of an article" and therefore ought/must know better than anyone else what parts were copied), or is too stupid to understand the problem? As you are clearly in favour of such an article -- personally as you know but others may not, I think it is a POV fork of assassination and opposed its creation -- (see RFC on creation). Why don't you write a new short clean version of the article that you and others (including Epeefleche when/if the block is removed) can then expand? -- PBS (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• I also agree with this block. There is the long history of copyright violations, but really what is untenable is the disruption, filibustering, and harassment Epeefleche (and his mates) launches upon editors or administrators who dare to critique his editing. Mkativerata is the last in a long line. If it comes to any unblock, while I think it could be helpful if Epeefleche had to help out, my fear is that it will simple cause more problems that it solves. It may just be best to topic ban him from the whole area. In addition, I'd suggest being very careful about the terms of any unblock: I believe that when he was last unblocked from an indef, for canvassing, the unblocking admin came to regret the reduced terms that were finally agreed upon.. Slp1 (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Good (albeit unfortunate) block. His contributions are on balance very positive, but disputes are rarely handled cooperatively; and copyright infringement is an area where cooperation can't be considered optional. As in this case, the meatpuppetry that inevitably occurs in any dispute he's in always complicates things, though I don't know who is the actual meatpuppeteer. causa sui (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Per Misplaced Pages:Don't take the bait, I won't. I always speak my mind and do what I think is the right thing. Period. Happy editing.Greg L (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• It seems there are two kinds of 'editing restrictions' being proposed: (1) a requirement to help clean the copyvios; (2) a requirement to disengage from the CCI altogether (I think that is the thrust of Jehochman and Slp1's comments). In my view, (2) is preferable: it would be nice and all for Epeefleche to help with the CCI, but he keeps being told how he can help over and over again and keeps on filibustering. The only way for Epeefleche to return to editing constructively is to just draw a line under everything he contributed before December 2010. I recognise that my advocacy of (2) will probably be seen be some as a way to avoid any scrutiny of my actions on the CCI. But large-scale removals are done by blanking, which necessarily involves review by another administrator. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Mkat, going by the interaction between the two of you at the Ilan Berman article, and here on ANI, I am sorry but I see epee as the one who made the most effort to be collegial, and I see you as doing a very disappointing job of explaining what was wrong with his attempts to provide alternate wording. You threatened to block him, multiple times -- without offering any clue as to what behavior he should avoid to avoid the block. That struck me as extremely unfair. And I am frankly very surprised to see you imply you tried to help him "over and over again". Geo Swan (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with the block. CCIs are always tough on the individual targeted - let's face it, it's an accusation of dishonesty, and to have others going through and potentially deleting one's hard work is always going to be difficult for the person involved. However, there is a right way and a wrong way to approach such an issue and Epeefleche's approach – filibustering and obstruction – is most definitely wrong. A block was absolutely necessary to get him out of the way so that the CCI can proceed. What particularly troubles me about this case, though, is the way Epeefleche has engaged in overtly Islamophobic ideological conflict at the same time by accusing Mkativerata of "pro-Islamic" ideological bias in the CCI. It's one thing to disagree over content with an editor carrying out a CCI, but it's quite another to make seemingly baseless accusations against the CCI reviewer. In my opinion, if Epeefleche is to be allowed to resume editing he must retract and apologise to Mkativerata, as well as staying out of anything to do with the CCI other than responding to direct requests for information. Prioryman (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• Should have been blocked ages ago for the I-P topic area tendentiousness and unrepentant battleground'ing. Plagiarism is a bright line that thankfully can't be ignored, and is why we have seen only a handful of fans and supporters protest the block, rather than the usual droves that show up to these things. Tarc (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• If there are copyright violation and plagiarism issues, than there are no extenuating circumstances that matter. No overriding inside baseball concerns about admin behavior. No deals to be made. None. This is an encyclopedia project, and will not put up with that kind of dishonesty. Any other discussion is irrelevant at best and deliberate obfuscation at worst.--Tznkai (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that we need to be that extreme on it. I don't support immediate zero tolerance. But a sustained effort to interfere with or object to cleanups by the original party exceeds allowable behavior. A week ago I didn't believe this case was sufficiently sustained to warrant a block or ban; by today, I believe it has. This is not unrecoverable but actual coperation going forwards would be an absolute unblock criteria as far as I am concerned, and i would reblock after any unblock if cooperation was not very open and constructive. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblock and allow Epeefleche to defend himself. I would like to hear his input to this thread. This forum is taking place without the input of the editor that you and I are speaking in reference to. I think that User:Causa sui has earned chastisement for peremptorily impugning those who would defend Epeefleche with his comment "…I don't know who is the actual meatpuppeteer". That is uncalled for, counterproductive, petty, unfounded, in poor taste, etc. Bus stop (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I presume it to be a reference to Greg L's slavish support of Epeefleche. I don't think it's a case of meatpuppetry, more likely one of ideological sympathy. While Causa sui might have overstated the case, I don't think there's much doubt that Greg L's contributions to this discussion have been unhelpful. Indeed, as someone said above, they have probably harmed Epeefleche's case overall. If Greg L really wants to help, he should get involved in clearing up the mess that Epeefleche has left behind. Prioryman (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Quoting Prioryman: more likely one of ideological sympathy: You nailed it. It is not slavish support for Epeeflech per se, but slavish support for principles and wiki-procedures that could be improved. Regarding If Greg L really wants to help, he should get involved in clearing up the mess that Epeefleche has left behind, Greg L doesn’t want to help with tedious copyvio issues of someone else’s making; I edit for intellectual stimulation by working on subjects I don’t know enough about. I have over a half-dozen patents on fuel cell technology and know PEM fuel cells inside and out. Yet, I haven’t even skimmed our Fuel cell article to see how many errors it has because I have no interest in being reverted by a 16-year-old kid who quoted Popular Mechanics and how “30 percent of autos by 2016 will be powered by fuel cells.” People would be utterly amazed at the misinformation RSs regurgitate from fuel cell companies who are in a perpetual search of the next government grant. In short, what articles I edit are selected to achieve a ‘two-fer” objective: 1) improve an article I found to be lacking and which didn’t provide me sufficient information, and 2) learn in the process of upgrading the article. No one other than Epeefleche should have to clean up Epeefleche’s copyvio problems. Frankly, the very first time he complained about how others were going about it, I would have told him “Tell you what Epee; I’ll give you 48 hours to clean up all the copyvio issues on article and if you fail to do so, I’ll do it and you can hold your peace if you are displeased with how others clean up your plagiarism.” But I also have issues with admins who I perceive as being *inelegant* in the way they deal with editors in situations like this. Greg L (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblock conditions?

User:Epeefleche is requesting an unblock, User talk:Epeefleche#November 2011. I've made a proposal to him on the conditions under which I would be comfortable with his unblock and wanted to bring them here for review to see how others feel. Even if he agreed to my proposal, I would not unblock him without strong consensus here. It's a wall of text, but the terms I think might work are as follows (copied from his userpage):

I would support your unblock if you would pledge to stop slowing progress (1) by challenging (openly or by insinuation) the existence of the problem and/or (2) by casting aspersions on the competence or motivations of the people doing the work and would instead agree to focus (if you work on the CCI at all) on rewriting content from scratch. Alternatively, I would support your unblock if you were topic banned from the CCI - which would mean staying away from any article tagged as a problem until after it has been resolved and from the people who tag them in any venue. Because I'm never comfortable with silencing people, I would be okay in that case with your having one acceptable person to whom you can email, agreed upon by the community at ANI. This will avoid you becoming a target of an actual vendetta if somebody should choose to take advantage of your vulnerable position. Email to one neutral, designated person rather than on-Wiki communication would eliminate any unintended disruption, as public aspersions on a CCI volunteer in any venue may have a "chilling" effect especially if others are influenced by your accusations. If the person chosen for you to contact agrees there is an issue, he or she may raise it in an appropriate venue.

What do you think? Are you comfortable with (a) both, (b) either or (c) neither? :) If (c), do you have ideas of your own about how we can best get him back to work on Misplaced Pages and eliminate the problem? Or reasons why we shouldn't do that at all? --Moonriddengirl 13:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's clear from the above that he's not going to cooperate wither the CCI, but rather sabotage it. So topic banning him from all his CCI-listed articles seems the only practical alternative to a total ban or indef block. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I also support the topic ban as a first choice; I support the unblock conditions as the second choice. Kww's words here are telling. As I've said before (sorry) I don't think Epeefleche's involvement with this CCI is going to work at all. The terms of the topic ban would be crystal clear: (1) don't edit or comment about an article tagged by a CCI participant until the tagging has been resolved (eg by blanking or deletionremoval of the content concerned or deletion of the page); (2) no complaints or questions, anywhere, addressed to or about any editor working on the CCI. That is silencing, but (a) there is no right to free speech on this project; (b) it's plainly necessary in the circumstances; and (c) MRG has proposed an off-wiki mechanism by which Epeefleche can complain as a last resort if he really feels CCI participants are taking advantage of the topic ban. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I clarify here if by "blanking or deletion" you mean actual removal of the content as opposed to placement of the {{subst:copyvio}} template? The terms blanking and deletion have both been used to refer to the placement of the template and to the ultimate resolution after the week at CP, and I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page in the conversation. :) --Moonriddengirl 19:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, I hope! In addition, I should also make it clear that any participant in this CCI should retain the prerogative of not tagging an article but instead just excising the problematic content him or herself. For isolated sentences and paragraphs, that's much more efficient than blanking, tagging and listing at CP. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl 20:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche is not at his computer and is unable to post to Misplaced Pages but has emailed me the following, with permission to post it on Misplaced Pages:

As I indicated to you, Elen, and M in our discussion on your talkpage even before the block, I'm happy to assist in the CCI in whatever manner (if any) others see fit.

I agree to whichever of your suggestions is deemed preferable. And whichever it is--I agree, as before, that the copyvios should be deleted (if not fixed). I think that your safeguard makes sense as well, for the reasons you state.

I've also placed this at his talk page. --Moonriddengirl 20:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd support the topic ban suggestion as a first choice. I'm a bit nervous of the current wording as it suggests that Epeefleche can make comments and ask questions after the material has been removed from article. This appears to be leaving a door open to disruption and arguing after, if not during, an article's cleanup. I'm also a bit concerned about the possibility of vicarious disruption by Epeefleche's supporters, but can't see an easy or appropriate way of dealing with this at present. --Slp1 (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The trouble as I see it MG with your proposal is that it has lots of wriggle room for someone who has a mind not to act in good faith. We need the unblock condition to be binary and simple so that if any actions result in a new ANI it crystal clear to everyone (including Epeefleche), whether Epeefleche has or has not breached his/her unblock condition.

So basically I agree with what Slp1 is saying but I added one more condition when I wrote the following on Epeefleche's talk page in response to MG's proposal "I think it Epeefleche is to be unblocked he should not go any where near the articles that are being clean up, (s)he has been given months and months to do that and has been found wanting. I also think that there should be a moratorium on this editor creating or recreating any articles until there is a consensus at ANI that (s)he can do so. I suggest this because there is no evidence that Epeefleche has had an epiphany but rather the (s)he is mouthing platitudes under the duress of a block."

I also re-asked some questions which I had put to him/ before the most important of which is to clarify (her/his gnomic comment on this page), and explain at what date did (s)he become familiar with "copyvio rules?" I think this is important, because from the comments of some editors on this page this point is not clear, and if Epeefleche is found to have committed a blatant copyvio after that date, then the block should be reimposed immediately while an ANI decides what to do. -- PBS (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

My experience with Epeefleche after releasing his previous indefinite block was that I regretted unblocking him. One of his first actions was to demonstrate that he didn't understand that the actions that lead to his block were a problem.—Kww(talk) 14:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is this being made so complex? It could be solved as simply as providing Epeefleche with a list (it can even be the start of a list) of articles that have been proven to contain at least one plagiarized passage without attribution—not a mere list of the article’s he’s created. Then the community imposes a condition for being an unrestricted editor: He must correct one article per week. If he can’t do at least that, it seems perfectly reasonable to have him indef-blocked. It makes no sense to me that others should have to go clean up his mess; particularly if Epeefleche is then going to complain about how the editor most interested in fixing his articles isn’t going about the clean-up properly. This approach will bifurcate the intermingling of copyvio cleanup with POV-pushing issues; the two are distinctly different matters where the latter one resolves itself on its own with time via the normal tug-of war between editors debating via edit summaries and actual discussion (*sound of audience gasp*) on discussion pages and arrival at a consensus. Greg L (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Greg L You are more familiar than me with this case, but didn't that boat sail back in December 2010 when the good ship Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Epeefleche was launched? AFAICT, at the start of the investigation a complete list was generated, and there was a lull in the investigation into that list between January 21 and 17 November during which time Epeefleche could have cleaned up all the articles where (s)he had breached copyright. If Epeefleche had been done that, then there would have been nothing for anyone else to find and delete and the investigation would have been closed months ago without a trip to ANI which Epeefleche initiated. -- PBS (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem isn't cleaning up articles which are known to be copyright violations. That isn't very difficult. The problem is finding the articles which are copyright violations in the first place. That's the only area where Epeefleche may have special expertise because s/he may be able to remember if the text was copied from anywhere. Besides if something is known to be violating copyright then we have to remove it as soon as possible, not have it sit around for months until Epeefleche deals with it as part of the quota. Hut 8.5 00:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

A word on plagiarism and copyright

Been following this. I find much of the discussion on Misplaced Pages about plagiarism to largely miss the forest for the trees, to be a playground for discussing whether "the rules" have been broken and arcane bits of law few here actually understand, rather than starting from the perspective of the overall health and quality of the encyclopedia articles you presume to be writing. George Herbert's rather charming belief that plagiarism isn't that big a deal expressed here (and elsewhere from memory) is emblematic of the mindset. I'm going to ignore copyright entirely (not because it isn't important, just because it isn't, in and of itself, relevant to the quality of encyclopedia articles). The real problem with plagiarism (whether a law has been broken or not) is that it almost always skews the tone and focus of an article. A newspaper article, written in a particular place by a particular person at a particular time (for instance) is suddenly placed in an omniscient, encyclopedic voice. The plagiarizer (epeefleche is clearly a serial violator, though far from the only one), never does a thorough literature review of a topic, takes a step back, then begins writing with an eye towards what consensus views are, where the controversies/disagreements lie, an overall holistic approach. Using public domain sources in this way is as bad for accuracy and quality of articles as using copyrighted sources. Sometimes the skewed article is simply the by-product of bauble-collecting exercises like DYK (the author doesn't really care -- or understand -- that the article is crap) and sometimes, as is the case with epeefleche, it's a byproduct of the fact that they're here to push a particular point of view (I cast an eye over the dreadful little targeted killing article before it was deleted). They are, in fact, trying to privilege some sources over others, to take a narrow and controversial slice of a topic and place it in that omniscient encyclopedia voice. It is this problem that volunteer editors should be focusing on as a primary issue, though of course that won't be popular because it requires editorial discretion and background knowledge. Much easier to ask the narrow question of "was copyright violated" and deal with nothing else. Deal with the copyright problems by all means. But don't kid yourself that even begins to clean up the real mess.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Is epeefleche a serial violator of copyright? If I have understood what he has written here he has acknowledged that he was a serial violator, early in his wikipedia career, but that he hasn't been a violator in years, hasn't been for violating copyright for tens of thousands of edits. Several people have drawn our attention to instances where he did violate copyright. But if all these instances are to edits he made a long time ago, prior to the CCI investigation into his editing practices, I think it would be best to stop referring to him as a serial violator of copyright, and refer to him as a reformed serial violator of copyright. Is his self-description correct? Or has he continued to demonstrate an on-going pattern of copyright violations, after a CCI investigation made clear his past edits were problematic? Geo Swan (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a redherring, but anyway. Geo Swan, you yourself have been looking at the Targeted killing article, and know that large chunks, if not the whole article, is a series of copyright violating very close paraphrases. It was created 13 months ago. The incident that launched the CCI occured 11 months ago. Epeefleche's claim that he did this only early in his career and hasn't for years, is simply not true. He continued on with his copy and paste with a few minor changes approach - despite warnings from me and Moonriddengirl in February and March 2010 - until the CCI started in December 2010. After which, I gather, there was a significant change.

On the original topic, I'd agree with Bali ultimate, that there are other major issues here besides the copyright. Ones that unfortunately WP is very poor at sorting out. --Slp1 (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did look at the targeted killing article, and the five excisions mkat made, as "close paraphrasing", prior to nominating the article for deletion, as containing too many copy violated passages. The article did contain passages that violated out copyright policy. And I looked at the article's revision history, thinking about confirming or refuting whether epee had originally been responsible for those copyright violations. Maybe there is a tool that can trace who is reponsible for a particular passage -- *-if so I am not familiar with that tool. I decided not to do that check. The revision history is long. If, for the sake of argument, epee did introduce the copyvio material, but did so prior to the CCI when he was brought to an understanding of copyvio, is his responsibility for those copyvios relevant in a discussion for blocking him in November 2011?

While epee made the largest contribution to the article, five other contributors made 75 edits between them. Do you know that they weren't responsible for the introduction of some of the copyvio material into the article. Geo Swan (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is a tool. It is called WP:WIKIBLAME. All of the copyright infringing material noted by mkativerata was introduced by Epeefleche here. But this is another red herring. Epeefleche has not been blocked for introducing the material; he has been blocked for disrupting the cleanup of the violations. And frankly, you are not helping very much either, because you are asking other people prove to you things that you could figure out for yourself with a bit of time and effort. --Slp1 (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to GeoSwan, it's important that people making these kinds of accusations have done their homework and can show evidence to support them. The informal and disorganized nature of the AN/I "dispute resolution" format (if you can call it that) seems to be a benefit in that it is not bogged down by bureaucratic procedures. But it's a double-edged sword in that the disorganized format means there's no predetermined high-visibility area where petitioners can lay out the evidence and where everyone else can expect to find it, as there is at WP:RFC/U. tl;dr: The price of a quick, to-the-point and informal dispute resolution process is that you sometimes have to repeat yourself. causa sui (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Slp1, I spent a bit of time and effort", I spent far more than a bit of time and effort looking into this. I am not at fault, have nothing to apologize for, for not being familiar with WP:WIKIBLAME. Since you have used it, doesn't it show that all the copyright violations epee was responsible for were prior to the CCI investigation?

  As for what I should or shouldn't be able to figure out from the record -- I don't see the record supporting what you and others have asserted, namely, "Epeefleche ... has been blocked for disrupting the cleanup of the violations."

  When I look at Mkat's repeated unexplained excisions on November 17th, I see Epee spent an hour making good faith attempts to address Mkat's concerns. This was not disruption on Epee's part.

  Every contributor, from the barest newbie, making their first edit, to the most experienced administrator, with a million edits under their belt, is under an obligation to hold themselves accountable for their edits. None of us should make an edit we don't think we can explain.

  Another thing the record shows is that Mkat was unable or unwilling to offer a meaningful explanation for their excisions on November 17th. I suggest the record shows Mkat's attempts to explain the excisions since then have been contradictory. I remain concerned that their reasoning is not based on policy.

  Another thing the record shows is that -- instead of supplying a meaningful, helpful explanation Mkat left a very troubling threat to block Epee. We entrust administrators with certain extra powers -- to be used accountably, responsibly, and whenever possible in an open and transparent manner. Mkat's threat to block failed to be accountable and responsible on two grounds: first, mkat failed to be explicit on what actions Epee should avoid to avoid the block; second Mkat failed to point to the policy that would have authorized the block. Frankly, I am very concerned that would have justified blocking Epee for making an additional good faith attempt to supply alternate wording that wasn't a "close paraphrase".

  So far none of Epee's behavior seems disruptive to me. What should a good faith contributor do when they encounter an administrator who issues vague threats to block them, threats they seem reluctant to explain? I suggest initiating a collegial note on ANI is among the options.

  I understand that CCI volunteers are frustrated with Epee. But, I don't agree that anyone has offered any diffs to demonstrate that Epee has disrupted the CCI process. Haven't all the problematic diffs offered here dated back to prior to the CCI investigation? As such I suggest they are irrelevant if Epee is complying with our policies now. I don't agree that the questions Epee raised about Mkat's exisions at Ilan Berman were disruptive. Rather, I think it is important that the validity of those excisions be explained, and Epee's questions about the excisions, both on the article and here at ANI were completley justified.

  To the extent the block imposed on Epee is due to those participating here taking at face value Mkat's assertions that Epee's questions about his or her actions were disruptive I suggest that this was an invalid, unjustified block. Geo Swan (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your thoughtful post, Geo Swan. That precisely summarizes my take on this. Greg L (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

GS I think you are confusing copyright violations with Epeefleche tactics over the clean up process, when you write "Haven't all the problematic diffs offered here dated back to prior to the CCI investigation". Epeefleche had most of this year to clean up his/her own mess and chose not to do so. Since another editor has started to investigate the list, rather than co-operating, the tactics Epeefleche has employed is to generate fear, uncertainty and doubt over the good faith of the person who has restarted the clean up process after a lull of 10 months. I am not sure why you think differences are needed to show Epeefleche's behaviour. Epeefleche's initiation of this section "Deletions by involved editor under claim of "close paraphrases"; Mkativerata" is one example, another is the initiation of the the section Talk:Targeted killing#Copyvio claim. Both section headings are indicative of the tone and content of Epeefleche's comments on the clean-up process. This behaviour seems to be a continuation of the same tactics shown when the case was first opened. That is why Epeefleche's current block is in place.

As to your second point: By its structure the CCI investigation only looks at edits from the time that the diffs are added to the CCI investigation, therefore the process will only show up diffs prior to the start of the CCI investigation. At the moment there is an assumption of good faith that Epeefleche has stopped adding copyright material, (in this section no one has mentioned that they have done a systematic survey of Epeefleche's edits since the historical survey was done in January (If anyone has then it would be helpful if they would share their findings). If it had been shown that Epeefleche had over the last few months systematically breached copyright through close paraphrasing, or had blatantly copied text from copyright sources, then the debate would not be on what terms Epeefleche could resume editing, there would almost certainly be a consensus for a long block. -- PBS (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce confounding and clarify potential copyvios

Proposal:  Mkativerata is directed to make separate diffs for each potential copyvio found, and to include in each such diff the words "potential copyvio".

Rationale:  This proposal is in reference to this diff.  The associated edit comment is, "Rm a couple of close paraphrases and fix a couple of quotes."

1. There was no functional need for Mkativerata to merge these four edits together.
2. Identifying the material as a "close paraphrase" has left ambiguous if other editors should consider the material to be a potential copyvio, or a non-copyvio close paraphrase.
3. There are different copyvio cases to be argued for the two different close paraphrases.  The second of the close paraphrases has been identified as a close paraphrase of a close paraphrase, and stuart.jamieson, in supporting Hobit, states regarding the second close paraphrase, "The material being paraphrased...does not begin to approach the threshold of originality required by law to assert a copyvio."  So it would have helped the analysis had the second close paraphrase not been combined with the first close paraphrase.
4. Here is an effort by Geo Swan to sort out the confusion that has resulted from the confounded diff.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Uncooperative editor has serious problems with WP:FRINGE and WP:RS

Wheres Dan (talk · contribs) is always using sources (most WP:FRINGE) from the 1800s which contain information that modern sources don't bother to reprint. Dougweller, Heironymous Rowe, and I have repeatedly asked him to find the information in modern sources to verify that the information is still accepted by modern scholarship. To date, he hasn't (or hasn't found anything), and I know I failed to find anything as well (even though it's his job to find that stuff, not mine).

• He has previously been blocked for various personal attacks, including refering to good faith edits as vandalism (in that case, while reversing WP:BRD after I explained it to him elsewhere) and calling Dougweller an antisemite.
• Here he suggests that a 1938 occultist source is an appropriate source for to suggest that historians think that the Great Serpent Mound in Ohio is connected to the unrelated deities Kneph (more on that later) and Ahura Mazda, and unspecified "Japanese and Indian traditions."
• Even after his previous block, he shows contempt for anyone not supporting his edits, and makes up imaginary editors to support him.

The few good edits he's made (like this), do not begin to outway the amount of following after he is going to require, as he does not understand cooperative discussion in the slightest, and twists guidelines to his own ends (such as reversing WP:BRD to insist that other people discuss his edits without reversion, reinterpreting WP:RS so that outdated, unscholarly, or fringe sources have to be countered).

This is a highly uncooperative fringe-pushing editor, who one admin has considered blocking indefinately. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

 Question: Were you going to let us know who it is, or just keep us in suspense? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! Meant to put that in the beginning. Editted in. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE has steps for liberal blocking of longstanding pushing of fringe sources. Trying to link a mound in Ohio with Ahura Mazda is definitely way fringe. If the editor has been sufficiently warned and can be shown to have continued afterwards (diffs, please, if you have them) then escalating blocks are definitely called for, in my opinion. Just need an uninvolved admin to do it. (And what was the more on Kneph?) DreamGuy (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion we have too much patience for this type of editor. There are obvious WP:COMPETENCE issues, and that should be enough for a block. Hans Adler 16:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ack, forgot that (should really finish my morning Mt Dew before I do anything). At Kneph, Wheres Dan continued to push fringe and outdated material, taking a 19th century source (which should have been removed) that conflates Kneph, Osiris, Jesus, and Krishna and turning it into the primary source for the article, and citing a metaphysical text by René Guénon for historical information.

The histories for the articles Tribe of Dan, Kneph, and Serpent Mound show nothing but continued reversions after being asked to not use fringe and outdated sources.

Wheres Dan has just cited several outdated and fringe sources that were previously removed, claiming that Dougweller approved of all of them because Wheres Dan included two sources Doug suggested along with the fringe material.

He is also being a hypocritical when it comes to sourcing. This demonstrates that he understands that 19th century romantic, reductionist, and religious material are not reliable sources for historical claims, but when ignores this when it supports his point of view.

Even if it weren't for the fringe issues, that his concept of cooperation is a bit one-sided seems reason enough to not want him on this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

And now he's reported me for edit warring (even though I have yet to violate 3rr and have reverted no more than he has), where he accuses me of acting out of a religious bias by taking a comment out of context (at first, he tried to accuse me of an anti-Biblical bias, which prompted me to point out that I'm a Baptist). As I've stated over at WP:3RRNB, I will no longer be nice about this, he is useless to this site and should be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement that editors of this persuasion are given way too much leniency here. The user has shown, per this conversation at Talk:Serpent Mound#Tribe of Dan Egyptian gods nonsense, that they either have WP:COMPETENCE issues or are on an elaborate trolling mission to insert inaccurate information into articles. The user couldn't seem to understand the difference or wouldn't admit the difference between the armchair philosophizing of a historian (if you want to call an author publishing in "Rosicrucian Digest" in 1938 an actual "historian") in the early 1900s and the 100 years of peer reviewed academic archaeology that has taken place since that armchair historian wrote his book. They have also yet seemed to understand our policies on WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR, and WP:RELIABLE. It's not our job to tell a person what to believe, but surely, we can stop them from serially inserting this] sort of nonsense into history and archaeology articles? Heiro 18:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Since they've been blocked before, I've just blocked for a week for edit-warring at Tribe of Dan during which they overstepped 3RR as well as WP:COMPETENCE. I've pointed out both in the block notice, and also noted how they can contribute to this discussion. But frankly, if anyone wants to up it to indef, be my guest. Black Kite (t) 19:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"conflates Kneph, Osiris, Jesus, and Krishna" — where have I seen that before — Caesarion and WillBildUnion (talk · contribs). Maybe.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Wheres Dan is citing a lot of 19th century sources, and a lot of people (whatever their beliefs) who wrote about religion in the 19th century were kinda stupid (IMO more so than in eras before or after). He doesn't quite smell the same to me. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree that there are generally very serious, questions about the current reliability of sources from the era of the source in question. Having said that, I think that there probably is, to some degree, information of this type which is relevant to at least some article, maybe a spinoff, in wikipedia. We do rather often have child articles which might address or summarize previous opinions regarding a subject, and it rather often is the case that such older premises, for good or ill, are in some way foundational to current theories, of varying reliability. I think maybe confining the editor to relevant talk pages, until and unless there is obvious and poorly-defensible editing abuse there as well, might be the best alternative. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

*Ahem* I'm thinking it's time for an indef. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

To be clearer about my previous remark, a sockpuppet of Wheres Dan has been found and indefed. The block on Wheres Dan is still for a week. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

More socks have been found. This guy knows what he's doing. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Wheres Dan after looking at the various contribs of the socks at the SPI, which go back for weeks and months even, I think my above mentioned suspicion that WP:COMPETENCE may not be the issue but that an elaborate trolling mission to insert inaccurate information into articles may be. One of the accounts (User:Sourced much) seemed to be overly drawn to articles on Nazis, specifically attempts to white wash their reputations(see here). I would like to ask for an indefinite block or possibly a community ban for this editor. Would there be any support for this? Heiro 03:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can find evidence of him using the socks to votestack, vandalise or commit other offenses, then the block can be extended. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposal

• I support a community ban on Wheres Dan and associated accounts due to the systematic and planned disruption of the encyclopaedic process by pushing FRINGE. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban as per my statement above. Heiro 03:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban, as Where's Dan is too academically and/or ethically incompetent to be of help here. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban, with regrets, based on editors apparent inability or unwillingness to abide by basic standards of good conduct. While it is possible that some of the material he seeks to include might be appropriate, his actions to support that material very clearly are not. John Carter (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support Serious competence issues, refusal to act collaboratively, and a preference for wholly unreliable, extreme fringe sources, and the use of sockpuppet accounts - we need to protect the encyclopedia. --NellieBly (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support Many issue of this user. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - per all the reasons given above. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse The weeklong block may have been appropriate at first, but if he's creating socks to push fringe theories it's obvious we don't need him. HangingCurve 14:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Should this now be closed? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Stephfo, disruptive editing after unblock

Stephfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked Sept 3rd for disruptive editing, but was unblocked late October after agreeing to work with a mentor on his talk page. This week, his problems have resumed, and he's been contacted by a slew of editors requesting that he work more productively. I notified his mentor when the problems began, and his mentor has been contributing actively to Stephfo's talk page, but to no avail. Recently, he's begun edit warring, making personal attacks, and slinging accusations of disruption and vandalism at other editors. I, his mentor, and other editors have requested that he stop editing until he can resolve these problems. He responded that he wasn't interested, and planned to continue editing anyway.

Please review his talk page for a small sampling of the issues. I'm afraid that, either due to competence, tendentiousness, or intentions, he's unable to contribute productively to the project, and is only serving as a disruption to the community. I feel that he may need to be reblocked.

Prior to bringing this issue here, I made my intentions clear, and asked him to reconsider, but instead of responding to me, he continued editing and then (presumably) logged off. For context, here's a previous ANI case, but most of his history is contained on his talk page (some of which has been deleted). I can provide more diffs if necessary. Notified Stephfo, Alpha Quadrant, Amatulic, and Dominus Vobisdu. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Pls. note as I was allowed to do so, I will present my defence in new section.--Stephfo (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, I believe the issue is due to the fact that he currently doesn't have a good grasp on several Misplaced Pages policies (in particular WP:IRS, WP:NPOV, WP:VANDNOT, and WP:NPA#WHATIS). Part of the problem is due to the fact that he appears to have a strong opinion regarding religion, creation, and evolution topics, resulting in further difficulty in remaining neutral when writing in these areas. Eventually, he may make good contributions in the area. I believe he needs to edit in other less controversial areas, where he can gain editing experience. I suggested he do this, but he continued to edit the in the topic. Before he is indefinitely blocked again, perhaps we could just try a six month topic ban from the areas of religion and creation/evolution. After that time period, he should have gained enough experience in editing and would have a better grasp on Misplaced Pages policies. Alpha_Quadrant 21:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

My concern here is that he has previously said he will not do X or Y, and then has done X or Y. I am not sure that just a topic ban will do the trick. I may just be cynical, but, that is my opinion. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(Stephfo has never specified gender, and for that matter neither have I for myself. For some reason I have always thought of Stephfo as "she" but I'll use "he" established by precedent in this section unless Stephfo feels the need to correct it.)

I was one of several admins who declined one of Stephfo's frequent unblock requests back when Stephfo was indef-blocked. I also supported Stephfo's unblocking.

Since then, Stephfo has made the mistake of creating disputes in controversial areas, activity which resulted in blocking in the past. For the most part (except for in Christian terrorism), Stephfo has adhered to the spirit of WP:BRD, in that he actively uses talk page to challenge reverts. Unfortunately, Stephfo's conduct on talk pages, while civil and polite, borders on tendentious, causing the patience of others to wear thin. Whether deliberately or through misunderstanding, Stepho has given the appearance of ignoring explanations, demanding clarification for answers that have been given repeatedly, as well as some amount of Wikilawyering.

There's a battleground mentality evident here, where Stephfo sees atheism or anti-Christian bias everywhere, and feels that it is proper to "correct" this, not by attempting to re-write anything neutrally, but to introduce opposing bias, regardless of whether that bias is non-neutral, relies on fringe theories, misrepresents sources, or otherwise quotes sources out of context.

I think Stephfo can become a good contributor to Misplaced Pages. Re-enacting the prior indefinite block would be a mistake. At this point, however, I support the view of Stepho's mentor (Alpha Quadrant) above for a temporary topic ban of areas in which Stephfo evidently has a conflict of interest, namely articles with topics that would be controversial to fundamentalist Christians (creationism, evolution, articles critical of Christianity, and so forth). ~Amatulić (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I will try to challenge you, please explain why you deem an article on Christian terrorism as NPOV -balanced, I suggest to perform a survey within project Christianity members whether they support your assumption that given article is neutral in respect to Christian views on given topic, if they will agree with you, I accept your point, otherwise you should accept mine that article is really biased. I do not know single Christian who would hold such views as presented there and it is not true that I break NPOV rules, I never ever deleted opposing opinions AFAIK but always have tried to balance them in line with NPOV policy.--Stephfo (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem I see is that the editor plainly doesn't have the English as a first language, but unfortunately has taken it as a personal attack that someone asked them about it. A good deal of the disputes seem to centre around not understanding what others are saying, and their own communications are not that great either. We could try a topic ban for a month - tell them to edit anywhere from architecture to zoology, but avoid creationism and intelligent design. I don't want to stop them creating articles - the notability hurdle seems to have eventually been got over, and they can always just use a sandbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 00:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything said so far. His contributions to Busch and Hartnett were good ones (even if one doesn't quite meet WP:N), and I'd hate to see those sorts of contribs go, sparse as they are. On the other hand, he has a major problem communicating which is divorced from the topic area, and which seems unlikely to ever be fixed. Whether it stems from a language barrier or (more likely) competence, Stephfo has consistently shown that he simply cannot work with other editors on even the most basic of tasks. That's a problem for a collaborative project. Frankly, I would rather see him topic banned until he gains an understanding of policy (or indefinitely if coming back is too problematic) but after all we've been through, I simply cannot fathom any possible resolution than an eventual block; if topic banned, I fully anticipate these same issues will turn up everywhere he interacts with another user, and we'll be back here in no time at all. I mean, look at the "Big Bang" dispute he had with Farsight. Farsight's explanation couldn't have been clearer, but Stephfo drove him off in frustration, demanding he clarify every minor detail. His primary contribution in any topic is to frustrate and drive off productive users everywhere he goes. That's not a negligible issue.

Maybe I'm wrong. The issue may be a language barrier, exacerbated by a strong opinion on the topic, and perhaps with extensive mentoring on a neutral area, he'll improve. Perhaps a topic ban is worth a shot. However, if we go with a topic ban, it needs to be broad ("religion, science, and controversial topics"), and there needs to be an understanding that 1) his behavior thus far has been inappropriate, and 2) if it continues on other topics, he will be blocked. I have reservations on even this, since Stephfo does not yet have an understanding there even is a problem, much less what that problem is, so I can't imagine how he's going to change, but if users are willing to work with him to improve, then perhaps we can salvage a few of his positive contributions.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I can read Stephfo's native language (not perfect, but well enough to follow a discussion), and the problem has nothing to do with a language barrier. Misplaced Pages's problems with Stephfo predate his appearence on English WP. Before he came to English WP, he had been an editor on Slovakian WP as "Steffo" since April 25, 2011. (No outing here; Stephfo clearly identifies himself as Steffo ]). He edits mainly articles related to creationism, and quickly gained a reputation there for being a POV warrior. He has been repeated warned by multiple co-editors that "Misplaced Pages is not a discussion forum. It's not for making statements either of your political, religious or other views", and that his edits were disruptive ] ].

Stephfo's debut here on English WP involved expanding a stub that he wanted to use in a discussion on Slovakian WP. He was discovered, and the article was deleted. A copy of it and it's history remain on his user page: ].

After that, he focused his attention on English WP, especially on the article on Intelligent Design, where his disruptive behavior led to a couple of blocks before he was eventually indefinitely blocked. As one of the main editors that dealt with Stephfo at that time, I can assure you that the experience was unpleasant to the extreme. He inserted highly POV material that was essentially OR and SYNTH based on unreliable sources, and when challenged, adopted a battlefield attitude that included abundant accusations of bad faith on the part of other editors. He engaged in interminable deadhorse arguments, ignoring the responses of other editors and repeatedly demanding answers to questions that had already been answered several times, or that were completely irrelvant to the topic.

Both content-wise and behavior-wise, his editing was vastly at odds with WP policies. He ignored repeated instructions to familiarize himself with WP policies, using them solely as a source of cherry-picked quotes taken out of context to support his own POV and behavior. He never demonstrated any interest in building consensus, and consistently treated anyone that disagreed with him as an enemy that was out to get him. He wasted huge amounts of his fellow editors' time in pointless deadhorse arguments and Wikilawyering. This is what led to his eventual indefinite block.

Stephfo appealed his blocks several times, during which he demonstrated that he did not understand why he was blocked, and placing the blame on other editors. Eventually, a sympathetic editor told him to find a mentor, and having done so, successfully appealed the block with their help.

After his return, Stephfo took his mentor's advice and avoided controversial topics like creationism for EXACTLY one month before returning to the article on Intelligent Design and resuming his previous disruptive behavior. In the discussion about a change he had made and was reverted, Stephfo wrote an astounding 31 posts in only 10 hours, which demonstrates that he barely took the time to read the responses of other editors, never mind to understand them. He repeatedly demanded answers to questions which had already been explained in great detail, and his posts and edit summaries demonstrated that he holds his fellow editors in very low regard, repeatedly calling their contributions vandalism, weird, odd, or just plain dishonest.

I've only peripherally participated in that discussion, but have been dealing with Stephfo on an AfD of one of his creationism-related articles. While his behavior there has been somewhat more civil, there still have been multiple accusations of bad faith as well as Wikilawyering. The most important thing, though, is that it is patently obvious that he does not yet understand what Misplaced Pages is about, and what the policies mean. Not even the core policies. And I have to conclude that he has absolutely no intention to ever educate himself in this matter.

He has ignored all warnings to cease his disruptive behavior, even those of his mentor. When it seemed that he had calmed down an tacitly agreed to stay away from the Intelligent Design article, he moved on to another highly controversial article on Christian Terrorism, where he is contnuing his POV warring.

I'm sorry, but unlike Amantulic and his mentor, Alpha Quadrant, I see no hope for Stephfo ever being a constructive editor here on WP. He is by nature first and foremost a contentious POV warrior, and he has come to WP in order to pursue his own agenda. Stephfo has amply demonstrated that he is a leopard that will not, and cannot, change his spots.

I believe the reasons he gave in his last block appeal and his month-long period of "good behavior" were not sincere, especially considering that that period of good behavior lasted EXACTLY one month. His behavior indicates that his agenda is fundamentally not comaptible with Misplaced Pages's mission, and that he has no intention of complying with WP policies. Most of all, there has been no improvement since before his block, and no sign that he intends to improve except for self-serving reasons.

I therefore recommend that he be indefinetely blocked. I would strongly object to only a topic ban, but if one is decided upon, it must include all religion-related topics, including atheism, creationism and all areas of science relating to creationism, including biology, geology, astronomy and cosmology, very broadly construed. And it should be indefinite. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You agree that the problem is that he cannot maintain a neutral point of view on this topic. If a topic ban were imposed, would that not solve the problem? As you have said, Stephfo had a productive period of editing while away from this topic. Indefinitely blocking him therefore seems a bit premature. At this point, I believe a temporary topic ban may be imposed, if anything is done about this. I don't believe that we should rule out the possibility that that as he gains experience, he could learn to edit this topic area neutrally. If after the topic ban is lifted, and he goes back to the same behavior, it could always be extended to indefinite. If after the time period he does fine in the area, then we won't need to do anything. Alpha_Quadrant 01:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Alpha, but, as I said, I don't believe in the sincerity of Stephfo's one month of good behavior. I believe that during that period, he was just biding his time and itching to get back to POV warring. That is why a temporary topic ban simply will not work. The second the ban expires, Stephfo will undoubtedly resume his bad behavior. Stephfo is here on a mission, and that mission is fundamentally at odds with everything that WP strives to be. There is just no place for Stephfo in a collaborative project like WP in my view. He is far too hot-headed, rash, hasty and hostile to work with others. Even if we topic-ban him, he is eventually going to get into a dispute with other editors on non-controversial topics, and he will behave then as he has had on controversial topics. Frankly, we have spent a lot too much time indulging him and giving him second, third and fourth chances, and now you want to give him a fifth? Even after he has ignored your advice as his mentor? There is no point in chasing good money after bad anymore. Sorry, but I don't see any baby in the bathwater. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that I have to agree with DV. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen editors with far worse behavior, who received much lighter sanctions; WikiManOne/BelloWello comes to mind. Alpha Quandrant, Stephfo's mentor, has been working with him and can best appraise the situation. If Alpha has that much faith in Stephfo--it's good enough for me. It's occasions like these where we need to trust in the mentorship system: it's here for a reason. – Lionel 06:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring works only with editors that are able to restrain themselves and consult with their mentors before making any rash moves, and then to accept the advice they receive. Stephfo is either incapable, unwilling, or both. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Stephfo is currently ignoring his mentor's advice. I don't know how a mentor is going to help when he's being ignored.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Currently, he is following my advice. I told him yesterday to stop editing articles until this was resolved. He has heeded my advice, and has not edited since then. Alpha_Quadrant 21:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to ask whether I have right to defend myself and react to accusations presented. Thanks--Stephfo (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes you do. Please post here if you wish. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

I propose a topic ban on Christian and science related articles, broadly construed, for a period of 6 months. During this 6 months Stephfo is expected to work closely with their mentor so that the same behavior does not repeat when the ban is over. If the behavior resumes after a period of six months or if the behavior continues into other topics, then ban extensions and blocks are expected, respectively.

• Support as proposer. I share Dom's characterization above after being involved with the original editing disputes that got Stephfo blocked in the first place. Without a doubt, I have never personally dealt with a more tendentious or disruptive editor. I assume good faith on their part, in that I believe that they believe they are helping the encyclopedia, but results are results and the results are that this editor cannot seem to grasp nuanced WP policy or how editors are expected to interact. However, we have reason to believe that this editor can function in less controversial areas and so I believe that a block is unnecessary until proven otherwise. If s/he begins to act the same elsewhere then we'll know that it isn't limited to these articles, but in the meantime it's worth a shot. Nformation 18:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, when you reopened the topic of my past blockage, I regarded for tendentious approach the requirement that I should understand the 5 voices calling for inserting reliable source presented at the article talk page on one occasion as an consensus against inserting such document, and strange assertion that inserting this university source that 5 people called for was finally used as 1st reason for my blockage, because this insertion was in fact allegedly going against some hypothetical consensus, although it can be demonstrated that 5 people called for such insertion. --Stephfo (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support, as a last chance to avoid being re-blocked. The emotions surrounding these articles make it all the more difficult for a new editor to get to know wikipedia policy. This will also allow the rest of the community to fully ascertain whether or not Stephfo is really interested in productive editing. eldamorie (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support with reservations: Based on what I've written above, it's obviously that I prefer an indefinite block. If a topic ban is decided upon, it must include all religion-related topics, including atheism, creationism and all areas of science relating to creationism, including biology, geology, astronomy and cosmology, very broadly construed. And it should be indefinite. I don't think he will ever be able to edit in those areas contructively. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose the topic ban as currently proposed, on Christian articles, broadly construed. Stephfo has been a good contributor to Christian articles that are non-controversial, such as Wilhelm Busch (pastor). Such articles don't invite POV-pushing, and Stephfo should be encouraged to continue creating such articles. I would support a ban from any topics that intersect controversially with conservative Christian beliefs, such as evolution, creationism, intelligent design, big bang theory, abiogenesis, molecular biology, terrorism, Islam, Muhammad, Buddhism, atheism, etc. — anywhere it's possible to push a Christian point of view, if such topics can be better defined. But an outright ban on any Christian topic does not seem reasonable for an editor who has demonstrated constructive activity in that area. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Probably too late to change it now that it has this much input. Should we start a new section and collapse this then? Nformation 22:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems the revised proposal below by DV is agreeable to everyone. I still think "indefinite, until a successful appeal" is preferable, but it appears we're all divided on that point.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Conditional support: I fully agree with DV. The topic ban would need to be religion, creationism, and related sciences, and it would need to be indefinite. Stephfo would be free to appeal the topic ban after demonstrating his willingness and competence to contribute positively; comments like this indicate Christianity alone will be insufficient, and if the ban is a definite period, Stephfo is likely to just "wait it out" without improving at all. If he's going to come back to these articles, he needs to first demonstrate he can do so without disruption.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I would support a six month topic ban from Creation/Evolution topics and topics critical of Christianity, but encompassing the entire topic of science is way too broad. Under the current wording, he is banned from all types of science (literary, mathematical, social, etc.) I can't think of any articles that don't have something to do with one type of science or another. Even articles on companies fall within a type of science. Albeit, in a minuscule way, but with "broadly constructed", edits in the topic area could be interpreted as a violation. If we are going to make a topic ban, we need to make one that an editor can actually follow. Alpha_Quadrant 21:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

How about "all controversial religion-related topics, including atheism and creationism, and all areas of the natural sciences relating to creationism, including pertinent areas of biology, geology, astronomy and cosmology, very broadly construed"? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds quite reasonable. It is broad enough to cover the topic area that is a problem, yet not too broad that it covers half the encyclopedia. Alpha_Quadrant 22:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to get him to understand that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. If it's good enough for both of us, it should be acceptable to everyone. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose From what I have seen of User:Stephfo's edits, he is attempting to edit some articles in order to make them comply with WP:NPOV. Misplaced Pages Administrator User:TParis noted that "User:Dominus Vobisdu grosly violated procedure when he gave levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 warnings at the same time in this edit." I do not usually edit articles pertaining to Intelligent Design, etc. However, at one point in time, I saw a content dispute between User:Stephfo and User:Dominus Vobisdu, User:Noformation, et. al. and attempted to make a compromise in accordance with WP:NPOV. Nevertheless, I was strongly opposed by the editors there and left. I saw that User:Stephfo was trying his best to provide references and a version of the article acceptable to others. However, he was taunted by other users and was treated with disrespect. Rather that enforce this unreasonable topic ban, I would request that a Dispute Resolution regarding the matter take place, where a neutral user can mediate between the two parties here. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 04:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This action is premature in the extreme. Stephfo's behaviour has changed: he has stopped edit warring and is using the talk page. In addition he is creating articles and thereby making positive and constructive contributions to the encyclopedia. As of Nov 24 he is abiding his mentors counsel. Look: I'm not saying he is a model editor. But just because certain editors have grown impatient with his verbosity is no reason for rash action. Considering he is no longer edit warring and is following his mentors advice I see no reason for drastic measures such as a topic ban. I emphatically urge that we give mentoring a chance. – Lionel 10:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Over the last few days, I have been debating whether or not a brief topic ban is needed yet. On one side, he is having trouble learning policy. Normally this would not be a problem. However, he was editing often contentious topics, where editors are much less forgiving of mistakes. Until Stephfo gains experience, it is likely he will continue to have problems with other editors in this area. With that said, there are not any issues that simply gaining experience editing can't fix. It is very evident that Stephfo is learning. He could continue to learn in this contentious area, but it will likely cause some controversy among editors who edit in the area. At this point, he isn't really doing anything that is blatantly disruptive. He is genuinely trying his best to edit in this topic area. While a topic ban would help him avoid controversy while learning policy, it may not be the best way to remedy this situation at the moment. I said above that yes, in the event a topic ban is needed, I would support. I am not sure a formal topic ban is needed at this point. My only concern is, if a topic ban is not placed, and another user takes this to ANI, how would it be handled? I am strongly opposed against a block. Given time, Stephfo has a potential to become a very good editor. Alpha Quadrant (alt) 17:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This is good last-chance offer for a very disruptive editor. I agree with DV that the next block should be indefinite. Binksternet (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Pls. advise what do you regard for very disruptive edits of mine and, if possible, provide the hyperlinks to the ones identified as such. Thanks a lot in advance.--Stephfo (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This is I think the last hope for this user to show (s)he can become a more constructive editor. I also agree that if there will be another block it should be indefinite. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose  The adversarial back and forth of the lengthy argumentation taking place at the AfD for John Hartnett, along with the excessive length of six months in the proposal, shows this proposal is not about improving the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Add. “can you just back the hell off Stephfo”

As I was allowed to defend myself, I will try to use this opportunity step by step as soon as permission stays in force, even though having very limited possibilities as being on travel. I apologize as accusations are long, naturally my defense will most likely also be long, although I will try to do my best and partition it. First of all I’d like to point out that I see this ANI report in the context of following sentence: “can you just back the hell off Stephfo” and this general trend at WP: . I very much suggest those who accuse me of my bad English to help me with translation interpretation of this phrase, as I only manage to find Spanish explanation (I had only one semester of Spanish) and that mentions something about “a rather rude way of saying” something, possibly insult, what I would not believe my good-faith assuming fellow editor have anything to do with. I would like to say that I was participating on translation project for fund-rising (“ Your translations make the fundraiser great!”; ), but in light with these current trends at WP I stopped and currently I’m hesitant whether I should continue. Nevertheless, please free to judge myself independently of this fact and block me if you deem as appropriate. I”ll try to be brief:

• 1. Add. “Recently, he's begun edit warring”  Please note I was not edit warring but following WP:VAND advise: “If you see vandalism in an article, the simplest thing to do is just to remove it. … With undetected vandalism, editors may make edits without realizing the vandalism occurred.” If you look at reason for deletion, it states: “this isn't in the body, and so does not belong in the lead.” What is false reason in discrepancy with reality as I explained in my revert summary. Vandalism might seem to be too strong word, but I believe still the fact that user have not provided any other reason than false one fully entitled me to revert back. Imagine what most of the people trying to get me blocked here would do if I start remove their content by reasoning “this isn't in the body, and so does not belong in the lead” even if it clearly would be there. Also Note: “Assess whether the edit was made in good faith or bad faith. If it is in good faith, it is not technically vandalism, ... If it is in bad faith, then it is vandalism and you may take the appropriate steps to remove it.” I evaluated it as bad-faith because in discrepancy with accusations the article body clearly contained this information in section “Christian attitude to terrorism” referred to as missing. Jess continues arguing that I’m allegedly edit warring but escapes discussion at talk page where the argument “I doubt you read edit summaries, if you would, you would find that there is a section named "Christian attitude to terrorism", it cannot be overlooked although I'm admitting it can be misunderstood” is clearly stated.
• 2. Add. “After that, he focused his attention on English WP, especially on the article on Intelligent Design, where his disruptive behavior led to a couple of blocks before he was eventually indefinitely blocked.”  Please note I’m not aware of any my activity on that page allegedly occurring there before my last unblock and this information is taking me by surprise. Anybody interested can verify in history of Intelligent Design edits.
• 3. Add. “Prior to bringing this issue here, I made my intentions clear, and asked him to reconsider, but instead of responding to me, he continued editing and then (presumably) logged off.” -> In reality I just went for business trip with no access to Internet.
• 4. Add.” I, his mentor, and other editors have requested that he stop editing until he can resolve these problems.” – As a matter of fact, I did stop right after reading his message about (although technically there might be one more later-stamped message given the fact I was involved in discussion and read message only afterwards) and Jess broke his word to put ANI report only if I continue editing: “This is one last request to stop… If you can't agree to do that, I plan to take this back to WP:ANI.”

To be continued later.

• 5. Add. “Now, the only correct answer to this post is "Yes, sir. I understand, and will comply". I'm not at all interested in hearing you protest, object or defend yourself anymore, nor is anyone else.” I’d like to ask dear administrators if someone would leave at talk page of theirs message like this, if their response would be “Yes, sir/Mr(s). Dominus Vobidsu, I understand, and will comply” . Personally I would not deny anybody right to defend himself if we would have a dispute over any topic and I regard such denial for rude. I also had an encounter with DV after he was pushing the idea that he found “gross fundamental errors in basic biology and biochemistry” in one of my source ("I've read the paper, and it is basically gibberish, and contains gross fundamental errors in basic biology and biochemistry. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC) ") but in fact refused to enlist what the alleged errors should be (“Would it be please possible to enlist the three major fundamental errors in basic biology and biochemistry you have managed to find in that text? Thanx--Stephfo (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)"). My reading of that non-collaborative attitude was (just my interpretation of attitude, not actual statement by VD): “it is not important if there are claimed problems, if I do not like it, I can state whatever I want and you have no choice but to accept it.” I wonder if it is encouraged at WP to remove article content by arguing that it contains errors but not stating a single one. Should I do the same and it will be accepted? I have nothing against VD, but experiences like this really make it hard to keep the rule on good faith and civility in mind when dealing with him. Nevertheless, I’m always able to excuse myself if I do anything wrong and I’m trying to do my best and ask for pardon if I might have harm him/her anyway. - just explanation why our relations and collaborations are so challenging.--Stephfo (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, the behaviour that is causing difficulty is set out above. You'll see it that a number of editors have given statements. The community thinks that a topic ban as set out would be beneficial for a while, to allow you to gain editing skills in less contentious areas. Would you be prepared to consider avoiding the areas that are problematic for a while? Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"set up above" is very vague term to accept that involves accusations of alleged edit warring even though I just did exactly what WP recommends to do when somebody deletes content based on a claim that is in discrepancy with reality. You would need to be more specific and explain why such things should be allowed at WP and whether you grant me the same right - to delete content from article leads by making claims "this isn't in the body, and so does not belong in the lead" even though the truth is exactly opposite. If not, I'd like to learn why there should be such double-dealing. It is also a test for your intellectual honesty - if you do not accept my crystal-clear point here, it is awkward to demand someone else to accept such vaguely defined accusations. Please, explain. Thanks--Stephfo (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo - the proplems that people are reporting are set out (not set up) above. Misplaced Pages does not tell you to keep reverting and call other editors vandals. It tells you to discuss the matter. It doesn't tell you to attack other editors. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Beatles songs

95.29.146.1 (talk · contribs) and 95.29.146.240 (talk · contribs) and 128.68.192.41 (talk · contribs) and maybe others are starting to post links to a site which has recordings of Beatles songs. That seems to me like a copyright violation. What say y'all? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds very familiar. . Quack quack. bobrayner (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I'm thinking the simplest solution might be to get the URL blacklisted, but I don't know how to request that. Maybe a passing admin could take care of it here? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

They're being smarter this time and using archive.org backlinks. Can't blacklist that, we use that for dead sources in many articles. Tarc (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The fallback step, then, would be to semi the articles. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• I highly recommend to revise this topic and block "Corbina" ranges; it's a long-term story in ruwiki and enwiki;it's a very persistent person... OneLittleMouse (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • He did it again: 176.15.148.251. Is there any abuse e-mail etc. on www.archive.org ? It seems to be useful to write a letter about this collection (but for me with {{babel|en-1}} it will be not easy...) OneLittleMouse (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    • From archive.org's FAQ: "To report an item which violates the Internet Archive's Terms of Use, please send an email with the URL (web address) of the item to info -at- archive.org ". Part of the Terms of Use state, "In particular, you certify that your use of any part of the Archive's Collections will be noncommercial and will be limited to noninfringing or fair use under copyright law." --NellieBly (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• And again, now with WP:NPA violations... OneLittleMouse (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • There's a obvious language barrier here, as from what I can gather from the past discussions, this person fully believes he has a legal right to stream Beatles songs from his website. No amount of discussion seems to dissuade that notion. Tarc (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Discussions about Beatles, copyright and WP:C also took place in ruwiki (here and other) and, as far as i know, on Creative Commons wiki, but this person seems to be WP:NOTLISTENING. OneLittleMouse (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• If everyone's okay with it, I'll e-mail archive.org with the list of files these IPs have been trying to upload. --NellieBly (talk) 05:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC) ETA: IP 2.93 has attempted to refactor other editors' comments on this noticeboard. --NellieBly (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • A kind soul reverted that; I blocked the IP moments before your post here. I wonder, is there any point in blocking the other IPs mentioned above? Either way, that's for someone else: it's late. Drmies (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks, and thanks to the kind soul too. I really don't think this is a language problem but a philosophical difference; it appears that the IP editor doesn't understand how copyright works, or as said otherwise doesn't believe that it matters. I'm going to propose semi-protection for the affected articles given the determination of the editor and the number of ranges he's using. I know nothing about rangeblocks (not sure even what they are), so I'll leave it to someone else to determine if a rangeblock would be useful. --NellieBly (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Have you attempted to contact the ISP to tell them that someone is violating copyright? Or perhaps you could contact Apple Records (or Paul, Ringo, Olivia, Dhani, and Yoko) and tell them someone is violating their copyright?—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

My intent is not to police copyright for Apple Corps but to prevent blatant copyright infringements from being linked to on Misplaced Pages. As a user of archive.org I'm also personally interested in ensuring that their terms of service are adhered to. I'm sorry if I did something wrong; please let me know if there was a better way to handle this. I'm not sure how to contact the user's ISP. --NellieBly (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you're doing just fine. I wouldn't want to police that kind of thing either. A range block (see WP:RANGE) is an option in such cases, but I'm not smart enough to see from the IPs offered here if that would be helpful in relation to the collateral damage. Semi-protection, in the case of determined serial vandals, is often the last resort, at least until the geeks come by and invent some clever filter--but I don't know if that's feasible here. Until then, we're whacking moles. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And thusly, yet another case for Sign In To Edit is made. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but that's heresy. Also, I've been dealing with problems caused to one or two (depending on your position) IP editors, who for whatever reason choose to stay anonymous. My Man Darax knows a few as well, and I keep running into a very positive contributor who keeps laughing at my half-assed attempts to get them to sign up. So I am firmly of two minds here. I hate having to semi-protect slews of articles, and no one likes range blocks, I think--but all of this is probably for another forum. Also, "thusly" is so old-fashioned that one wonders if you write your comments in longhand and in duplicate and then have a secretary type it in on a computer. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As one of the editors who attempted to show the user why they were wrong, why they couldn't remove other people's comments that were not-supportave of their position (WP:TPG), and why their selective parsing of information volunteers have given them was not helping their case. I was threatened with "violations United Nations Civil Rights" multiple times when they tried to buttress their position. Hasteur (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Heh... How do you like this link from this diff? OneLittleMouse (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Just reverted similar changes from 176.15.58.23 (talk · contribs). GoingBatty (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverted another attempted addition from 2.92.32.167 (talk · contribs) on Ain't She Sweet. GoingBatty (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

New section

Hello. All right and nobody makes illegal actions. I must create the account here? No problem. Simply the range of IPs, which I use, uses big number of people, via remote administration software. I do not want become sockpuppet. Can I be sure, that I am free of possibility to be blocked on such grounds? And else: can I undo last rollbacks, or you can do it self? And this is not violation of copyright, you know this not worse than me. This is: http://www.archive.org/details/opensource_audio . - 176.15.58.23 (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC).

• Eh, is this about the Beatles? Drmies (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That's what I wondered. If you (176.15.58.23) are talking about "Beatles songs" thread above, I would move your comment there. Kierzek (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It obviously is, and they're still obviously not getting it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The articles are semi'd for a reason. Given that, it would be better that he not create a named account. Meanwhile, it looks like the entire Beatles songbook might need to be semi'd. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've blocked this IP, but unfortunately Bugs is probably right. I don't know these 'Beatles' that we're speaking of since my god is Kurt Cobain, so I won't be the one doing that. BTW, Bugs, I hate it when you're right. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Luckily for your psychological health, that doesn't happen excessively. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Can an admin confirm: how much collateral damage would there be if this guy were rangeblocked? --NellieBly (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC) ETA I've asked for page protection for the articles edited today (that I know of). If other editors are in agreement that semi-protection of the entire songbook is warranted, I'll ask for that. --NellieBly (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

So far he's gone after just a few selections from each of the first two British editions of their albums. I think 6 or 7 songs overall. Maybe wait and see? (It's up to you.) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I didn't notice that. Maybe I'll just watchlist a few random songs from each album and wait and see. After all, tomorrow never knows. --NellieBly (talk) 05:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It's worse than I thought. On a hunch, I checked My Bonnie, and there's another IP sock that I had to revert. It seems like he does a handful and then switches to another IP. You might have to walk through the entire List of The Beatles songs to semi all of them. Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

<--I blocked the socks and semi-protected a handful of articles (Ged did a bunch of them already). Next time you're right, Bugs, report on it after I went to bed please. Drmies (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

How about I just call you at home and find out if you're still awake? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I just found more: Anna (Go to Him), Baby It's You, Please Please Me (song), and Boys (The Shirelles song) - that makes all the songs on the Please Please Me album. I'll request semi for these, then time for bed for me. --NellieBly (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• It seems part of this list already blocked on Archive (thanks), but not all. OneLittleMouse (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Excellent. That list covers a bunch of songs from, and prior to, their first 3 or 4 UK albums. It's worth pointing out that their recordings can be found on youtube also. And likewise probably copyright violations. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this list. I'm off to bed but will tackle it from both sides tomorrow. Thanks again. --NellieBly (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• What a freakin' nuisance. Thank you all for your efforts. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Have we tried telling him in Russian that he is not allowed to post these? Because we cannot adequately blacklist archive.org because it has actual utility on the project.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

He's at it again, this time as 95.29.151.123 (talk · contribs). More song-article semi-protections are needed. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've posted an English and (Google) Russian message to him that he is breaking our rules, just to assume good faith in that he has no idea what the hell he is doing wrong.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, it may be useful to set up an edit filter that prevents him from making his particular edit rather than blacklisting anything else.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

He's an IP-hopper, so he probably won't see your good message. Meanwhile, the edit filter might work. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

He hasn't been blocked on this one yet.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Using yet another IP, he posted some gibberish on my talk page and another editor's. I would semi-protect those Beatles song pages myself, but I lack the authority to do so. :( ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly related but I could be wrong

• 93.81.10.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Note for patrolling Admin, the above-mentioned IP has been quacking very loudly on both User talk:Baseball Bugs and User talk:Doc9871, can someone please put an end to his short miserable stint here... or better yet, CU to determine who the determined one actually is? --Dave 08:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Most likely the Beatles guy discussed a few sections above. He's either incredibly dense or a total troll. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Smells like it. 93 has been "effectively indef'd" (1 year) per the NLT policy (and the please-don't-indef-IPs thingy): his English is atrocious (maybe he's running it through Google Translate) but the meaning of this is pretty clear. (And, to be honest, I'm leaning more and more torwards "total troll".) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, he's pretty good with the gibberish: "Why do you fight with the celebration of the highest art in this sad world?" Somewhere in there, there's an English sentence trying to find its way out. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Experience indicates that blocking him won't work, as he's a constant IP-hopper... from Russia, yet. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Bugs, you forgot to add... "with Love". --Dave 09:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• That reference occurred to me, but it's late at night and I couldn't come up with a snappy parody. How about, "All you need is from Russia with love"? (nyet) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)True, but the best we can do is Whack-A-Mole...bring your mallets! I'm surprised there's no "Wikipe-tan with mallet" image. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that should be silver hammers... umrguy42 15:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Facepalm...Effectively and per NLT policy, 93 just screwed himself inside out... poor attorneys, they'd be out of job pretty soon if this carries on. --Dave 09:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

His best line has to be the Yoda-style "Play in war of edits nobody will". --Blackmane (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia, IP blocks you! Unfortunately the tool for examining contributions for a range of IPS located at http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/rangecontribs/ is down, and has been for a while. I have contacted User:X! but so far no joy. Are there any other similar tools? --Dianna (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep - CheckUser. I've blocked 95.29.0.0/16 for a week and 2.93.89.0/24 for a fortnight. It's a spanner in the works but given the other IPs used it won't stop him completely. An edit filter is by far the best option. Patrolling admins - drop me a note on my talk page to investigate any further proposed range blocks, or to simply let me know of another IP. WilliamH (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

An edit filter is now in effect. The rangeblocks can still be left in place though. WilliamH (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Another variation?

Could someone please look at the contributions of Crazy1980 (talk · contribs) to see if this is another variation of the same issue? I don't have the appropriate software to play the .ogg files. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

For sure it's the same guy, and he needs to be blocked and his junk removed. Minor correction to your link. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. WilliamH (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess you could say we sunk his junk? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to say we've sunk his fleet. It could be worth keeping an eye on Beatles' articles, but I don't see any need for them to be protected. WilliamH (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

A satisfactory outcome. (Just as long as you don't sink my battleship!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep the articles in question watchlisted for a while just in case he comes back in another way. We may have "sunk" his yellow submarine yesterday, but tomorrow never knows. --NellieBly (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Science111 (talk · contribs) - new version of the same person? OneLittleMouse (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

NellieBly - can't be a bad idea, good stuff. OneLittleMouse - blocked it, cheers. WilliamH (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for semi-protection for Rubber Soul and the articles for the songs on it. Given this editor's history, he'll just keep trying again and again until we semi-protect, then he'll go to another album. I guess I should check the rest of the albums... --NellieBly (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Given that this chap/chapette has started using named accounts to spread their copyvio slime, I've opened a SPI case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hate Filled Personal Attacks by Anon IP

190.45.54.212 (talk · contribs)190.46.95.25 (talk · contribs)
Pretty obvious hate filled personal attacks coming from the above ips. Appears to have an interest in World War II articles among others. Recommend immediate blocks and monitoring. Obvious troll, cursing and swearing at other users . -OberRanks (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked him for 31 hours. If this continues at other IP addresses, report those as well. --Jayron32 04:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

95.25 does not appear to be blocked yet. -OberRanks (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I only blocked the active IP. There's no need to block an IP which isn't editing anymore. --Jayron32 04:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well, there is a problem here. One can say that the IP has been edit-warring, but it takes two to edit-war--or more, if there's tag-teaming. Kierzek's edit summary here, which I reckon is the first revert, accuses the IP of vandalism, and there is no justification for that: the IP made three edits, all explained in a summary, and all of them (in my opinion) improved the article. So they get reverted again and again, without explanation, and then break out the FUs. Well, they shouldn't, but neither should they have been treated like shit.

  Jayron, is the IP blocked for vandalism, for edit-warring, or for incivility? Do you think their actual edit was vandalism? And if not, is Kierzek reprimanded for a phony accusation of vandalism, which arguably led to this? Drmies (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The block was for personal attacks and gross incivility over a period of time. You could check the talk page of the most recent account, and the contribs of both, it is obvious this is not a noob, but someone with an intimate knowledge of Misplaced Pages's culture, policies, and behavioral guidelines. If you can make a case that you think this person is going to stop personally attacking other editors, feel free to make that case here, and then go ahead and unblock. If you have no reason to suspect his behavior will change if you unblock him right now, I would oppose undoing my block without consensus from other editors that it was incorrect. --Jayron32 04:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to go against you--the rant was unacceptable, yet understandable. I don't know this person and I'm not going to make a case that they won't do it again. I wanted to know what the precise reason for the block was, since OberRanks and Kierzek have not acted appropriately here, in my opinion. All the cussing (at least in relation to this article) came after unexplained reverts that claimed vandalism. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The behavior of OberRanks and Kierzek is yet to be assessed by me, I have no opinion thereof. Saying This to another user is never understandable. Being frustrated is understandable. Saying "fuck you, you cunt" to another user is not. Ever. One can be frustrated without doing that. --Jayron32 04:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the extent of the message I left on the blocked IP's talk page. Thanks for clearing it up: good-faith edits followed by unjustified revert followed by some edit-warring leading to inexcusable cussing makes for a convoluted mess, and I just wanted to know what made you press the button. Thanks Jayron, Drmies (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• OberRanks, please look at this in context. This was the first edit: there is nothing trollish about it, unless by 'trolling' you mean 'attempting and probably succeeding in good faith to improve an article while explaining the edit in summary'. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Reprimanding for a personal attack accusing someone of "trolling". Who's going to do it? Doc talk 04:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    • (Signing off for the night after this) Any attempt at analyzing edits or reasoning with the ip address went out the window with this edit . I think a "revert on sight" is clearly warranted after that kind of a deep vicious personal attack against another user. It should also be noted that KZ approached the user I think at least twice with warnings about behavior, trying to reason. The purpose of those ips is clear - to cause trouble. Let's not feed the trolls any further. -OberRanks (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
      • This IP's rant is really quite understandable. And if you don't see the contradiction inherent in "approached the user with warnings"--well, then I have nothing more to say to you. As for this accusation of trolling, that's total bullshit: the diff I gave above is productive, and none of you even tried to talk to the IP or gave them the courtesy of even explaining what was wrong with the edit--well, I can understand that last part, since there was nothing wrong with their edit. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Throwing around unfounded accusations of trolling is unfortunate indeed and should be discouraged. Doc talk 04:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
          • I couldn't agree more; it's almost as bad as trolling. Drmies (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Well, actual trolls... troll. They can't be stopped if that's all they want to do. But labeling someone a troll when they're really not one: I can see why you'd object to Ober's characterization. It all makes sense now... Doc talk 06:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Multiple IP Addresses

There is a very long history of this particular editor getting into this same sort of conflict in different places. See the history of Ian Gow and Falklands War, for example. I've tried to help this editor -- see 200.104.120.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 190.163.3.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for some examples -- in particular User talk:190.163.3.204, and these two threads on my talk page: User_talk:Antandrus#Falklands_War, User_talk:Antandrus#Aggressive IP Editor. The pattern that happens again and again is this editor makes good edits, is reverted, often for no good reason, and explodes. Sometimes the reverts are reasonable; but not always. I'm quite certain this is the same person -- IP from Santiago, Chile, which changes every day or two. His comments are clearly abusive, but he's often treated badly; it's not entirely his fault. I would plead with people to make sure you give a reason for reverts -- particularly when the edits are clearly made in good faith. Antandrus (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I counted a total of at least five ip addresses which can be attributed as coming from the same operator. It appears that nearly all of addresses, if not all of them entirely, have at one point been blocked for incivility and personal attacks. I think the first step this user should take in working well with others is to establish a permanent account. Rotating between ips and editing while blocked (see below) creates the impression of sock puppetry. -OberRanks (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Being treated badly by others is not entirely his fault. His reactions to it are, and calling people "cunt" is 100% his fault; no other person pressed the "c", "u", "n", and "t" keys for him, and no one else pressed the "save page" button when his personal attack was in the edit window. As I stated above, I can understand frustration. I will not condone his behavior in the place of frustration. We cannot remove his agency from his own actions, regardless of the antecedents to those actions. He freely chose to respond to that frustration as he did. Also as I said above, I have not reviewed the actions of any other editors here; if our IP friend was baited that may need to be dealt with seperately, but he will not be excused by me for his behavior regardless of what other misbehavior may (or may not) have been going on around him. --Jayron32 05:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Guys I was on my way out and checked the thread once more - I can see why perhaps KZ and I appear to have acted a bit too quickly reverting without discussing first; my apologies for that. After reviewing the threads of the two other ips, though, seemingly run by the same person, this is indicative of a much more serious problem. Whoever is running these ips has committed numerous personal attacks and incivility against several users across a wide variety of articles over an extended period of time after numerous warnings and blocks. In addition, as the person is not establishing a registered account, we have multiple edits from multiple accounts, leading into a possible WP:SOCK situation. To avoid getting into a WP:INVOLVED situation (even though I'm not an admin), I wont file any more complaints or charges since it might look like a vendetta. I will leave this in the hands of others, but this does appear to be a problem which needs to be dealt with. Good night. -OberRanks (talk) 05:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As you noted, WP:INVOLVED is hardly an issue with non-admins. There's no vendetta either, for if they are disruptive then the disruption needs to stop. The IPs are all from Chile: that's something to go on. Keep digging... Doc talk 05:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hate-filled; yes. I fucking hate it when people falsely accuse me of vandalism, and of trolling. It is actually rather easy to distinguish what I do from those things. But people are too lazy, and too prejudiced. There is, it seems, no way of avoiding being accused of vandalism if you edit anonymously; the mere fact of being anonymous guarantees that someone will mindlessly and pointlessly revert your work, with an accusation of vandalism. At that point, in my now extensive experience, it makes no difference what your attitude is. This makes me very angry. Doesn't it make you very angry? Don't you think that's a problem that needs to be dealt with? If not, why not? 190.44.140.37 (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of how angry you are, WP:CIVIL is not optional. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Falsely accusing someone of vandalism - is that WP:CIVIL? 190.44.140.37 (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, Assume good faith. Pundit|utter 01:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Who, me? I get falsely accused of vandalism and trolling, simply for trying to improve articles, and I'm supposed to assume good faith? I'll ask the question again: falsely accusing someone of vandalism - is that WP:CIVIL? 190.44.140.37 (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not they have accused you falsely or not - somebody else's incivility does not excuse someone violating WP:CIVIL in return. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right that it doesn't, but (is this incivil?) one would have to be stupid not to think that there's a problem when incivility by registered and known users is ignored as long as it is directed toward IPs, who are pretty much treated as unpersons. It's as if incivility toward IPs is invisible even when its directly before our eyes. causa sui (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Right--well put. Templating with vandalism warnings is almost too easy, I think, and perhaps Twinkle should come with a mandatory class in WP:VANDALISM and other relevant pages. Funny--"don't template the regulars," and there's a couple of IPs that are more regular than some of the "vandalism fighters".Drmies (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing while blocked under another IP address

After being blocked under User:190.45.54.212 for a period of 31 hours, the same user has returned less than 24 hours later and is actively editing under User:190.44.140.37. This is now a serious violation of Misplaced Pages policy, editing while blocked and using a different ip address to circumvent said block. -OberRanks (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, if you have an opportunity to address the underlying issue, I think it fully appropriate to disregard bureaucratic procedure here. Do we really need to wait seven hours, or whatever it is, to get to the point? Blocking the IP now might conform to the "rules" but would be, in my opinion, idiotic.

Chilean anon has a point that needs to be addressed -- casual reversion of IP edits as "vandalism" when they are, in fact, good faith edits, is very harmful to the project -- particularly during a time when we are having a wicked hard time attracting new editors. Don't other people wonder why we are hemorrhaging editors, and new people aren't joining? Is it not possible that this is a key issue? Antandrus (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned earlier how the reverts of the legit edits could have caused this user anger (indeed I self reverted the two main reverts I was responsible for) , but the user is now using a second ip address to circumvent a block imposed for personal attacks, mainly calling another user a "fucking cunt". There is absolutely no excuse or justification for this type of behavior. -OberRanks (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

OK ... I think it’s important to get to the underlying issue here. Yes, the Chilean anon is abusive and incivil. It's obvious. Leaving that aside for the moment – consider why he behaves that way. Many times, in at least the past month that I've been watching, his edits have been casually reverted with either no explanation, or worse, with a "reverting vandalism" summary. Some of these cases have been bad indeed, including multiple warnings for the same obvious good-faith edit. Yet there is a call for him to sit out his block, apologize for his incivility, promise not to do it again, -- but no promise on our part to investigate the problem that made him angry in the first place.

Imagine this situation. A cop makes this mistake: he thinks he saw a guy committing a crime, grabs him, shouts "stop resisting! let me handcuff you!" and the guy, who has done nothing wrong (but maybe seemed to be doing something wrong, due to misunderstanding, poor visibility, -- or whatever), confused, surprised, shouts "WHAT?? what are you doing? who are you? what the hell? get the fuck off me, asshole!" It's a mistake to try to extort an apology from the non-criminal until the cop backs off and says -- "Oh. I'm really sorry. My mistake. Please, let me help you up." Then and only then, a well-adjusted adult takes a deep breath, and says to the cop -- "Thank you. I'm sorry I yelled at you." Falls into place; everyone goes away satisfied. I bring this up because I think the anon has identified a serious problem in the culture here, and we need to address it.

Once again, I'm not condoning his incivility in any way, I want to point out that he may have a legitimate reason to be angry, and that reason is something we need to address -- with more care on the vandal-patrolling for a start. Antandrus (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying. I think the user should establish a registered account and begin the path towards working well with others and we should leave him be after that. That's not what this section of the thread is about. The ip from yesterday deliberately used a second ip address to circumvent a block. The blocking admin has been notified, this is a straight up enforcement issue of a standing block. I'll step back from it, then, since I don't want there to be an appearance that I am "out to get" this person. -OberRanks (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I want to say "amen" to Antandrus's comment, and add that the editor does not have to register for an account. While I think it is generally a good idea, making it a requirement has been rejected time and time again by the community. Implying that if only the editor were registered, we wouldn't have bullied him into anger is not helpful. LadyofShalott 03:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Antandrus, why don't you offer to mentor the guy? As for his circumventing the block, I leave that in the admins hands, but certainly something should be done. That and mentoring would be a start. Kierzek (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I also think we should return to the main issue that this is a block evading ip address actively editing while blocked. Another edit was just made . By this point, whoever is operating that account is fully aware that they are blocked and is continuing to edit anyway. -OberRanks (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, some of us disagree with you that it's the main issue. Please, drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. LadyofShalott 04:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What the Lady says. What do you want, a range block so we can block every first productive edit that comes from it? Drmies (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

OberRanks, this is an edit that makes the article worse, not better. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Drmies, you yourself wrote on the ip talk page..."When this is over, or you skip on to the next IP (but wait til the block is over or you'll be in more trouble)..." So, the fact he didn't, are you now saying it doesn't matter? Kierzek (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did--but I didn't say that I was going to make trouble for them. It's clear that there is more trouble now; they're not helping themselves, no, that's obvious. What I find funny (well, either comic or tragic) is that you revert a good edit, they revert you, OberRanks reverts them with an irrelevant edit summary, you modify again, and finally the IP again edits and produces a cleaner version. Now, we wasted four edits and countless electrons in the process, and why? Also sad: I think I was the first one to leave a humanoid message for them--I wish y'all had done that before. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No you weren't the first to leave him a humanoid message at all, several of us have tried and the response was to call us all a bunch of "cunts". You won't see messages on his talk page, as he'll usually remove them with an abusive edit summary. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of blocks and bans is not to punish people but to protect Misplaced Pages. The Chilean editor has arrived in this thread and seems prepared to discuss things. What is the best outcome for Misplaced Pages will be if we manage to retain all parties as editors with the IP understanding that swearing at other editors gets them blocked and that "he started it" is not an excuse and with the initial reverters understanding that accusing good faith editors of vandalism is counterproductive, gets them annoyed and increases the risk of their doing something which annoys you. Working out the exact expiry of the block is less important to the project than finding ways to try to prevent a recurrence of the initial situation and to do that it is better not to assiduously punish just one party while doing nothing against the other.--Peter cohen (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought mentoring was a good idea in the end, but I will not write further on this matter and will leave it to you guys. Kierzek (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, right now there is little we can do, only two things: block block block, or wait for the IP to communicate more productively. There is one more thing: urge editors to treat IP editors properly and judge their edits on their own merits. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of opinion his edit made the article better. I disagree, but will not waste time over such edits. I am glad you spoke to him on his talk page as to the matter. Maybe you would like to mentor him? Anyway, I need to sign off. The real world calls (bed, actually). Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If they'll listen. I don't know about mentoring; I'm kind of a jerk myself. Oh, last week I was dreaming that I pressed "my contributions" in the middle of some adventure. Sweet dreams! Drmies (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm being inattentive: belately responding to Kierzek. I'm willing to help if there's some way I can. People who have long edit histories with dynamic IPs, never making accounts, are Misplaced Pages’s nomads – they’ve clearly made a choice not to have an account, and I respect that. I have a hunch he's too independent to want a "mentor", but I'd be happy to give advice any time he wants. My first piece of advice would be: design a polite "first response" to a faulty revert which you can copy and paste to that person’s talk page: that removes the risk of letting your anger get the better of you, and greatly reduces the risk of ending up on a noticeboard for the wrong reason. Antandrus (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

With respect to Antandrus as we have discussed this guy's editing behaviour at length and I'm not surprised it has ended up here; I think you're missing a point. Whilst most of his edits improve articles, not all do. When his edits don't or for a good reason another editor disagrees with him, the response is always the same; he is rude, aggressive and abusive. He will not listen to other editors views or discuss things in an appropriate manner using the talk page. There is a fundamental problem with his behaviour and he has latched onto the concept of being reverting because he is an IP editor as an excuse for his behaviour. Fundamentally he seems incapable of working collaboratively, having been blocked several times for incivility I think the time has come to consider a range block here.

As regards the second concern raised by Antandrus that of the loss of editors, he may have a general point but in this case I feel this is not the fundamental problem here. I have earnestly tried to talk with this guy on numerous occasions and he reacts in the same way no matter how he is approached. You only have to look at history on Talk:Ian Gow to see that . He would still be angrily railing at editors there if it wasn't for the fact Ian Gow is semi-protected. And I'm sorry but you're excusing his behaviour here, when it is blatantly unacceptable by community standards and by doing so you're effectively encouraging it.

But I will add my own 2c here, so many times you'll bend over backwards to assume good faith with a disruptive editor that it takes a long time before they're eventually blocked for exhausting the communities patience. I see a number of people doing that here, when he has already been given the benefit of the doubt several times - he just pops up again with a different IP sock. In the mean time you're losing experienced editors who end up fed up and frustrated when they're polite and patient with new editors, who respond with abuse, and then someone pops along with their favourite lecture about not biting newbies as wikipedia is not attracting new editors; you forget you're also losing experienced editors fed up with taking crap. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No, "wee curry monster", you have not once tried to discuss anything. You started off with a false accusation of vandalism, and you did not waver from a position which assumed bad faith. You lied about my edits to try to justify your behaviour in reverting them. You never once made any serious attempt to discuss the article content, and instead you went stalking my edits, reverting them with such comments as "rv IP edits". You then have the gall to claim that you've tried to talk? Sick. 190.44.140.37 (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm pretty sure that User:Antandrus will corroborate the fact that I have tried to discuss your edits. On Ian Gow for example I pointed out you'd removed relevant and cited material, , you continued to revert on the basis we're all "dopey cunts" and were reverting you because of a "grudge". Nobody lied about any of your edits and there was ample justification for reverting your edits. Furthermore by your own admission you're deliberately uncivil and I quote "I get more satisfaction out of responding viciously than I would out of responding politely". You would appear to enjoy hiding behind an anonymous IP being gratuitously offensive and you're not an asset to the project but a liability. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The initial concern about how some of this ips legitimate edits were reverted out of hand was well warranted. I think both KZ and myself did our best to reverse those changes. But that isolated incident doesn't excuse the length of policy violations this user has committed. I was particular disturbed by the quote "I have no respect for the blocks that result from me being accused of vandalism, so I ignore them." I've said enough here, since I don't want to appear as going after this person, but something absolutely needs to be done about this. I believe the outpouring of support in this thread will only encourage this ip user to continue to commit personal attacks, circumvent blocks with multiple ips, and violate Misplaced Pages policy. -OberRanks (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No, "wee curry monster", you never made any serious attempt to justify your stalking and reverting of my edits. Your best effort was "rv IP edits".

OberRanks, the second time you say "I've said enough here, since I don't want to appear as going after this person", it makes it obvious that you were not sincere when you first said it. Why, incidentally, did you refuse to answer a very simple question I posted to your talk page, with the edit summary "register, then we'll talk"?

Such wildly, absurdly false accusations of vandalism as I've received should result in a reprimand to the user making them, or better, a block. As it is, nothing happens, and people like "wee curry monster" get the idea that such behaviour is fine. A situation in which saying "fuck" is seen as so much worse than deliberately reducing the quality of the encyclopaedia begins to convince me that many editors have become divorced from the whole point of Misplaced Pages. 200.104.123.205 (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You were not blocked for "false claims of vandalism", you were blocked for gross incivility towards another user by calling them several inappropriate names in at least two different edit summaries - a block you promptly circumvented by logging on with a different ip address. As for the original issue of reverting your legitimate edits, that's been explained and examined in detail above, and that matter is not worth repeating. What people are telling you now is to move on and work better with others. I think that's a very good idea. -OberRanks (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"I've said enough here, since I don't want to appear as going after this person"

Besides failing to go away when you said you would at least twice, you seem to have misunderstood what I was saying. False accusations of vandalism and trolling (such as you made) are a very big problem. Attitudes of disdain towards IP editors (such as yours) are a very big problem. I think both of them are a much bigger problem and more damaging to a project whose aim is to create an encyclopaedia than a bit of bad language. I think people making such egregiously false accusation of vandalism as you did should be blocked. People who say things like "register, then we'll talk" should be blocked for a gross misunderstanding of one of the fundamental philosophies of wikipedia. You didn't get so much as a warning. So how about you move on and work better with others, regardless of whether they have a username or not? I think that's a very good idea. 200.104.123.205 (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

IP, I'll grant you that IPs here are sometimes handled in a too harsh a way. That is bad, that should not happen. Some IPs indeed are long-term wikipedia editors moving around, and those should be cherished etc. However, everybody does sometimes make edits which are a net negative to a page, and such edits are sometimes reverted (sometimes with unclear revert reasons or not properly discussed), and editors who make them are sometimes wrongly accused of vandalism (and if that was too harsh, then I agree, that is a bad thing). You are, of course, completely free to point those editors to that, to initiate discussions of why something needs the change you propose (WP:BRD does suggest the reverter should start it, but it does not mean that you are not allowed to do it as alternative if a reverter does not do it ..), to warn such editors if it repeats, and/or bring such editors to an appropriate noticeboard.

There is however, no excuse for using bad language, no excuse to issue personal attacks, and there is no excuse to go into edit wars - let alone combine the two: history. Initiate discussion on talkpages (I see you participate in it!), ask others to come into the discussion, but do not keep reverting and calling names, because you do not agree with a revert, or with the way you are treated. Thát is also not productive. Let it at 'the wrong version' for some time and find consensus. And as I see that you are there the reverting editor over and over (I'm afraid even passing the bright line), ánd are calling names. I do think that a block on your IP is appropriate, and I do not think that it is then appropriate to keep editing using another IP - even if you turn out to be completely right that your edit is not vandalism, and that it actually improves the page.

I agree that the underlying issue is unnecessary biting of 'new' editors, and there is no excuse for that, but that does not excuse your behaviour either, IP. --Dirk Beetstra 12:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, with which I agree almost entirely. But I don't think any of the reverts that were made were actually about article quality. They were simply an expression of unthinking prejudice. You say of false accusations of vandalism: "...if that was too harsh..." I find that "if" very offensive. It's not about "harsh", anyway, it's about simple honesty and the simple courtesy of not reverting without understanding the edit. If you get reverted by someone saying, for example "rv deletions" when you didn't delete anything, "rv vandalism" when anyone who actually read the edit could see it was not, or the classic "rv IP edits", you know you're not dealing with someone who has this basic courtesy.

Destroying a good edit with a false accusation of vandalism simply because you couldn't be bothered to read it properly is in itself vandalism. It is a deliberate attempt to compromise the quality of Misplaced Pages. As such, the 3RR doesn't apply if I revert such destructive edits. And yet, I have in the past been blocked without even reverting three times while a vandal who reverted four times received not even so much as a warning.

This casually inconsiderate and destructive attitude is a problem. What is going to be done about it?

A further problem is the editors who exhibit wanton disdain towards IP editors. Edit summaries such as "rv IP edits", or "register, then we'll talk" betray an appalling sense of superiority, derived apparently from the mere virtue of having filled in a form. This offensive attitude is a problem. What is going to be done about it?

I have asked many editors on many occasions exactly what led them to conclude so incorrectly that a particular edit was vandalism. I have never received a sensible answer; not even once. See OberRanks and his "register, then we'll talk" for a particularly risible refusal to discuss. So, some inconsiderate and unthinking editor is inevitably going to accuse me of vandalism, no matter how blatantly obviously my edits are not vandalism. Whether I'm polite or not, it will make no difference. And in fact, if I'd only ever responded in the timid and subservient way that you seem to desire, then this discussion here would never have happened, would it? So in fact, if I've managed to raise some awareness of the problem of lazy, unthinking editors reverting with dishonest claims, then my outbursts have had a positive effect. If anything's actually done about these problematic editors, it will be a miracle, but you never know. I'll say again, I think people making flagrantly incorrect accusations of vandalism should be blocked. 200.104.123.205 (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, IP. That is in a way what I suggested. You seem to have brought this to the attention of such users - if they after that repeat it, you move on to warnings, or even to a noticeboard showing what is going on.

And what you describe is basically a WP:POINT violation, and that is not an atmosphere we should be working in - even when you are right. And if you call having articles semi or fully protected because of editwars a 'success' .. I beg to differ. --Dirk Beetstra 14:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Can I make a few non-binding observations and then we close this joint? Pretty please?
  • Edits made by IPs should be judged on content
  • IP contributions are to be valued, not to be distrusted. (That much of the vandalism is IP vandalism is not relevant here. Much of what's on the street is dog shit, but I still will pick up the pecans and thank the tree for it.)
  • Editors should be (much) more careful when they're ready to say rvv and start slapping templates on IP talk pages.
  • Of course editors shouldn't go around cussing the hell out of each other.
  • IP editors should be listened to when they complain about the behavior signaled in this thread, and IMO ANI is the right place for it--and admins and others should not be afraid to use Template:uw-notvand.

Now, let's get back to work. Fender Stratocaster XII is wholly unverified and Samson Agonistes lacks a "References in popular culture" section. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Close it? The guy has come to ANI and lied and you swallow it, you're excusing and encouraging abusive behaviour and he'll go on his merry way continiuing to do exactly the same thing. I fully explained why he was reverted, I ONCE used the short hand rv IP edits - but then I'd already explained and he'd responded with abuse. Why should I continue to have to explain myself to someone who can't be bothered to be civil, no strike that, delights in being abusive.

He is block evading right now, he is unrepentant about being uncivil and you're talking about closing it. The problem remains, he is abusive to anyone who crosses his path, but he's left with the impression its OK. Yes blocks are not punitive but they're not being preventative here either.

And you're wondering why people are leaving wikipedia? For gods sake, wake up and smell the coffee. This is not about biting IP editors, people respond to the guy in the way they do as he is abusive, not because he is an IP. He is not a newbie by his own admission.

You're proposing to close it, with the underlining issue unresolved and an unrepentant abusive editor vowing to continue. Why should I bother with a named account anymore or following the rules? Why is there such a reluctance to tackle abusive and disruptive editors, people are leaving in droves because of this? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, Civility Police Officer, what do you propose to do? Send Jason Bourne out to Chile to teach him a lesson? The claim that people are leaving in droves because an IP cusses someone out is too ridiculous to comprehend. There are good reasons for why some good editors leave, but you couldn't possibly see that from your vantage point. Moreover, there is nothing you can do here that's preventative, unless you want to rangeblock South America. Yes, we close this thread, and move on, and at least try to consider what drives editors to frustration: incorrect claims of vandalism, for instance; having edits reverted without proper explanation; being distrusted because they don't want to come up with something cute like "Wee Curry Monster" or "Drmies". Leave it be: there is nothing you can accomplish here, and your analysis of the situation is completely wrong.

FWIW (though some people won't care what the IP editor has to say), the editor has a name and is a human being, like some of us here, and has dropped me a line saying--I think I am not betraying any confidences here--they will refrain from certain aspects of their behavior but, and I understand this perfectly, they also wish to be treated with respect. Now, perhaps some uninvolved admin can close this. Wake up and smell the coffee: no admin, I think, will extend the block on one IP or another, and no admin is going to apply a range block here. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Except I did treat the guy with respect but it wasn't reciprocated. Somewhat ironic expecting respect when he has none for anyone else. So basically in your book block evasion is OK for an IP editor. If I, with a named account, had done that I'd be facing a lengthy block. If I'd been that uncivil, I'd be facing a lengthy block or a ban. I'd like to see a range block till he realises his behaviour his not acceptable; and be treated in exactly the same way as a named account would be. I see no evidence that he will keep any promise to modify his behaviour.

And please grow up, the needling comments about civility police are not helpful. Editors should not have to put up with the abuse this guy takes great pleasure in dishing out; he admits to enjoying it. Basically you are encouraging and excusing his behaviour. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Pff--grow up? You're the one whining here for a block that you know you're not going to get. Don't attempt to read what's in my book, please; it's apparently not written in your language, though I think most other editors here read it well enough. Now, you get to insult me one more time (but you'll have to do better than 'grow up'--I'm too old for that), and I'll let it slide, and then someone can close this. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would I want to insult you, I don't feel the need to lower myself to the same standard of behaviour you seem to think is acceptable. If you think that was an insult, my advice is never go to Glasgow as your delicate sensibilities would never survive. If I'd referred to you as a dopey fucking cunt, revert warred and generally been a rude and ignorant dick I'd have been blocked. If I block evaded, I'd be blocked some more. So why does an IP get away with all of that?
You dopy little fuck, "wee curry monster".
Cunts
Get over your pathetic little grudge, "wee curry monster"
I get more satisfaction out of responding viciously than I would out of responding politely
Yep, you're still a complete twat.
Blocked for 2 weeks... Let's see now... turn off the router... turn it on again... :)
Here we have an IP editor who openly brags about sock puppetry when blocked for incivility, makes it plain that he enjoys being deliberately uncivil. Admits at ANI that he is socking and block evading but admins do absolutely nothing to prevent this disruptive behaviour continuing. Did someone change the civility policy? When did block evasion become acceptable? And if I have the temerity to ask you to do something about it, I'm whining and you openly mock me about being the so-called civility police. And you wonder why you're losing editors. Go ahead and close it, it'll be back here in a week. You've left the basic problem unresolved. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not the language itself but the way it's being used. Nobody is having their delicate sensibilities destroyed by seeing the words "fuck" or "cunt"; editors are simply sick and tired of being demeaned, belittled, and treated like they're less than human simply because they disagree with someone who thinks himself cool and edgy because he's learned a few scary words in the schoolyard. If there was one problem in Misplaced Pages that discourages new editors, it's this "I have the right to viciously abuse you if I disagree with you. Voicing dislike of said abuse proves my point that you are a pathetic worthless loser and I am better than you" attitude and the abuse that proceeds from it. It also gives readers the impression that the abuser knows he's wrong, knows he doesn't have a defensible point, so needs to resort to viciously belittling his opponents because that's the only way he can possibly win. I can't think of a better way to make people distrust and disbelieve you than to resort to insults. --NellieBly (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

John Pike

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

Going to bed now. The following needs attention:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&curid=6768170&diff=462181024&oldid=462180137
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=462189791

Hans Adler 01:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you need to stop labeling that living person repeatedly at multiple talk page locations on the en wikipedia as a torturer. Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If I had wanted your opinion I would not have come here. Hans Adler 01:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You also are repeatedly referring to him as a criminal - just one minute ago on your talkpage after multiple warnings and requests to stop. Off2riorob (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Which is obviously fair comment under the circumstances. Hans Adler 01:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It continues:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=462190040&oldid=462189947

Hans Adler 01:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

He is doing it in a deliberate way repeatedly now - another one just now - Off2riorob (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I was just creating a new section on this incident here when Hans notified me that he'd created a new topic. Hans insists on accusing John Pike (the police officer in the Occupy Davis controversy) of being a criminal on WP:BLPN. Three editors (not counting me) told Hans that he couldn't say things like that about Pike. One noted the irony of violating BLP on BLPN. Hans persisted, impervious to the comments. I removed his comments per WP:TPO. He posted a protest and committed additional violations. I removed those. He reverted, and another editor reverted him. Hans then posted a message on my Talk page.

At a minimum, an admin should warn Hans that he cannot violate BLP just becauase he believes that a person's conduct is criminal.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it ok for Hans to repeatedly refer to this living person that has not been charged with any crime as a criminal and a torturer? Off2riorob (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Still awake (though not much longer), so here is a quick response. WP:BLPTALK says this:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate.

That sentence doesn't give you license to accuse people of being criminals in non-article space. See WP:TPO ("Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, violations of policy about living persons, or copyright violations."). Plus, the policy you cite allows someone to remove material in certain circumstances; it does not justify addition of material.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob has been trying to win a POV conflict by the simple expedient of making the necessary discussion about the underlying facts for various editorial decisions impossible. Hans Adler 01:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Attacking a living person such as you have repeatedly been doing has got nothing to do with any content discussion I am involved in. Off2riorob (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

So you are not trying to move the iconic photo of the UC Davis project (which shows John Pike) out of the lead? You did not try to get John Pike off the John Pike disambiguation? Hans Adler 01:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

My belief that that picture does not represent the subject of the article in a due manner is no reason or excuse for you repeatedly opining about this living person is a criminal when he has not been charged with anything at all. Off2riorob (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

And it continues further:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Pike&curid=6018141&diff=462189590&oldid=461998071

The rationale for that link from John Pike is contained in the page history and in the discussion on WP:BLP/N. Hans Adler 01:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What has that got to do with you attacking repeatedly a living person by refusing to stop referring to them as a criminal and a torturer on the talkpages of en wikipedia? Off2riorob (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It has to do with the question how we deal with John Pike. And for that question it makes a difference whether he is an accidental target of media attention, a victim of a crime, or a perpetrator of one. There are different rules for these cases. Hans Adler 01:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

None of that is any reason for you to repeatedly refer to him in such ways - you need to back off this issue you are overly involved. Off2riorob (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

So? Whatever rules you're talking about presumes a verifiable fact. Here, it's you who've decided that Pike is a "perpetrator" of a crime. Such power you have.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans should be able to refer to that incident as constituting torture. Not being able to do that would constitute censorship. The BLP policy does allow for incriminating statements to be made in discussions when it is a relevant issue. The BLP policy cannot be used to shield BLPs from negative but relevant information. Count Iblis (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you know that torture is a crime in California? See Calif. Penal Code section 206. And to what issue was Hans's opinion that Pike is a criminal and a torturer relevant? It was mostly a rant. The original issue had to do with a disambig page for John Pike.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

@Count Iblis - where is it in policy to support your claim that, "The BLP policy does allow for incriminating statements to be made in discussions when it is a relevant issue" - Off2riorob (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes--Count Iblis, that is a ridiculous claim. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I should also add that this was not a discussion about content on the Pike article; there is no Pike article. And even if there were, how could there be a discussion about whether to label someone who hasn't even been charged with a crime a criminal? The whole thing is ludicrous. The removals weren't intended to shield a BLP from negative information, but to shield a BLP from libel in the guise of a discussion - in other words, the opposite.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

A person is a criminal if and only if they have been convicted of a crime. As far as I know the officer hasn't even been charged at this time, simply put on administrative leave. That may change, and if it does the situation would be somewhat different. In the meantime, if Hans Adler continues to blatantly violate BLP policy, a block may be necessary to remind him that what he is doing goes against black letter policy, which applies everywhere on Misplaced Pages, including talk pages. Other editors should be reminded that WP:BLPREMOVE allows the removal of such material without damger of being blocked for edit warring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Iblis' statement, "Hans should be able to refer to that incident as constituting torture. Not being able to do that would constitute censorship", is totally out of whack with wikipedia's philosophy and purpose. We go by sourcing, not by the political and legal views of editors. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You are mixing up article space and talk space. When we have a widely disseminated photo of a very notable crime, it's completely ridiculous to remove it to protect the perpetrator, and if one can't argue that way on the relevant talk pages just because a few people here have the right-wing authoritarian blind spot for crimes committed in the name of the law, then we have a serious censorship problem. Hans Adler 08:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What valid source have you found that states it's a crime? (Your opinion and mine do not qualify.) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You are begging the question whether I need reliable sources for that. In a talk page discussion, I do not. But of course they do exist. For example, AP quoting the senior counsel of the First Amendment Project: " it as a torture device to force someone to do something, and that's exactly what the 9th Circuit said was unreasonable and excessive." Or Jeff Norman, discussing in detail how a citizen's arrest of John Pike could work and what consequences it would have. Given your known right-wing leanings you will likely try to dismiss these as left-wing, hence unusable sources. However, the issue here is whether I am allowed, in an internal Misplaced Pages discussion on editorial decisions, to say things that AP reported as having been said by a lawyer, and that someone on a left-wing mainstream site has said much more strongly. Hans Adler 13:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Right wing leanings? Where are you getting that from? I voted for Obama, and intend to again. Regardless, you can't violate BLP rules in either articles or talk pages. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm disappointed, Baseball, I thought you were voting for Mel Blanc.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not violating BLP rules and I must ask you to stop claiming so. To quote from WP:BLPTALK: "Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of No personal attacks." The continued claims that I have violated BLP, never accompanied by comprehensible proofs because they are wrong, are beginning to amount to defamation. While I would normally never contemplate it, in the present context of mass hypocrisy I am seriously considering asking an admin to remove the defamatory comments. Hans Adler 22:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

In your own words, "...obviously criminal behaviour. Hans Adler 21:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)". So lose your "defamation" nonsense. I, too, was appalled by the video of the cop pepper-spraying the protestors. But it is not wikipedia's purpose to advocate. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my point about hypocrisy by completely ignoring my point about your own behaviour. Hans Adler 22:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I could also claim that you "defamed" me by accusing me of "right-wing leanings". But since your comment immediately above makes no sense, I have to figure that you're just angry about the pepper spray incident and that it's clouding your judgment. I'm angry about that incident too. Which is precisely why I'm NOT editing the article. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward

This is not the first time that we've had drama over whether or not to mention (or to write an article on) a person who has attracted an intense stream of media attention for doing something nasty (or for being accused of it). On one side we have WP:BLP and WP:BLP1E; on the other side we have the obvious notability (plus these articles tend to attract many readers, and perhaps a few lazy journalists). There have been several previous cases and there will be many more in future; more Pikes and more Breiviks. Perhaps we need to hone our policies/guidelines here, so in future we can concentrate on improving encyclopædic content rather than bickering...? bobrayner (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

the way to solve this is to focus on the fundamental principle behind the rule, not the minutia. As I see it, it's DONOHARM. It is wrong of us to give undue prominence to negative things about non-public figures or minor public figures. The key word is "undue", and the key concept is the effect that WP has as compared to other sources. Once the responsible national press has given such prominence, we have to remember that they, not we, determine the prominence overall. With a few local news stories, we're the major player. With national coverage to the extent here, we're not. (I do not consider him a public figure in the sense an elected politician is. But he's not quite a private figure either: he was doing what he did in his official capacity. So the answer in this case is an article in his name is appropriate, and the picture is also. We're not the people responsible for widely disclosing the information--we're just following the sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

However, regardless of notability, if he has not been charged with any crime, referring to him as a criminal is, in fact, a BLP violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree about one point. This is an obvious case of WP:BLP1E, and in any case it would better to have an article on the incident if that is required. The details of his background as a soldier are not particularly relevant. Even a discussion on whether it's a good idea to give people a dehumanisation training abroad and then turn them into police officers could be done with a one-sentence mention of that background. And the discrimination lawsuit is completely unrelated and undue. Let alone his date or place of birth. Hans Adler 08:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel it's important that we refrain from characterizing any living person's behavior as criminal or as a crime. It's fine to state facts regarding the criminal justice process such as "suspected", "suspended", "indicted", "charged", "on trial", "convicted", "found guilty", etc. But it's not OK to call someone a rapist, torturer, or child molester, etc, who hasn't been convicted. This applies to any page in Misplaced Pages. While we tend to think of our articles as our "public face" - the reality is everything we write anywhere on Misplaced Pages is every bit as public as our articles, as a result BLP (or liable) applies in every wiki-space. Rklawton (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This makes no sense. You are applying much more restrictive criteria to an internal Misplaced Pages discussion than anyone normally does in a public forum. I would repeat everything that I have said on Misplaced Pages in the mainstream media in Germany, under my name, and would not be the least bit worried about possible legal consequences, and I would also do so if the incident had happened in Germany. I would not do so in the US, of course, because I know that the legal system in many places treats anything related to the problems caused by underpaid, underqualified police operating under a degenerated esprit de corps very unfairly.

There is a huge difference between saying "everybody knows that A has tortured students" somewhere on a talk page without giving any evidence, and giving the opinion that what A has verifiably done amounts to torture. This is exactly parallel to how I can say that because he authorised torture, George W. Bush is obviously a criminal. And in fact, a lot of opinion pieces in various places have said so. He has not been indicted yet. This is a clear free speech issue in the original, unperverted (i.e. not: porn, defamation and hate speech as free speech) sense. Hans Adler 08:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Could we have a separate thread on that? ;-)

I agree with you on many points, including "Should we have coverage of Pike?", but there has been fairly strong pushback against the "torture" label; if you want to argue that point here, it may derail discussion from the more abstract point that I raised above. bobrayner (talk) 09:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying our rules about BLP issues is a good idea. I think for article space there isn't much of a problem at the moment. Editors frequenting WP:BLP/N generally have the desirable level of maturity, but this was disappointing. We should clarify that Misplaced Pages will not invade someone's privacy for entertainment even if the press has done it before us. But I have found it impossible to explain the difference between notable children's names, dates of birth and schools, the amount of money paid for a house, comments on someone's buttocks etc. and genuine noteworthy information to a certain type of editor. Working out objective criteria for that would be helpful. Apparently we also need further clarification that BLP does not apply to talk pages in the same way as to articles. Hans Adler 12:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No matter where you do it here, calling someone a criminal when they haven't been charged with anything, is not appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I know, a policeman is never a true criminal. Where were you when I removed a terrorism category from the article on a non-terroristic act of sabotage committed by a legal American non-profit organisation? That was in article space and implied that certain named people were terrorists. (See my block log for pointers.) Here we are talking about talk space. Hans Adler 13:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this "You are applying much more restrictive criteria to an internal Misplaced Pages discussion than anyone normally does in a public forum" is such a non-starter, I'm surprised you would offer it. I don't disagree that many public fora would allow contributors to call people criminals, even though they aren't. But this isn't one of those public fora, this is Misplaced Pages, and we have rules. You are free to propose that our rules are too restrictive, and suggest alternative rules, but that doesn't seem to be your thesis—you seem to be arguing that such a claim is allowed under the rules here. It isn't. And I'm fine with that. I wouldn't call a person a criminal no matter what despicable act they committed, if they had not been convicted.--SPhilbrickT 14:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I refuted your "non-starter" nonsense before you even posted this. A senior lawyer of a large American non-profit has said essentially the same thing that I did, and AP has reported the fact. "his is Misplaced Pages, and we have rules." Precisely. And nothing in these rules says that this kind of fair comment isn't allowed outside article space, except when irrelevant to editing decisions or when the underlying facts for the comment are unverifiable. If you don't ever want to call out-of-control American presidents, police miscasts and other dangerous untouchable personalities criminals, regardless of what they do, then that is your personal choice, possibly influenced by an authoritarian upbringing. Other people make other choices, and you are not going to convince anyone with vague "we have rules" hand-waving, which essentially says: "I believe I am more powerful than you / have more influential friends than you, and can get away with forcing you to do what I want without any need for further justifications." As an academic, I am not used to being talked down to, and especially not in such a silly way.

By the way, you have come a long way from your cavalier approach to random out-of-context statements in BLP articles (on climate scientists) a year ago (see Talk:Phil Jones (climatologist)) to this extremism in combatting fair comment on violent people (in police uniforms) in talk/project space. How strange. Hans Adler 19:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

In "moving forward", let's not forget that the issue here is whether Hans's conduct merits sanctions. At least that's the central issue for me. Although Hans himself started this topic, as I stated at the outset, I was about to begin a topic myself. What most concerns me is not just Hans's past conduct but his future conduct. He didn't seem to get it on BLPN, and he doesn't seem to get it here. His stubbornness in the face of many editors telling him his views are flat-out wrong is disturbing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we say that Bin Laden was a terrorist? That becomes a rather complicated issue with this interpretaion of BLP invoked here. Even more difficult, can we say that someone charged with a crime is a criminal as charged, if those charges are brought by e.g. Iran? Were the 3 hikers arrested in Iran spies?

Were the security forces in Bahrain guilty of toruture? A legitimate discussion, given the recent report, so you can imagine that some particular officials can be discussed in this context. Did climate scientists falsify data to promote global warming alarmism (which would also have been a criminal offense if true)? Of course not, but this was frequently discussed on Misplaced Pages talk pages.

With the possible exception of the hikers, no one would invoke BLP to close such discussions, so it seems to me that the interpretation of BLP used to criticize Hans here is fundamentally flawed. Count Iblis (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If someone has not been convicted of a crime, they cannot be labeled a criminal. That one's fairly easy. As to your question about "terrorist", I've wrestled with that issue and I try to dodge it (this, of course, in article space). It's easier just to stick to facts, so, for example, if someone has been convicted of murder, we can say they've been convicted of murder, but unless they've been convicted of terrorism (which, I believe, in the U.S., at least is a crime in and of itself), we should avoid it. The problem comes with the media bandying about the term terrorist and whether we then should use the term because, oh my, it's been reported in reliable sources. This probably requires an article-by-article examination, but my view is we should stick, not only to what's reported in reliable sources, but what's reported as facts, not as descriptors. As for your contention that "no one would invoke BLP to close such discussions", "no one" is a pretty broad statement, and I seriously doubt it's accurate.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As our article on ambiguity says, in "rhetoric, ambiguity can be a useful tool." You know how to use it, apparently. "Labeled" strongly connotes calling someone explicitly a criminal in article space, whereas the context in which you use the word indicates that you are talking about how I called him a criminal in talk space. Hans Adler 19:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Each of your responses confirms your inability to grasp policies and guidelines, at least in this area. Your political/moral views appear to interfere with your capacity to contribute as a neutral editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans has been duly warned several times. I've posted the link to policy on his talk page twice. Hans' reply to this directly contradicted policy stating it was OK to state people committed crimes on talk pages as part of the editorial process even though policy says it isn't. There's nothing more we can do at this point. If Hans violates BLP again, I will immediately block him from editing. Rklawton (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that I have explained policy that you are misunderstanding to you, and given that there is obviously no consensus for such a block, I would suggest that you think of a less dramatic way of discarding your bits. Hans Adler 19:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Hopefully, other admins looking at the history will come to the same conclusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few examples from the archives of Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. In each case it is clear that the references to criminality were about a group of identifiable climate researchers whose emails had been published illegally.

• "enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars"
• "dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants"
• "We don't know that yet. We also don't know how much of the consensus is built on the work of people who don't have a problem with criminal data destruction."
• "data as being exemplary of criminal activity--copyright protects no crimes. And you are still ignoring the 'whistleblowing' aspects"
• "presenting evidence of a crime using evidence taken without permission of the criminals is something where most prosecutors exercise prosecutorial discretion"
• "Exposing the crimes against the laws of the UK and against the normal practices of science was a justifiable act in my opinion"
• "If you publicly release evidence of criminal activity, I think that the law generally looks leniently on such cases"
• "In any case, the rights of the criminals who had their acts exposed should not be the top priority"

These are just from the first 3 archives, out of a total of 43 numbered archives and 7 special archives. There was nothing comparable in archive 4. I was going to continue with archive 5, but was distracted by finding an instance there of Sphilbrick defending the honour of the criminals who published the emails, in the same way that he is now defending the honour of the pepper spraying policeman -- around the same time that he was arguing for the inclusion of misleading quotations in the BLP article on one of the scientists.

In general, on these archive pages (at least those I have viewed), it is very interesting to compare the laid-back way in which the claims of criminal behaviour by identifiable scientists were fended off with the frantic efforts to get euphemisms into the article for hacking and stealing of emails, which is still being examined by the police. The latter appear to me very similar in style to what I have seen here. The similarity is striking, given that those discussions were about article space while we are here talking about talk space, and given the contrast to the other side's relaxed reactions to the (ultimately disproved) claims of criminal behaviour. Hans Adler 19:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC) slightly expanded 19:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, Hans hasn't done anything wrong (and I see that Hans has just explained this himself better in his reply above mine). I don't remember there being any issues with talk page comments implying criminal behavior when it was a relevant issue, atleast when I was still editing such articles. This used to be only an issue when making edits to an article. If we were to consistently use the very narrow interpretation of BLP, that would severely hamper editing controversial articles. While I don't at present edit such articles frequently, I'm pretty sure this standard isn't actually applied consistently, leading to bias by selective censorhip. Count Iblis (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at Hans's examples, but, to both of you: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Your accusation of "selective censorship" is silly. As the editor who removed Hans's comments, I did it because I became aware of it, which tends to be true for most edits I make. The articles that were indirectly involved weren't on my watchlist. I just read the topic on BLPN and acted.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Selective censorship arises because people only invoke BLP selectively on issues they feel strongly about, not because there is a conscious attempt at censorship. And I don't think Hans' example can be dismissed as crap, even if it is in some sense "crap", because that article was the focus of many Admins and of Jimbo himself. There has been an ArbCom case about the CC articles and that article was also a primary focus in that case. So, this isn't like some article that has been edited outside the view of the community where any alledged lack of obedience to policies can be attributed to lack of community oversight.

We can thus conclude that editors are usually free to make comments like the one Hans made. Count Iblis (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What is that, the royal "we"? This will probably be my last comment because the discussion is going nowhere. Hans complained that in other instances comments about criminals weren't removed, but they were here. You called that "selective censorship". I cited something that is often cited for essentially the proposition "two wrongs don't make a right", or just because crap exists elsewhere isn't a justification for the crap that exists here. The crap is the BLP violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• This whole argument appears to hinge on whether police torturing or inflicting considerable pain on peaceful protesters who are not resisting arrest is or is not criminal, and whether we have to await conviction before describing activity as "criminal" on talk pages.
  In the topic area described by Hans, various editors called a scientist a "criminal" for discussing his intention to delete his own emails, when the relevant authority had decided not to even investigate whether any "criminal" deletion of emails had taken place as it was time-barred. Note that "criminal" in this case means that actual deletion of FOIA'd information can be tried in a magistrates court, and individuals can be given a fairly small fine if convicted. So, it's obviously fair comment to describe the policeman's conduct as outrageous and inhumane, but technically it's not criminal.
  Whether deleting such wording serves to inflame talk page discussions is an interesting question, as interfering with other editors' comments is very much frowned on. However, if this is considered appropriate I'll certainly be quicker to delete such wording in future. However, it does not seem to me that using such wording in a colloquial sense rather than a technically correct sense should lead to a block, and editors must remain free to discuss accusations which are well supported by reliable sources. . . . dave souza, talk 20:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Seems to me you're making this unduly complex. In the issue here (not other instances in other places at other times), Hans baldly stated that Pike was a criminal. It wasn't sourced to anything - it was and remains Hans's abiding opinion. To the extent there might be some discussion by different sources about whether and when the use of pepper spray constitutes "torture", that is rather complicated and better suited for an article on torture or on pepper spray or in someone's graduate thesis, but not tacked on to a discussion of this particular officer and his use of pepper spray.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The point that Wheaton, senior counsel for the Oakland-based First Amendment Project, said that police used "it as a torture device to force someone to do something" is something specifically related to the article, and should properly be discussed on the talk page. Hans is of course entitled to hold the view that such action should be criminal, but as Charles J. Key, a former lieutenant with the Baltimore Police Department who wrote the department's use-of-force manual, has described it as "fairly standard police procedure" then we have simply to accept that some regimes think such actions are normal. By the same standards, we should be careful about how we describe any abhorrent actions, no matter how outrageous they seem to us, if they're accepted by a despotic regime. So, better wording is advisable, but the point stands that the police behaviour looks outrageous from the perspective of many reasonable people, and that should not be obscured in the article. . dave souza, talk 21:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of sourcing about pepper spray and torture here though the mode of application was different in that incident. The issue with "criminal" is it has somewhat separate legal and moral meanings, and WP policy seems to be to reserve it for the strict legal meaning were the person was actually convicted in a court of law. By that standard we can't call 9/11 suicide pilot Mohammed Atta a criminal (they didn't find enough of him to put on trial), so we have to use other terminology. That seems a little silly, but it should be doable with a bit of careful phrasing. 67.117.144.140 (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP is not an issue where Atta and his gang are concerned. Calling him a "criminal" would be fairly redundant, as I can't think of any circumstances where his actions wouldn't be criminal. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If he's dead it's not an issue, but your failure to think of circumstances does not override the proposed standard that an actual conviction has been secured. It astonishes me that the policeman's actions aren't illegal, but the world has many strange places. . . dave souza, talk 00:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If I understand what you're saying, I disagree with at least parts of it. For example, whether to report on what Wheaton said in the article can certainly be discussed on the Talk page, but it is a violation of BLP rules for an editor to claim that Pike is a torturer. It is also unnecessary to the discussion. The issue is whether Wheaton's opinion is relevant, not whether it's true or universally held. I'm not even sure I "approve" of your use of the words "abhorrent" and "despotic", which also seem to express your personal opinion and do not advance a discussion of what is appropriate to include in an article. As to what outrages "reasonable" people, that's not really our concern. Nor is it our place to decide which people are reasonable and which are not. I also didn't understand your edit summary, but that's not a big deal, just a minor puzzlement for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If an editor presents reliable sources that Pike was acting as a torturer, then that discussion is appropriate on the talk page. In principle everything must reflect published opinion, not the views of editors, but there's always been reasonable leeway on talk pages to discuss how best to produce a properly sourced neutral article. . . dave souza, talk 00:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Some looseness on talk pages is necessary for collaborative editing, as long as it doesn't go into a rathole of debate unconnected to the article (NOTFORUM). I think Dave souza, Hans Adler, Count Iblis, and myself have expressed concern in various ways about overly bureaucratic handling of the issue by some participants here. The existence of NOTBURO, NOTSTATUTE, IAR, etc. show (IMO) that we're supposed to care more about adhering to the spirit than the letter of policies, so should deal with things on a case-by-case basis, considering real-world context as well as on-wiki context, and in general trying to operate through good judgment rather than bot-like reflexes. 67.117.144.140 (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing this

Okay. So the original issue was Hans reporting another editor for blanking parts of his comments. At the very least, we have consensus that BLP supports this action. Hans has not continued to revert since then. As such, this doesn't seem to be a live ANI issue; there are certainly unresolved matters as regards exactly what is permissable under BLP outwith articlespace, but ANI is obviously a lousy forum for that. Any objections to closing this? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

To explain what my objection is at this point would be too convoluted, so I'll go with no. :-) (Even this post was unnecessary, but what the hell.) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of the state of the discussion. There is no consensus that BLP supports the blanking, just a small number of previously involved editors dominating the discussion, in particular Bbb23, who this report was about. This would be inconsistent application of policy to protect criminals who act under the guise of authority in the United States. No other country gets this kind of privilege here, and I have shown above that when editors call living people criminals on a talk page then that is usually suffered even if when it's hardly reasonable and part of a systematic, organised defamation campaign against scientists. Hans Adler 23:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What has global warming got to do with pepper spray? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If you look above, you'll note that editors have called scientists "criminals", which is the main topic of this thread. The argument is that we should not describe publishing science or misuse of pepper spray as criminal activities without a court conviction. . . dave souza, talk 00:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you require for consensus, Hans. By my reckoning, the following editors opposed what you did and supported the removal: Beyond My Ken, Baseball Bugs, Rklawton, Chris Cunningham, SPhilbrick, and Off2riorob. Now that Dave souza has clarified (for me at least) his view, I would say two editors agree with you: Dave and Count Iblis.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps these editors should clarify if they support mass removal of other editor's comments, as shown in the diff I've given below. That looks to me to be clearly disruptive, and would have resulted in sanctions in discussions on a more touchy topic. . . dave souza, talk 00:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a touchy area. But if someone commits a BLP violation, such comments are subject to removal. Ideally, whoever makes BLP-violating comments should see the error of his ways, and remove such comments himself. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• My view is that the action of blanking the word "criminal" is arguable, rather a novelty which may cause more disruption than help. It's questionable if BLP goes that far on talk pages, already we've seen an argument from incredulity that a terrorist's actions would not be seen as criminal in some places even without a criminal conviction, which effectively defeats the argument made for the blanking. Moreover, looking at this diff Bbb23 wasn't just deleting the word "criminal", but was disrupting normal talk page discussion by removing large chunks of the arguments put by another editor. That contravenes WP:TPOC, and should not be repeated. . dave souza, talk 23:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

  I strongly believe that good editors should be supported, but dave souza is overdoing it. The diff just above shows Bbb23 removing BLP violations from a talk page. That is standard—the only issue is that it involves an editor of such high standing. Yes, the pepper spraying was abominable, but no page at Misplaced Pages is appropriate for commentary on whether the perpetrator is a "criminal". If that is permitted as obviously appropriate, there is no limit to what nonsense can be added by POV pushers at any talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

  Removing BLP violations from a talk page is commendable. Removing something that is not a BLP violation and then continuing to claim it is a BLP violation after it has been pointed out that it is not by reference to the unambiguous wording of the relevant part of BLP (WP:BLPTALK, which defines the circumstances under which content may be removed) is not OK. And repeating the claim that a specific editor has been engaging in BLP violations, without proof, is a personal attack and, ironically, a BLP violation. Hans Adler 01:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

@ Johnuniq, I'm willing to accept that "criminal" is incorrect in that the behaviour is clearly legal, even though that seems pretty shocking, so it's ok to redact "criminal". That doesn't mean it's ok to remove comments that don't use the term and are legitimate in talk page discussion. Thus "Pepper spraying someone on close range under controlled conditions, as very obviously happens in that video, is a clear case of torture" looks perfectly reasonable to me: the fact that torture is condoned is extraordinary. Got a better term for casually inflicting pain on people who are passively kneeling? Similarly, when Hans wrote "The criminal act is clearly visible in videos that were broadcast on TV all over the world" it would be reasonable to redact one word, "The <redacted> act is clearly visible in videos that were broadcast on TV all over the world." Instead, Hans's post was removed leaving just his signature, " Removed Hans Adler 20:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)" That's clearly contrary to WP:TPOC and disrupted normal discussion. . . . dave souza, talk 04:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm wasting my breath here responding to Dave's persistence in criticizing the wrong editor. But I'll make a couple of comments. Following up on Baseball's comment above, I gave Hans an opportunity to correct his own errors, and he did not do so. Indeed, even now, he continues to insist he was right (and arguably would do it again). In addition, I spent some time trying to remove only those comments that were violations. You (Dave) may think I deleted more than was necessary, but that's clearly a judgment call, and reasonable minds can differ on that point. Even so, as I implied at the beginning of this paragraph, you should focus on the editor who created the problem instead of focusing on the editor who tried to remedy it. Editors here are often given a lot of leeway to clean up messes, and it's not always incumbent on those editors to do a perfect job as the mess wasn't of their making. I still believe my selective removals were reasonable, but, more important, your fixation on that aspect of this problem is misplaced.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not create a problem, and your continued insistence that I did although you are obviously wrong is beginning to amount to personal attacks. I must ask you not to repeat the personal attacks, i.e. to either provide evidence, based on a reasonable reading of WP:BLP or any other policy that does not conveniently ignore the first sentence of WP:BLPTALK, or to simply shut up. Hans Adler 15:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• • I pretty much agree with Dave souza here. This is also pretty lame. Does Rklawton even know what the term "due process" actually means? Does he really think what people say to each other on some stupid web site affects anyone's legal right to it, when the person under discussion is the subject of wall-to-wall news coverage all over the world? WP:BLP exists for good reasons and Hans got a bit worked up last night in response to provacation and has said as much. Hans should cool it with the word "criminal" by now, but I think Rklawton is a bit confused about why we do this stuff. 67.117.144.140 (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

As I'm counting it, I've seen at least five experienced editors/admins who all agree that Hans edits needed to be removed and just one less experienced editor supporting him. In my view, this is overwhelming evidence that Hans made a mistake. As noted above, Hans has changed his behavior, so this may well be a non-issue now. Rklawton (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

@ Rklawton, your count appears to be simplistic and inaccurate. I'll agree that this appears to be a non-issue now, please drop the stick and back off. . . dave souza, talk 23:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans' Incivility

Since this is related to Hans' edits and the resulting discussion above, I would like to invite comment on Hans' incivility toward me on his talk page. I became involved in this matter as an uninvolved admin who reviewed the discussion, the edits in question, and the policy and subsequently warned Hans regarding his editing and the potential consequences. Following this initial warning, I have received a stead stream of insults from Hans - who (in spite of his change of behavior) - seems to believe that the above thread supports his edits when this is in fact is not the case. It is my hope that a review of his talk page (here) might elicit comments promoting further changes in his behavior. I would take this up in the usual place, but as these two issues are intertwined, and the editors to this thread are familiar with the subject, you all might make short work of it. Rklawton (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

@ Rklawton, you've persisted in a rigid and narrow definition of what you claim is unacceptable description, to the detriment of article improvement and reasonable discussion. You've also noted that Hans has moderated his behaviour, but you seem to want to keep bullying him into submission. Please back off and act in a more collegiate way. . . dave souza, talk 23:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Imitation username?

William M. Conway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks like an obvious dig at William M. Connolley (talk · contribs), especially when you consider the edit history. It is almost certainly a sockpuppet account although checkuser has been inconclusive. What do others think? Prioryman (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Could just be coincidence - Conway isn't an uncommon name, after all. But shouldn't this be at WP:UAA Just noticed the Scibaby connection. Keep watching? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Look again at the edit history - the editor is editing an article that the real WMC is also editing. That looks deliberate, not coincidental. Prioryman (talk) 08:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I hear quacking. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If he really wants to confuse us, turning his link blue might be advisable. Paul B (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Usernameblocked. -- zzuuzz 11:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

User:William M. Conway has now created William M. Conway (Not Famous) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) while under a block for the first account. I have blocked the latter for block evasion (and the new username does not address the issues with the first username). Zzuuzz, you may want to further elaborate on the block. --Dirk Beetstra 16:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The person in question has not made yet another account User:Conway, William M.. That should be blocked as well.--70.24.209.180 (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

zzuuzz (talk · contribs) has done so. Prioryman (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked user created a new account

Conway,_William_M. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

is quite clearly blocked user

William M. Conway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

See discussion above at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Imitation_username.3F VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

My original account was blocked because my name resembles the name of another user. The original blocking administrator told me I could create another account. My second attempt was similarly deemed to be too close to the other user as well. A second time the original blocking administrator told me I could create another account as long as it was completely different. I don't believe that this current account name can be at all confused with that of the other user in question. I have reversed my the order of my surname with my given name which should be visually distinct from the other user. Our surnames are not even the same so I don't believe that there can be any confusion at this point. --Conway, William M. (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Time to stop feeding the trolls. Just block, no further discussion necessary. Tarc (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems uncalled for. I am allowed to edit using my name just as the other user is. The issue seems to be the similarity in appearance of our names when written normally. So by reversing my surname and my given name the account names are now quite visually distinct. I am not claiming to be this other person. Hopefully that is clear. --Conway, William M. (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the general sentiment here is that the above is a falsehood, and this account was created to parody/mimic William M. Connolley. Tarc (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how my name parodies or mimicks or disparages this other user. What would be the point? I am just trying to find a reasonable way to edit using my name while addressing the concerns over possible confusion between the two of us. Do you really believe that people can't tell the difference between Conway and Connolley? --Conway, William M. (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

We have this thing called the duck test. Given your username and the article you appeared on, the duck test indicated you were intentionally mimicing User:William M. Connolley, who regulary edits that page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if that were true the mimicking account has now been blocked. Do you feel that this one is still attempting to mimick the other user somehow? The names are quite distinct at this point. --Conway, William M. (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if it was your real name, the circumstances are such that you can't use it, in any form at all. Full stop.--Shirt58 (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have asked the other user if they object to this current rendition of my name. If they object I have agreed to pick something totally unrelated to my name. If they don't object then I don't see why anyone else should. Let's see what they have to say. --Conway, William M. (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The user has been using these three accounts to edit-war against the 1RR restriction, here and here. Only edits are on a page like this at this particular time with this particular name? Looks very much like a duck to me, too.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

With all of the turmoil over my account I forgot about the 1rr restriction. I would self-revert but my change has already been undone. I apologize and agree to be more diligent in the future. --Conway, William M. (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a new user (I forgot about the 1rr restriction. I would self-revert but). This is a sock, like the others, and now its a troll as well William M. Connolley (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's clearly someone who has edited before and most likely is currently blocked under another username. It's not Scibaby's style but there are plenty of other possible candidates (Marknutley, GoRight etc). Prioryman (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to concur with all the blocks here. We have an account starting with "William M. Con" who all of a sudden starts editing on climate change articles. I find it nigh to impossible to AGF that this is a coincidence. –MuZemike 23:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong Block review

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

I've just blocked MangoWong for 48 hours, for his latest in what I see as a long term campaign of thinly-veiled personal attacks and harrassment against another editor, User:Sitush. Sitush is one of a very small number of editors who have been working hard to improve our coverage of Indian topics, especially caste-related ones - they were originally horribly POV affairs, containing little more than the glorification of various castes, and now they are much better with neutral wording, reliable sources, etc.

In the course of this, Sitush and other content editors have been on the receiving end of quite a bit of abuse from various caste champions, pro-Indian nationalists, etc, a good few of whom have since been indef blocked. MangoWong has managed to get along by keeping his head just under the radar, thinly veiling his attacks, and being careful to avoid any individual attack that's been sufficiently egregious to warrant a block. But I think his low level of insults and insinuations has gone too far and constitutes harassment. Here are some examples...

• This is the final interaction that led to his block, in which he said "On caste articles, as soon as someone shows any objection to your edits, they are automatically "canvassed from orkut", "caste warriors", 'more than a caste warrior", "do not know English", "do not know policy", are dogs, stupid, tendentitious, sockpuppets, meatpuppets, unbalanced, has COI etc. etc. etc. and what not". Firstly, bringing up disagreements on caste articles is nothing to do with the article being discussed, and appears to be an attempt to personally discredit Sitush. The accusation that Sitush called people "dogs" and "stupid" is particularly despicable, as he has done no such thing. And the rest is a misrepresentation of actual events - there really have been lots of socks, etc, and it's all supported by evidence (eg SPI reports). I warned him only about the "dogs" and "stupid" slur, to which he responded "You may say that Sitush did not use the word "dog", but then, I may say that he made that insinuation through some other phrase" (), which again is blatantly untrue. Anyway, please do see whole discussion - I've included these extracts here as the article is at AfD and may soon only be visible to admins.
• Unfounded accusation of "OR lies", "lynching" -
• Unfounded accusations of "bullshit quality sources, OR, misrepresentations, synthesis, misinterpretations etc. for S***** fixation and other defamatory material. ... endless amount of ABF, incivilities, accusationmongering, argumentativeness" -
• Unfounded accusations of "OR lies &/ synthesis &/ misrepresentations &/ unreliable sources &/ amateur sources &/ cherry picked sources &/ passing comment sources &/ off topic sources &/ misinterpreted sources &/ lead fixation &/ S***** fixation &/ defamatory material &/ undue material &/ sources with mysterious credentials", not specifically targeted, but it's clear who it's aimed at ("S*****" is "Shudra") -
• Unfounded accusation of "massive obsession with inserting defamatory material about Indian castes" -
• Unfounded accusation, "It is uncivil of you to keep asking people to leave WP. You don't own WP. Do you?", where Sitush has never asked anyone to leave WP as far as I know -
• Unfounded accusations, "It is well known that you three (Sitush, MatthewVanitas and yourself) have been exercising an overbearing influence on the entire topic of Indian caste articles. You three have been acting in tandem on all these articles and have acted in tandem to obtain blocks and bans on hordes and hordes of eds who have tried to edit these articles" -
• Throwing in "narrow minded colonial racist britishers" -
• Further unfounded accusations, including that Sitush and others "operate on the principle -- "Any Tom/Dick/Harry writes a book, says something defamatory/palikuluing about an Indian caste, becomes an RS." -
• Accusations of conspiracy -
• Accusations of "trying to get blocks and bans etc. and doing various forms of armtwisting on anyone who has disputes on you" -

The examples above are only going back a relatively short time, but it's been going on for a fair bit longer and there are plenty more similar examples.

On a number of occasions, he's been asked to take his accusations to ANI or can them - to put up or shut up. But he won't (eg ), presumably because he knows he won't succeed. In fact, you can see his opinion of ANI here - "The ANI is a completely useless place. It is stuffed with limeys who have written British-Indian history articles from a whitewased British POV and are committed to keeping it that way".

As it says at Misplaced Pages:Harassment, "Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. It seems clear to me that that is exactly what has been happening, and it has to be stopped.

So, I'd like to ask for opinions on my 48 hour block, and on whether any further action might be necessary at this stage (I shall now go and post notices on the Talk pages of people mentioned here). Thanks in advance. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Been a long time coming. An expert in poisoning the well to the extent that a WP:POISON could pretty much be written based solely on his actions. The only real surprise is that he was afforded quite so much good faith. Given the extreme unlikelihood that a two-week holiday will have the expected correctional impact I'd up it to indef. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly justified. The links above and a look at MangoWong's contribs give one side of the story. When MangoWong was asked to illustrate Sitush's crimes, he came up with this which I do not see as remotely equivalent - nor even problematic in any way. Kim Dent-Brown 14:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Good block considering the circumstances; though I very much doubt 48 hours will do anything to change MangoWong's behaviour to any degree that could be considered acceptable. --Jezebel'sPonyo 16:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. Boing, your lengthy explanation is appreciated, and I wonder if it'll show up in an RfC/U at some point. Also, what Chris said. And Kim. And Jezebel. Now let me look at my archive to see what vile actions have been taking place there. I will tell you one thing: I don't know how Sitush deals with all that chain-janking and still improves those horrible articles. I vote that we pay for him to get a JSTOR account, and that will save me some time as well, haha. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I think we could see an RfC/U coming from this before too long - though with the endorsement I've had here so far I don't think I'd hesitate to quickly escalate blocks myself now, should this behaviour continue. And yes, Sitush has shown amazing patience and dedication - I'd certainly support a JSTOR account too (I do miss the one I used to have access to when I was an OU student) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Trivia corner: JSTOR was not available when I was a student, but I did have access to a magnificent erection". - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, is that what she said or are you still talking about that toe of yours? Drmies (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Good block indeed. Too many a poisoning-the-well experts are let to do their "handiwork" when they stop just a hair short of obvious personal attacks. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have been somewhat puzzled since MangoWong made the "dog" statement but I think that I have now found the connection. For the sake of clarity, given how bizarre it seems, within this series of ANI messages there are three which appear perhaps to be relevant.

...a failed SPI which caused pain to about half a dozen individuals. The initial comment in this section was an irrational threat. Unless someone can show that it is presently reasonable to block much/most of India.-MangoWong ℳ 05:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, diddums. I apologised. Some of those named were subsequently blocked for various reasons. Look, just drop this bone: there is no way that range is going to be blocked. Common sense should tell you that. - Sitush (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That you apologized does not mean that it is sufficient to take away the pain you caused half a dozen people. That most of the others were subsequently blocked for various reasons only shows that you are expert in obtaining blocks on your opponents. just drop this bone That you think I am a dog only shows your severe problems with WP:CIVIL. there is no way that range is going to be blocked. Common sense should tell you that. Whether or not the range is going to be blocked or not, I do look at the initial comment in this thread as a seriously intended threat.-MangoWong ℳ 05:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The subject was wrt someone suggesting blocking the 117.195.x.x range (!), then someone brought up what was at that point the only SPI I had filed that had proven to be "no match" & which involved MW. It is all a little distasteful, sorry, but I know that many at the time recognised the amount of flak being fired in my direction & that of a couple of others who were trying to straighten out some caste articles. I may be a "good guy" but I do not have the patience of a saint & will grrrr eventually. BTW, the ANI report in question led to the topic ban of User:Thisthat2011. I haven't been able to find the evidence yet but I am sure that the bone/stick phrase had been explained previously, & TT2011 both had used it and used it subsequent to my message. MW had been supporting, and then defending, TT2011 vigorously. - Sitush (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Around that time we were getting socks almost daily, and MangoWong was supporting just about every one of them and was being abusive to the people trying to clean things up - I think this particular SPI was justified, even if it proved a negative. But at least we probably now know where he got the "dog" thing from - from his own misunderstanding of English idiom -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but this is partly why I have raised the issue. I might be committing wiki-suicide here but I do have a sometimes ridiculously honed sense of what is morally right/wrong. The entire systemic bias issue does, of course, include idiomatic phrasing & allowances have to be made for this. In my case, I ask when I do not understand/need clarification - examples of which MW has disparagingly referred to in the past being "straw man argument" and "Krishnaji" - but others may just jump in. If you look at it from this POV then MangoWong's comment makes a little more sense. At the extreme was a misunderstanding that appeared to cause them to connect "Bedside manner" to an accusation of User:Fowler&fowler somehow suggesting a pornographic connect - long story.

The problem is that the semantic obfuscation/wriggling that MW frequently exercises (as appears in part to be hinted at, for example, in the thread here) makes it clear, to me at least, that s/he does in fact have a reasonable command of the English language/idioms etc. MW can wikilawyer for . Also, MW was supporting TT2011 throughout this entire episode and therefore will have seen explanations of the term & that T2011 used it. I was just being open in declaring this situation. I do not know for sure that it is even the "accusation" to which MW was referring. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sitush and Fowler and Fowler contributions go much beyond cleaning out articles , they are audacious onslaughts on previous content and content provided by other editors . Their presumption to higher erudition is misplaced , and arrogant as I have noted in my attempts to discuss his/her deletions of cited content in particular. In fact its sad( but exceedingly dexterous !) how it can be missed , to see how successfully Sitush along with Fowler and Fowler and several others can work in conjunction to turn an article on its head , concurrently and minutely examining content to retain and delete as per his/her frame of things , from an article and also horrendously miss glaring facts needing the same inspection . It would be completely inappropriate to see MangoWango blocked , but not surprising Intothefire (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ummm...you might want to be careful, as your comment is nearly a personal attack itself. In a certain sense, though, you are correct--Sitush and F&F often do make strong "onslaughts" against previous content. That's because so much of the content in the topic area is unverified, non-neutral, or verified by sources that don't meet WP:RS. Our policies say that we should aggressively change, trim, and re-source such articles. MW can be good at this activity--he has done good work before--but he has gotten into a pattern, primarily with Sitush, of attacking rather than discussing, and of making strong claims of inaccuracy and poor sourcing but without showing a willingness (in some cases) of actually demonstrating those claims. It's especially disconcerting when MW says that a given source is terrible, that it shouldn't be in an article, but then refuses to go to WP:RSN to actually discuss the issue and get outside involvement. Couple that with the personal attacks, and we're where we are today. If you want to contribute constructively in the field, you'd be much better off not following MW's example. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• I dont see the right to unilateral removal of properly cited content or removal without discussion as policy endorsed by Misplaced Pages , and I dont see Sitush or Fowler and Fowler having a special privilege to arbitrate validity of good or bad cited content without cogent reasons or discussion. See Deletion of cited content and citations from articles by Sitush
• I also dont see justification for deliberately false reasoning provided for changes on articles.See Discussion on Talk Jat page with Fowler and Fowler.Qwyrxian your Admin interventions on articles and talk pages in my interactions with you where Sitush and Fowler and Fowler have been aggressively engaged could have been more constructive albeit if they were more balanced and thorough .Sorry the ban on Mangowong instead of the restraining on Sitush , Fowler and Fowler and Mathew Varitas is a classic example of bad judgment Intothefire (talk) 09:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh...I won't draw this out unnecessarily, but all editors all have the "right to unilateral removal" of material that is improperly cited, that is uncited, or that is cited to unreliable sources. See WP:V. Of course, if others disagree, they shouldn't edit war...but once an issue has been discussed, and the other party refuses to attend to any form of dispute resolution, removal is the correct choice. And just to clarify, I did not block MangoWong, nor would I ever do so outside of a clear emergency (and then I'd seek review afterward). Nothing, though, prevents me from commenting on the actions of other admins. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian , your response is general , whereas I have provided a specific link to Deletion of cited content and citations from articles by Sitush as well as Discussion on Talk Jat page with Fowler and Fowler , if you are defending Sitush and Fowler and Fowler , then please respond in specific reference to diffs provided and content thereon , Mangowong is hung on specific charges of bothering Sitush , so its only fair that specific instances of Sitush and Fowler and Fowler edits are put up to the same level of specific editorial inspection otherwise we have a witch hunt here. I may know little on the subject , but I know enough to see how these two along with and several others have really bothered various editors and I am willing to provide many more specific instances .Although I have myself been the recepient of a warning from Mangowong , I see the ban on him here is absurd and shallow , with justice really miscarried whereas the hammer should should have clearly fallen elsewhere. Intothefire (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Intothefire, MangoWong has not been banned but rather has been blocked for 48 hours. He had previously had a 24 hour block in July, and the nature of blocks is that they tend to become longer if the contributor continues to make similar infractions of policy etc. I think that if you want to raise issues regarding my conduct or that of Fowler&fowler then probably you should start another thread. NB: Fowler&fowler is not contributing at the moment due to real life issues & so discussion of his actions may be tricky. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Lol ,Earlier when I was having a discussion with you Qwyrxian said you were going to be absent , now you say Fowler and Fowler is going to be absent so discussing his edits is tricky, .I find this musical chairs syndrome tricky . No this block is completely misdirected but emblematic . Intothefire (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. - Sitush (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• I appreciate the support here folks, thanks. I was a little wary due to the sensitivity of some India-related articles, so my block was quite lenient and I possibly went further than necessary with the amount of evidence. But I feel confident now to impose escalating blocks should the same behaviour continue. And if anyone has any dispute with any future admin actions I might take in this area, I am always open to discussion and will be happy to respond to any civil approaches - and will fully cooperate with any discussions here on this board, or in any other relevant forums. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Weird defamation campaign

• threads on various admin talkpages
  • User talk:Qwyrxian - Enquiry ref: a blocked user unsupported accusations of WP:TROLLING, WP:HARASSMENT, and WP:STALKING; "..User:DIREKTOR who has a habit of trolling, accusing and harassing editors. He did it to me and I very nearly got disciplined just for defending myself. I walked away, but Daneto is being stalked by DIREKTOR. If this has anything to do with his block, I can understand why Daneto has posted to users who have also been victimised by DIREKTOR."
  • User talk:DVdm - Nikola Tesla troubles unsupported accusations of WP:HARASSMENT; "troublemaker", "crazy person"
  • User talk:DVdm - Nikola Tesla issue "I'm not going to allow the likes of user DIREKTOR to get me in trouble! There's a history there, I'm sure you know it. He's at it again,"
  • User talk:Alpha Quadrant - User:DIREKTOR "I wish you to know I am grateful for your intervention and for not involving me by notifying me. Luckily I watch DIREKTOR every once in a while - without communicating at all - to see what he's doing. AQ, he's done this to other users!"
  • User talk:Master of Puppets - Admin's notice board, complaint unsupported accusation of WP:STALKING; "user DIREKTOR has been awfully quiet of late, and seemingly very nice. It made me nervous", "DIREKTOR is getting out of hand", "can you please help with this? DIREKTOR ought to be blocked for this", "can this indicate DIREKTOR is stalking me? If so, DIREKTOR may be stalking others. What a hassle!", etc.
  • User talk:Binksternet - Nikola Tesla help "DIREKTOR - causing problems"
  • User talk:McGeddon - Nikola Tesla "Why do you defend the actions of this troublemaking editor?" "DIREKTOR is well known for starting fights and then threatening to report people."
• threads on User talk:Djathinkimacowboy
  (difficult to bring forth since the user keeps deleting talkpage threads)
  • The User:DIREKTOR Factor a thread not intended for communication, but dedicated to attacking my statements in various ways.
  • Sakharov, Andrei, Russian physicist, and I do not think there is such a user here, is there? a thread not intended for communication, but used to imply I am a Stalinist Communist. "Hopefully you all comprehend what I am trying to say to you."
• other
  • "I am tired of the virtually unchecked depredations of User:DIREKTOR. Let us hope Daneto can have a future here...but it's doubtful. He's been too hurt and I see this as becoming a blood feud if unchecked any longer."
  • User talk:Timbouctou - "Have you seen User:DIREKTOR trying to imply that you are my sock?! Better watch him, T!"
  • removed a barnstar I awarded with "garbage removal day!"
  • "All you like to do is hang about and cause trouble when others make mistakes. I made a mistake, I corrected it, I am sorry about it and that is all so much more than YOU will ever do!"
  • deleting my talkpage comment
• talkpage harassment
  • "you are simply out of control. I sincerely hope you are blocked" "And now I am calling for you to be disciplined for your trolling, insulting and trouble-making"
  • warning me by template to stop WP:EDIT-WARRING - when I had not even edited an article, much less reverted something(!)
  • "May I suggest you meditate on your rudeness"

Believe it or not, I could go on and on, but I have work to do. This harassment and slander by User:Djathinkimacowboy has been going on for several weeks now, almost since User:Djathinkimacowboy joined Misplaced Pages on November 3. People I never even met are being canvassed and pestered by this user in an attempt to convince them I am some sort of "harassing", "stalking" "troll". Its amazing, you may not believe me, and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong - but I've done nothing this person has kept accusing me of. I've neither WP:STALKED nor WP:HARASSED anyone, I've not WP:EDIT-WARRED, and I've done nothing that could even remotely be characterized as WP:TROLLING. We've had NO content disputes whatsoever. In fact, I've noticed User:Djathinkimacowboy's behavior for the first time when I requested that some other user apologize on Talk:Nikola Tesla - he posted a thread on User talk:DVdm with

A user that (at that time) joined a week ago "understands I am a troublemaker", and proceeds to call me names - without even having talked to me. That seems to me very suspicious and strange.
Personally I think this warrants sanctions, but I really don't care if he gets blocked or not - I just want to stop opening my watchlist and seeing he's pestering another user with his hostile, insulting, and slanderous nonsense of the above sort. --DIREKTOR 14:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This is something I am really beginning to resent. I claim my right to respond here:

1. This is getting out of hand - hence the reasons for my occasional warning posts.

2. This user is not being entirely straightforward.

3. I suggest to you that the above post tells you all you need to know about what this user does most of the time on Misplaced Pages.

4. I have left this user completely alone as I was advised to do. Does this user leave me or others alone?

5. I quote from the above: "I just want to stop opening my watchlist to see he's pestering another user with his hostile, insulting, and slanderous nonsense of the above sort." He opens his watchlist and sees what I am posting to other users?

And no one thinks that is alarming? Djathinkimacowboy 15:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No, because if you think of how a watchlist works, you keep posting on the pages of people he has watchlisted for some other reason, probably because they edit in the same area and have previously exchanged messages. Why would that be alarming? Can I recommend you stop posting onwiki comments about DIREKTOR on other people's talkpages, they are about the contributor, not the content, and risk stepping over into personal attacks, and a couple of them look like running the risk of crossing into canvassing. If you want to discuss content - do it on article talkpages. If you have something to say about DIREKTOR, say it to him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Elen, your point is well taken. I appreciate your remarks and defer to you. Please see my further posting below on this date. Djathinkimacowboy 02:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not convinced (as yet) that the user understands what's wrong with the above, and that he is about to stop any time soon. --DIREKTOR 16:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

These two users each seem to bring out the worst in the other. Neither can bear to see a talk page post by their nemesis without responding in a sarcastic, combative or dismissive way. Each would find their life on WP much better if the other would leave them alone, but each is waiting for the other to be the first to back away. This is not to defend the sad litany of poor judgement on the part of Djathinkimacowboy which DIREKTOR lists above. Virtually all of those are indefensible (apart from Djathinkimacowboy removing a barnstar placed on their talk page by Direktor in what I can only see as a sarcastic manner). Options? Some kind of interaction ban between the two, perhaps? Kim Dent-Brown 16:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Something preventing either of them from posting on other people's talkpages about these editors, putting their oar into discussions that other people are having etc etc. If either of them has a problem with the other, they can start an RfC/U and accept the consequences. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

@Kim Dent-Brown. For the record Kim, I don't write these threads on people's talkpages. I just sometimes notice them (since a lot of those people were automatically included on my watchlist) and respond to (some of) them. Its sort of like, "Djathinkimacowboy on Binksternet's talk? Not again...". I think its only natural to get peeved after reading some of the stuff above, and to try and prevent Djathinkimacowboy from convincing yet another user that I am, in fact, some sort of a troll account.

@Elen of the Roads. Exactly. Why in the world is this guy going around posting these sort of personal attack threads? If he has a problem with something - let him report me, or post an RfC, or whatever, and if he has some sort of content issue - lets have it on an article talkpage. Its weird its what it is. I'm not trying to get him blocked - he's new here, but will someone explain to him this isn't the way to go? All I'm trying to do is save myself the frustration at having to constantly see this guy's hostile slander and nonsense accusations all over Wiki.

Quite frankly, judging from the suspicious post I quoted in parentheses above - I think either he isn't a new user (which seems unlikely), or someone "recruited" him against me. You do not join Misplaced Pages with pre-conceived notions about people you never even met. --DIREKTOR 20:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Listen folks, you do what you think is best. If you believe I have not tried to do the correct thing in this matter, you are mistaken; so be it. I can only repeat that I am tired of being hounded and followed by User:DIREKTOR. I have nothing against the user, do not know the user in any way except from here, and have no designs against the user. Is that understood? Djathinkimacowboy 01:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

To both of the principals here. Each of you has what I can only describe as a morbid fascination with the other. You each say you have nothing against the other, if only they would leave you alone. Neither of you initiates anything against the other, you only react when the other does something aggressive towards you. The truth is you are each on a hair trigger as far as the other is concerned. I suspect you both check your watchlists often and are highly sensitised to seeing the others' name there; you can't help yourself but check the diff and almost always find something in the other's contribution to take offence at. "Leave each other alone" doesn't mean "Stop iniating baseless attacks against the other person". Neither of you would accept that you are doing this in the first place! It means "ignore the others posts, take their talk page off your watchlist, move away from articles you know they edit, stop checking their contribs to see what thay have been up to." If you stop following one another's activities and actively try to avoid one another, I guarantee things will improve! Kim Dent-Brown 15:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Wise words. As far as I'm concerned this matter is well closed and henceforth, forgotten. Djathinkimacowboy 23:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Kim, its easy to equate people, but I am not the one that has to "back off". I really am only responding to Dj's posts. All he has to do is stop berating me with other users and the weird, nonsense conflict disappears. But should he not do so, I can't very well be expected not to respond to someone calling me a "troll" and posting various insults all over Misplaced Pages talkpages. Its up to him entirely. For now I am indeed convinced I've seen the last of that sort of behavior, but I must ask: what happens if I'm wrong? --DIREKTOR 23:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, DIREKTOR, from what I can see in this dispute, and which Kim seems to already be saying, is that this is a "snake eating its own tail" level of recursive retribution here. I know that, from your perspective, you are only responding to DJ's instigation. However, from DJ's perspective, they are only responding to your instigation. There's ultimately no point, at this point, in digging through this to see who fired the first volley. At this point, the most constructive way forward is for both of you to simply ignore the other. Don't wait for them to ignore you first. Be the better person and beat them to it. The first person to not be bothered and not respond and completely ignore the other one is the winner (noticing that the other person isn't ignoring you makes you lose, so don't say anything if, in fact, they are not ignoring you). Now, who's going to be the first to win here? --Jayron32 05:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Mughal Lohar

I'm reviving this thread concerning the behaviour of Mughal Lohar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I've been attempting to engage him in conversation about his unexplained image changes and removal of sourced content , and my efforts have been met with allegations of racism , . I see from this user's talkpage that they have a history of non-communication, copyright violations and sockpuppetry, among other problems. It would help if some users here could keep an eye on him. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to be calling you racist - he's suggesting that the image in question is a "racist depiction", as far as I can tell -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Zebedee ... nobody is being called a racist, however, the WP:OWN, WP:PUFFERY, non-WP:NPOV and slow-WP:EW has led to a brief block ... apparently his second this month alone. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, good call -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you may be right. I didn't want call him out for personal attacks because I wasn't quite certain of his intent. I figured other sets of eyes would see it, if it was there. Thanks for taking a look. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for further block or ban

I am taking a short break from my Wikibreak to comment here and to ask for further action. There have been problems with this editor for some time, from copyright violation to failure to communicate to his even when told not using proper references (no details of books, just links, sometimes to snippets). He's been asked to use edit summaries a number of times, for instance, and still doesn't. I suspect he is still inserting copyvio but this is not always easy to check. Please also take a look at my talk page - it's complaints there that have brought me out of my break to ask for more action. Certainly if he doesn't respond here and satisfy editors that he is going to change his ways I'd go for an indef ban until he does. I'd be happy to have his block lifted so that he can discuss here if he agrees not to do any article editing fur at least the duration the block was supposed to last. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I've got suspicions about some of the phrasing in his Siege of Bijapur article (i.e., that it's copyvio), but he seems to be tweaking things just enough that it can be difficult to trace. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, I was concerned that bare URLs were being used in, for example, Muhammad Shah which pointed to google search snippet view for a rather generic search term; and I am not convinced that the snippets support what he actually says in the articles. Nor is it easy to see to which particular statements an end of paragraph reference refer. Two articles recently created also either point to a generic google books snippet view, or simply to the entry for a whole book, without giving page numbers. Thanks again and sorry to disturb your break, eric. Esowteric+Talk 15:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

And despite being asked to follow our guidelines for copying from other Misplaced Pages articles, he continues to copy and paste without attribution (and he uses other articles as sources). Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Snippet view example: In Aurangzeb, this edit diff introduces a Google Books snippet view for the very broad search phrase "aurangzeb" in the book. There are 91 results and no page number is given.

This is used to support the sentence: "Shah Jahan fell ill in 1657, Aurangzeb's elder sister Raushanara Begum appropriated his seal to ensure that he would not involve himself in any possible war of succession."

I could not find anything like this in the snippets. A narrower search for the word "seal" does not appear to yield something that will support the above sentence (unless say, the word seal occurs again, further down the same page).

Page 50 and page 153 come the closest:

p50: "Her younger sister Raushanara fell out of favour with their brother Aurangzeb because whilst he was ill she took over the Great Seal and signed decrees in his name."

p153: "During the crisis sparked by Shah Jahan's illness, Raushanara apparently appropriated Aurangzeb's seal to ensure that his seal was on all decrees, to establish him as his father's legitimate successor."

What Mughal Lohar writes could well be correct, but it is not at all easy to verify. It could be that he's initially searched for (say) "aurangzeb", then carried out a different search, but not adjusted the reference's URL accordingly? Or I could be getting this wrong. Regards, eric. Esowteric+Talk 11:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(od) I suspect there is some block evasion going on as well .--regentspark (comment) 13:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks on the lamest thing

Hi, the User:The Last Angry Man has been making uncivil comments and personal attacks both on my talk page and the article talk page Talk:Taliban#Archiving. He tried to further malign it by reporting me on WP:AN3 which came as against him, and I think action should be taken against the user for both making the personal attacks as well as per WP:BOOMERANG. Refer to the report for background. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said when I closed the AN3, discuss it nicely at WP:WQA - I don't see anything serious enough for blocks at the moment - indeed, TLAM did fail to look at WP:BOOMERANG, but I'm not blocking anyone for either the EW or the lame NPA, unless they continue. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

At minimum, the user should get a fair warning from someone other than me, since you can assume what his remarks would be against me doing that. I hope he doesn't continue (he has been aggressive in the rfc on the same article). --lTopGunl (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You're suggesting that he hasn't :-) Of course, it's all well-and-good to warn a "retired" editor. Easiest thing: he's an angry man, the last one (apparently). Don't poke him, but let us know if it continues past this point. I will (unfortunately) block if he returns to even a slow edit-war, or increases the personal attacks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

He actually put that "Retired" message there on Nov 4, but he appears to be anything but retired -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that there is normally some correlation between use of the {{retired}} template and a decline in editing activty. Not in my experience. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

... hence the word "retired" is in quotes :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I use to think that the "retired" and "semi-retired" tags meant that the user will only do occasional "non-controversial" copyedit/minor-edit work and stay away from drama venues but now I know that just the opposite is true. Now it seems that the primary purpose of those templates is either to make a statement about how mean other editors are to them (a "diva retirement") or to discourage editors from posting to their talk pages. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Got your point.

Another small issue, I removed the uncivil comments along with my own as per WP:COMMONSENSE & WP:IGNOREALLRULES (and also probably per WP:NPA) since they were useless in anycase and no other editor except me had commented there. He has reinstated and then posted me a warning template . Escalating? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

In my original e-mail to him, I reminded him that he knows better than to edit-war on people's usertalk pages, and that archiving being set for 5 days is not appropriate. Although it's not on his talkpage, I consider him to be duly notified/warned. Nothing more to do or see unless it continues. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Right. Request a neutral editor should remove this section: Talk:Taliban#Archiving. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to remove anything - that section is closed now, the 3RR report against TopGun failed, and the archiving is set to 14 days. I don't think there's any admin action needed at this point, and it's best if people just take a breather now and give things time to cool down -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that got closed after my last comment. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Back again

• Back with an editwar on another page. I was reverted on an article which followed 2 days of discussion on talk, and the editors asking me to provide some sources, which I did, now that being parallel to this incident TLAM comes in (probably hounding from my contributions list?) and starts to revert repeatedly calling all the sources, even when one source is a well known mainstream media source operating since 1941, unreliable. I've pointed out WP:NEWSORG policy to him, but he is not hearing at all. . --lTopGunl (talk) 09:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

User repeatedly inserting questionable Commons uploads

Ras.sel's only edits so far have been to insert images that he uploaded to Commons into Chechnya-related articles. However, I have since found that he simply swiped them from the Internet and passed them off as his own work. I reported him to AIV yesterday, but no action was taken because he seemed to have stopped. Well, he's at it again today. He created an article, Galanchozh Lake, that contained an image I flagged as a copyvio, and also tried to restore a couple of images to Chechnya that have also been flagged as copyvios. Could someone be so kind as to send him to the penalty box? Thanks. HangingCurve 14:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone from Commons will have to deal with those images ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Already alerted the Commons admins at the noticeboard there--but since he's showing obvious disregard for copyright, I don't think we need to keep him editing here. HangingCurve 15:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If we found someone that was repeatedly adding images here that were obvious Flickrwashing, we'd block them for complicity in copyright infringement. The same should be true here. Nyttend (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, he's been warned for license laundering by a Commons admin. HangingCurve 15:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

He's formally doing nothing wrong on en.Misplaced Pages ... he is doing wrong on Commons. Block him there, undo his links to the copyrighted images. Kinda reminds me of how U-Haul registers all their trucks in Arizona because they believe they're more lax :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree--by inserting them into Misplaced Pages articles, he's violating WP:COPY (by passing off copyrighted material as his own) and WP:NFCC (since all of his uploads are easily replaceable by free images). So there are cross-wiki issues here that, to my mind, are a blockable offense on Misplaced Pages. HangingCurve 15:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't mistake my meaning: just as if someone continually linked to youtube videos we would block, we could do the same here. My point is remove the videos, the incentive to link to them disappears, and it's dealt with "quasi-internally" :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I get your thinking but this is an excessively bureaucratic approach. If one editor uploaded the copyvios at commons and another editor (knowingly) put them in the articles after warnings, we'd block them. Since it's the same person, it's only worse. causa sui (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

And now it turns out that the article he created, Galanchozh Lake, has been flagged as a cut-and-paste copyvio of . So now he's crossed the line into creating copyvios on Misplaced Pages as well. HangingCurve 18:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Since he has also created a copyvio on Misplaced Pages, I have blocked him from editing. I do agree with HangingCurve and causa sui here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Now blocked on Commons as well by me. Users who deceive others to circumvent policy especially offend me. Dcoetzee 06:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOVN

Is there an administrator available today? This concerns the Ugg boots article. Previous use of sockpuppets by one editor, Illume1999, who has been indefinitely blocked for six months, is being used as an excuse to delegitimize anyone who adopts similar positions concerning article content. WLRoss is aggressively using SPA tags as part of a tireless campaign to win a content dispute. Specifically, I feel that his use of an SPA tag on a reference to the IP account 63.171.91.193 is inappropriate. I used this IP address and several others for about 18 months before starting my named account. Please review the contribution history and determine whether the SPA tag is appropriate. Liangshan Yi (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you please link to some diffs of what you feel to be the problematic behavior? And specify if this is happening on the talk page of the article, on users' talk pages, in multiple places, or what? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This is WLRoss replacing the tag (and one other whose existence may be defensible) after I removed them. I had been instructed by another editor, Bilby, that placing similar tags identifying a possible cultural bias was inappropriate. I think the indiscriminate use of such tags is inappropriate, but I do believe cultural bias affects this dispute. Liangshan Yi (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that SPA tags are only used by proponents of one side in an argument to undermine those arguing on the opposite side. In this case, the two SPA tags seem to be defensible (they are certainly not indiscriminate). I accept that your present account and your previous IP incarnation has edited other atricles. But the majority of your editing has been on this topic. The other editor tagged has only made two edits, bot in this topic area. It's not a particularly strong argument against you - and as you say, you have been cleared of any sockpuppetry. You'll just have to take it on the chin and let the strength of your arguments win the day. Any reviewing admin is going to look at those, not your contributions history, to determine whether you are talking sens. I see no cultural bias inherent in placing the tags. Kim Dent-Brown 16:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify a point above: the tags that I reverted as inappropriate were these, where Liangshan Yi tagged all comments by Australian editors with "This editor is from Australia and may be influenced by cultural bias." I felt it was inappropriate to tag editors based on nationality. Personally, I also don't like SPA tags, and don't see any real role for them outside of AfDs, but they are an established convention and therefore not inappropriate in the same way. - Bilby (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This particular incident followed Liangshan Yi stating that accusations of SPAs and sockpuppets working on the article were false. I feel that as the noticeboard is getting input from uninvolved editors, acknowledgement of SPA input is important considering the substantial history of sock, likely SPA and meatpuppet involvement with the article. I followed up Liangshan Yi's denial with a post listing them which linked to the sockpuppet investigation which named socks, and possible SPAs and meatpuppets. Liangshan Yi then accused me of lying (3X despite being asked not to) for calling him a sock. I posted a reply that I didn't call him a sock and he then posted denials that he was a SPA several times. As he had at this time not disclosed he was the anon I posted the connection and tagged the anon as a SPA. Liangshan Yi removed the tag, I replaced it and explained what it was for. Liangshan Yi then tagged every Australian editor on the page with a tag he made up himself. Bilby rightly reverted Liangshan Yi's tags with the comment "inappropriate tagging of editor comments". Liangshan Yi now removed the SPA tags again, misquoting Bilby that "tagging of other editors' comments is highly inappropriate". I replaced the tags and posted on Liangshan Yi's talk page the justification and invited him to ask an admin if the tag was appropriate or not.
I did not tag every suspected SPA, I tagged only the anon, not his Liangshan Yi account and Cowboysforever. Liangshan Yi also deleted the tag from Cowboysforever several times. The tag for Cowboysforever was entirely appropriate as he has made no edits outside the topic and especially so in light of the detailed and lengthy post he made in support of the problematic editors. Wayne (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you not see the very well highlighted instructions at the top of this edit page saying "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion"? Never mind, I am about to do so. Your problem is not so much the sock- and meat-puppetry that has historically been a feature of this debate, it is that you have a serious conflict of interest and should not be participating at all if you can not refrain from backing your family's commercial interests. Your own behaviour in this incident has been far from exemplary; despite being warned here not to, you continue to make personal attacks such as this one . I have previous asked Wayne to ignore the attempts at baiting him by those such as P&W (who has for the last few months been disrupting attempts to hammer out a consensus by using it as a base for his attempts to feud with Wayne), but this should not excuse the behaviour of those doing the baiting. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Generally speaking there is definitely some funny stuff going on at the Ugg boots page for quite some time now, including more than likely some COI, sock and/or meat puppetry in favor of the brand. Just as an example; What a coincidence that 63.171.91.193 who is in favor of user:Phoenix and Winslow views and at some point created an account where they acknowledged and took responsibility for the IP's edits is editing out of the same city a Phoenix and Winslow; And than suddenly another "new" account appeared, Cowboysforever, with same POV and agreement in regards to Phoenix and Winslow.
  One thing is for sure and that is that user:Liangshan Yi and user:User:Cowboysforever are both SPA's, no doubt about that.
  What we need here is one ore more admins looking over those Ugg boots and related pages and sooner or later be able to clean out any socking, meat or sockpuppetry, for the subject getting a much needed rest, can be unprotected and become a feasible stable entry. Brand promotion has no place on WP (we have an article on the brand where brand info belongs) and BTW, the German WP already cleaned up the dirt (yet Phoenix and Winslow still got his promotional way at the Spanish wp and who knows where else as they spread it all around... just like a commercial). Time to have that common sense German wp standard be applied here too.
  So SPA's are complaining here about being called what they are? If anything they just trying to get some attention and distract from the real problem in my opinion. TMCk (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think the real problem here is that intensely partisan editors, some with a cultural bias (AU/NZ) and others with a personal grudge against me from previous encounters, are telling only half the truth. Here's the other half. Yes, apparently at one time both Liangshan Yi and I edited from the Chicago area, but the Checkuser said that sockpuppetry is  Unlikely. There are 12 million people in the metro area, it's spread across parts of four states, and it takes more than five hours to drive from one end to the other. A great deal like the eastern coast of Australia. So does this mean that all editors from the eastern coast of Australia are meatpuppets? With every post, Wayne and other culturally biased AU/NZ editors beat their SPA/sock/meatpuppet drum (which has been clearly defined as derogatory, "The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Misplaced Pages's civility policy. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute"). It is particularly offensive in light of the  Unlikely ruling, but any person who suggests they've done anything wrong is the one they claim to be making personal attacks. So it appears to me that some of these people are deliberately trying to pick a fight. I will not take the bait. Instead, I ask administrators to step in here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, a CU result of 'unlikely' refers to socks and socks only.  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust and cannot confirm or deny meatpuppetry in any way, shape, or form. Not 'taking sides', just making sure that's understood. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Huge breach of just about every rule in the book by new user

Howdy. Article UKIP has been bombaded by edits and reverts all of POV and about 20 times over the 3rr rule by a new user user:Xijky I don't even know where to start it's so bad. I suggest you just take a look for yourselves. May I request an instant freeze on all edits and someone with rollback rights to reverse all edits to back before he started editing. He was warned multiple times that what he was doing was unacceptable. I can't revert them manually as it would take all day. One other user has started manually but he's breaking the rules as well. Thanks in advance. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S none of his new material was discussed on talk page. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I've given him a stern warning not to editwar, noting that he will be blocked if he continues. If he has broken other rules please supply diffs so that I can see what to warn him against doing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to go out now, but I shall assume good faith and not post every example of unsourced POV that he has uploaded and let him learn from your warning. If he breaks the rules in the future I'll let you know. Thanks for your time Maunus. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well he seems to want to describe UK Independence Party as Islamophobic and racist. This is an interesting diff inconsistent with a newbie editor that suggests it may be a returning sock. I appreciate that he's putting {{cn}} on his weasel words at the same time as he adds them, though. (Irony) There is some WP:BATTLEGROUNDing on the talk page here. Not the worst editor ever but also not the best. If it really is a new editor and not a returning banned user, it would seem (s)he could use some counseling. causa sui (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Pet peeve. It's one thing to CN-tag existing material in an article if you make a call that it shouldn't simply be removed as unsourced, but to add unsourced material with a CN tag is, in my view, absurd on its face.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is a really extreme reaction to my attempt to correct pro-UKIP bias in the article. I haven't been edit warring, just being bold, and adding material. When it was reverted, I didn't add it in the same way, but rewrote it so that it might please people better, and tried to communicate with other editors on the talk page. Most of my edits were adding cited material with reliable sources (Oxford University Press publications etc). I added the citation needed tag, because it needs support from a cite, but I couldn't find one. Please stop templating me on my talk page, and discuss the specific issues at the UKIP talk page. Edit warring is defined as far as I can see as hopping backwards and forwards between two revisions, not changing an article to make it better in response to criticism. --Xijky (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• You need to read WP:EW and the section WP:3RR within it. If you can't "support" for something, don't add it until you can.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Bbb23. I would add that WP:BRD would be a good page for you to look at. When you are reverted, you need to go to the talk page right away, not make cosmetic changes to your edits and submit them again. That is edit warring. causa sui (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• I did go to the talk page "straight away" but there was no interest in discussing matters with me, so I simply re-factored my version to one which was mutually acceptable. --Xijky (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth I agree it seems that there is a pro UKIP slant to the article, and it also seems that some of the regular contributors to the article do lean towards advocacy. Correcting bias with unsourced statements biased in the opposite direction is of course no solution to this problem.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Xijky You've just been kindly advised by about 4 or 5 different editors here and here on the board, that your edits are not being done in the right way and then you go and do this 9 edits. You've completely gone and revamped parts of the article after you were told to consent to changes of content. I can't keep reverting all this myself as ill just fuel the flames and break the rules as well. Alexandre8 (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above editor, as I had just gone on the UKIP page and I was quite surprised by the amount of editing that Xijky had been putting in, I then followed a link to this noticeboard and found out that he had been warned not to do it, yet he has clearly persisted in edit warring and is ignoring what everyone else has just told him on this very page!! Daily Blue91 (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Getting a warning for editing on a contentious topic is not in itself a sign of very much, though. --FormerIP (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have made a section on the talk page where I've amassed the content which he had sources for and opened a discussion so that the user can get his voice across without edit warring. I hope this will resolve the problem. Alexandre8 (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Well done.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Didn't reallu work as I'd hoped. I woke up to this large removal of material with reason "not necessary". and the insistence to push Islamophobic in ideologies box with poor source. Alexandre8 (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It didn't work, because you don't like the fact that there are reliable sources which state that UKIP is racist, xenophobic and anti-Islam. Data on parish council seats seems a bit excessive for a national political party - I was again, just being bold. --Xijky (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

YOu removed a large amount of content without consensus. That is not allowed. and additionally You are POV pushing the above. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Can someone help on the UKIP page please, its sort of being overun with vandalism and Xijky has changed the UKIP logo into a swastika!! Daily Blue91 (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

NLT issue

The edit summary on this looks much like a legal threat: "Do not put my name back up, or I will take this website to court in a very public diplay". I gave the editor a couple of quick links about dealing with bio's about yourself and the notice that this thread existed. Just might want to keep an eye on it.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. That's a legal threat. It's to the site in general rather than to a particular editor, but it's still not allowed.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

At the same time, the content being removed is a WP:BLP lightning rod. It would behoove anyone moving to sanction DougHanks (talk · contribs) to verify that we're in compliance before doing so. causa sui (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• The info is from a legit newspaper, not some blog. No RS issue. And that's why I pointed him to the correct policy, which will show him how to properly handle the matter. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• The material is cited to one reliable source (a local newspaper getting the article from the AP). The gist of what our article says is accurate; however, there are some problems with it being 100% compliant with the cited source. The biggest problem is the cited source does not refer to Stormfront by name. Instead, it refers to an unnamed "white supremacist Internet bulletin board". One of the quotes in our article is not quite right, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• I found another source, which enabled me to get past the no-mention-of-Stormfront issue. I've added the source and reworded the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Update. User blocked by Orangemike; edit summary revdeleted by me. Salvio 21:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• The AP apparently mentioned Stormfront though I only see one newspaper in ProQuest mentioning it by name (News in brief. (2005, Aug 06). Philadelphia Inquirer, pp. A.4) and one other without. The Charlotte Observer ran a detailed piece but it's it's not accessible on the newspaper's site without an account (I found a copy with google though).. I'm sympathetic to the idea of chopping that paragraph out of the article based on very limited notability of both the person and the incident. It's the opposite of the John Pike situation, where really, nothing Misplaced Pages could do could make Pike's public image worse than it already is. In this Hanks case, yeah, the thing is sourced, but it's quite obscure and the guy himself is otherwise barely notable, so we're putting a magnifying glass on him. I'd tend to treat it as low prominence and not backed by secondary sources whose main subject is Stormwatch, therefore dispensible. 67.117.144.140 (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Aside from the valid points you make, I'm curious to know: Is the Hanks redlink claiming that it's false? Or is he merely upset that his name was invoked here? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Based on what I can tell, it's the latter. (And while WP:UNDUE seems to be the gist of 67's comments, when all there is about a notable person is something negative, well...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

User Yworo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion, at this point, stands no chance of attracting attention of administrators to do anything. For the past hour, the only people who are commenting are the two people involved in the dispute. I see nothing here for admins to do other than to tell these two to stop bickering. If either of you is interested in resolving this, stop fighting with and commenting about each other, and let neutral editors work this out. May I strongly suggest you both voluntarily and freely agree to WP:MEDCOM instead of bickering back and forth here? I am closing this thread before it gets any longer and more pointless. Please stop the bickering and work towards finding a solution. --Jayron32 00:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like for an admin to take a look at a series of edits at The Gingerbread Girl between 02:40, 23 November 2011 and 23:30, 25 November 2011‎. Yworo (talk · contribs) is seeking vengeance against me, apparently because I reverted one his edits yesterday. When I did so, he launched a sockpuppet investigation of me as a banned user (so far no evidence of my sockpuppetry, and there won't be because I am not a banned user). Now he has followed me to The Gingerbread Girl, where I have simply been trying to get citations for some unsourced trivia. After reverting me a couple of times, he finally added citations to other Misplaced Pages articles. Since Misplaced Pages can't source itself, in an effort to reach some agreement with Yworo, I left the trivia in the article and his citations to other Misplaced Pages articles, but added "citation needed" tags. Apparently not feeling that he had inflicted enough vengeance against me, he proceeded to remove the cn tags, even though my edit summary stated that Misplaced Pages could not source itself. Let me emphasize my point here only partially pertains to what is best for the article. I also would like for someone to have a word with Yworo about his attitude and confrontational style here. If you do a search of complaint boards, you'll see that Yworo has a history of this confrontational style and incivility toward anon IPs and newly registered editors. Earlier today he also repeatedly restored the notice on my talk page about the sockpuppetry investigation, even though I am perfectly entitled to remove it after reading it, especially since no sockpuppetry has been confirmed. I'm not asking for any sanctions against Yworo, but I think if an admin could communicate the importance of his reducing his hostility and increasing his collaborative editing it might help things. Also, Yworo's talk page is protected, so if someone could notify him about this discussion I would appreciate it. Thanks. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

What a bunch of complete rubbish. I provided citations when requested. You removed them. The citations were never to Misplaced Pages articles. If you didn't misread the changes, then you're simply lying about what I did to stir up trouble. Go ahead, look at the citations. Neither is to Misplaced Pages. Feel free to withdraw this falsified accusation at any time. Yworo (talk)

Ah, you're right about your citations, which I did misread. My apologies. My comments about your hostile and confrontational style still stand, however. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing hostile about it. You reverted valid edits without really reading them. Now that's hostile. Look in the mirror if you want to see the face of the source of hostility here. Yworo (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, please stop communicating with me in edit comments. That is considered extremely rude, not to mention you are introducing unnecessary whitespace into articles. If you have an issue with my edits to the article, use the article talk page. I'll be happy to discuss with you there, if you start the discussion. I haven't started the discussion because I have no real problems with your edits, I simply am trying to improve upon them. And I don't respond to requests made in edit comments. Only requests made on talk pages. Why try to communicate using Twitter-like edit comments which aren't always seen due to subsequent edits when we have a whole talk page of whiteboard? Yworo (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No, your repeatedly restoring comments to my talk page, telling me that I was not allowed to remove them ... that was hostile. And here you go again with even more hostility ... as you well know, your talk page is protected, so an anon or a new editor (and we are allowed to edit, Yworo, despite your efforts to the contrary) cannot leave a message on your talk page. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You mean the very same thing you were doing to my talk page yesterday, and wouldn't stop when asked, so that I had to protect it? The message at the top of my talk page clearly states where to communicate with me about what. It clearly says that for article content issues, I will be expecting communication on the article talk page. Yworo (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Why did you repeatedly restore messages to my talk page today, and then lie to me and tell me that I was required not to remove them, even going so far as to quote a policy with a key word omitted (" ... sockpuppetry notices" rather than "confirmed sockpuppetry notices")? And then when you were caught in the lie, place a false warning on my talk page about personal attacks? And if that wasn't enough, follow me to The Gingerbread Girl to try to stir things up even more? 174.99.127.20 (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Why did you repeatedly post warnings and restore them on my talk page yesterday, after following me to Richard Reames and reverting a perfectly valid edit? And it used to be clearly stated in the sockpuppet processes that sockpuppet notices should not be removed until the case is closed. It's not my fault that everything changes all the time here. I sincerely believed you had to leave it, based on past reading of the rules. And calling somebody a liar in an edit comment is a personal attack, regardless of what you think. The warning was valid. Yworo (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The warnings I posted on your talk page were legitimate. I did not restore any warning after you removed it. But you repeatedly restored a message on my talk page today. Repeatedly. Are you denying that you did this? Are you denying that you then told me I was required to keep the message on my talk page? Are you denying that you then quoted a policy, leaving out a key word, to try to support you false claim? Are you denying that, when I pointed out your deceptiveness, you placed a warning on my talk page about personal attacks? Are you denying that you then, out of the tens of thousands of articles on Misplaced Pages, you then went to one that I had edited just minutes earlier to revert my edits? And please give us the diff where the policy used to state that all sockpuppetry notices must not be removed; did it really used to be that way, or are you stretching the truth again? 174.99.127.20 (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I had repeatedly asked you, backed up by admin User:Kim Dent-Brown, not to post on my talk page back in August. You were informed that meant that you could not even post warnings. You continued to post them again yesterday after you had again been repeatedly asked not to. Warnings are not an exception to requests to stay off my talk page. You repeatedly refuse to understand this. Yworo (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Give me the diff where Kim Dent-Brown told me that I could never in the future post warnings on your talk page, even when you violated policies, as if you were superior to us mere anon IPs and could not be warned? And don't quote what he said because we already know we can't trust your quotations; give me the diff where I was told to never post warnings on your talk page. And please answer my questions above, Yworo. Do you deny any of those things? And please give us that diff to back up your claim that it used to be policy that all sockpuppetry notices should not be removed. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It is standard policy, being asked not to post on someone's talk page has no exceptions. I'm not going to continue to coddle you, the message was left under another of your damn IP addessses, and I'm not going to search for it, go ask Kim yourself. This is precisely why continuing to edit under multiple IPs violates the rule about avoiding scrutiny, it makes it nearly impossible to find previous warnings and explanations. However, what I say is true, I've repeatedly told you, and you haven't asked or made any inquiries. That's solely your responsibility. You think warnings are an exception, but they never have been. This is your own self-created rule. Yworo (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Kim also posted a copy on my talk page, which is in my archives, here. This was specifically about your continuing to post warnings. You completely ignored it, leading me to request protection for my talk page to end the intentional and concerted harassment. Yworo (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That comment by Kim says nothing about not posting warnings for policy violations. Geez, who the hell do you think you are, Yworo? Are you delusional enough to think that you can get away with policy violations and not receive a warning? Once again, please link the "standard policy" in which it is stated that someone cannot post a warning on a user's talk page simply because that user has demanded that no warnings be posted. And again, give us a link, not a truncated quote. You're not going to search for it because it's "coddling"??? ... No, you're not going to search for it because it doesn't exist and you know it doesn't exist. And, ONCE AGAIN, please answer my questions above and give all of us those diffs to back up what you say. Yworo, it's more than a little obvious here that you will claim almost anything to try to support your hostile and unwelcoming attitude toward anon IPs and new users, but when you're simply asked to give us a diff or a link to a policy, you come up quite short. I think my case has been made very well here, so I don't need to continue to bother any admins trying to sort through this. You have no tolerance for anon IPs and new users, and you're going to take it right up to the line -- and sometimes step over the line -- to try to discourage them from editing. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Point of order

One apparently unresolved issue, which some admins could comment on here, is Yworo's habit of fooling around with other editors' comments that he doesn't like, as evidenced at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Maybe 174...20 is "stalking" him, and maybe he isn't, I don't know. But Yworo's insistence on messing with 174's comments solves nothing and adds fuel to the flames. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Jackrobertos1996

Longterm user, adding unsourced content and altering demographics without supporting references. Editing pattern is similar to that of an IP just blocked for a year . I'm requesting someone review these edits, including changes to census numbers that have heretofore gone unchecked, to confirm whether they constitute vandalism and ought to be overturned. Thank you, 99.12.242.97 (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears as though you, 99.12.242.97, made no good-faith attempt to discuss this matter with Jackrobertos1996. You left them a message on their talk page, and without waiting for any response, immediately reported them here. That's hardly an example of best-practice dispute resolution. The first thing you should do, before getting admins involved, is to make an attempt to discuss the matter with said user, and that means leaving a message on their user talk page and waiting a reasonable amount of time for them to respond. Perhaps there is a good explanation, but you should at least do the due dilligence of dealing with other users as people and treating them with the respect of trying to have a personal conversation with them before "reporting them to the cops". --Jayron32 02:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think it appropriate please revert this report, and I will revert my notice at their talk page. My assumption was that this looked a lot like a puppet of the blocked account. And I don't think that asking for more eyes on numerous unsourced edits is an unreasonable 'report to the cops'. The intent here was to exercise due diligence in requesting other opinions before going ahead and reverting edits en masse, with the possibility that I could be wrong. So, I was perhaps quick to seek help, and received a lecture. Thank you. 99.12.242.97 (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you did not receive a lecture, you were reminded of assuming good faith and fixing potential problems between people one-on-one where needed. This is a collegial project, and most interactions don't need the high-handed force of an admin. If you had suspected WP:SOCK, it's odd you never mentioned it from the beginning :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think my intent was terribly opaque, either in the initial report or here , all of which indicated my concern that the accounts were related. It appears that the direction this has taken regards my perceived lack of civility, but as yet nobody has contradicted the premise of my report. I'm requesting someone review these edits, including changes to census numbers that have heretofore gone unchecked, to confirm whether they constitute vandalism and ought to be overturned doesn't call for "high-handed force", nor did I presume that a discussion here required such. Again: if this is viewed as an inappropriate thread we can delete it; if I'm wrong in my assumption I'll gladly apologize to the account in question. If, however, there's a basis to my concern then we are dealing with someone using multiple accounts to, at least in part, add erroneous information. Nobody has chosen to offer any feedback about that thus far. 99.12.242.97 (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Although we won't delete the thread - we can close it if you wish. Questions regarding the quality/appropriateness of edits belong on the talkpage of the article, raising a WP:30 request, or WP:RFC. Admins here cannot handle content disputes in an article, unless immediate and obvious damage is being done to the project. The people who watch the article(s) in question are the best people to judge the content edits themselves, not those of us who might have never edited the topic. We can't typically investigate general "look at these edits" because we don't know what to compare them to. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The examples include numerous articles, for instance: and , ; and (judging by US census sources, some few of these numbers were correct, most were invented); the edit histories taken in total, as offered at the top of this thread, evidence a pattern of similar or identical edits to the same articles, for which the IP was blocked for a year. Generally when an IP is persistently blocked for such edits, suspected related accounts invite scrutiny. My interpretation is that a months long series of unsourced edits, at least some of which include a continuing addition of erroneous information, is probably not constructive. Regardless, from the outset I've asked for an opinion as to whether these accounts may be related, and if there remain erroneous edits as yet uncorrected. 99.12.242.97 (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I confess that by now I've lost my tooth for this, and whether I'm correct or not is of little interest to me; I've explained my intent, and don't need to pursue the matter. Feel free to close the discussion. 99.12.242.97 (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Light Burns

I blocked The Light Burns (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for multiple reasons, including vandalism, placing incomprehensible screeds on talk pages and edit warring to reinstate them when deleted, and personal attacks. His only action after being blocked is this attack. Anyone want to up the block to indef? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Next step, talk page revoking. --Jayron32 04:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone want to notify him, per the page notice. I was going to.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Your thread, your job. Get on it. --Jayron32 04:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This SPI may be...ahem...illuminating. Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all night. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Davshul, disruptive editing

Davshul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly, massively vandalised 2011 in the United States and other 2011 in "other country" articles.

I have pointed out on several occassions, to no useful end, that all these articles are part of the parent 2011 (a well-policed article), and that the change he keeps making needs to be cleared there first in the talk section, Talk:2011. Instead he has gone to the talk section for the actual article, Talk:2011 in the United States with useless discussion that he knows in bad faith that no one but me will ever read since the discussion there is poorly read, and most likely, completely never read.

As per Misplaced Pages:Recent years#Article body - individual dates are linked.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware that it is also bad faith editing to claim someone else is editing in bad faith? Leaving headings like "notification of bad faith edits discussion" on the user's talk page doesn't help either. No comment on the actual dispute, just an FYI.--v/r - TP 17:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

what are you talking about?, the posting mechanism here said i was supposed to notify him--70.162.171.210 (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and generally that is done with a heading that says "AN/I Discussion". That isn't a free license to accuse someone of bad faith.--v/r - TP 17:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

i have changed it--70.162.171.210 (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

@70.162.171.210: I see nothing in the history of this dispute except your repeated characterization of Davshul's work as "vandalism" or "bad faith" or "disruptive". I don't see where any of his work is any of that. What you should do, rather than calling his editing what it is not, is to instead seek discussion on the article talk pages. If you believe that the discussion does not have enough participation from neutral parties, then see WP:DR and choose a mechanism there (such as WP:3O or WP:DRN) to get extra attention. Using perjorative terms to describe someone's editing doesn't help you "win", it merely makes you look like a bully and is unlikely to result in a positive outcome for you. Instead, speak to and about others in non-confrontational terms, use existing mechanisms for dispute resolution, and have the patience to understand that disputes may not be resolved instantly; it may take some days for enough people to comment to allow for a reasonable consensus to arise. --Jayron32 17:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Davshul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has finally in good faith attempted to justify his vandalism of year in country articles in an appropriate location (not just some talk page that no one ever reads), why he did not see fit to write anything here is beyond me to explain towards "his good faith", his comments are on this talk page Misplaced Pages talk:Recent years#Date linkage in subpages.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, let me make this clearer. Don't call his edits vandalism. Continuing to do so is unlikely to go well for you. Which is not to say that his edits are necessarily going to be best for Misplaced Pages. But if you keep calling his edits vandalism, it just makes you look bad, and thus you'll end up making your position in this dispute look bad. If you genuininly believe you are correct, stop using the word vandalism, because it is clear that you don't know what it means. I am quite interested in seeing the right thing get done here, and if your position in this dispute is "the right thing", I will be quite upset if you screw that up by calling his edits vandalism if they are not. I have not idea which side of the dispute is "right", but as so often happens, the "right" position gets clouded by "wrong" behavior. Calling vandalism things which are not vandalism is a bad idea. Instead, convince people you are correct. --Jayron32 04:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Supporting what Jayron32 is saying here. Vandalism is when a user makes a change with the sole intention of messing up the project, usually for their own entertainment. This is vandalism. If there is a chance that the user is trying to improve the project, you should assume good faith and discuss your disagreement with them, like this: "I noticed you were making edits to 2011 in the United States and other articles. I disagree with these edits. Could you explain their purpose?" Dcoetzee 05:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

i have been informed that the word "vandal" is too harsh --- i will withdraw it but not anything else said.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

70.162, I invite you to read our article on vandalism, WP:VANDAL, so you know what we at Misplaced Pages mean by the word "vandalism". It's not that the word is "harsh" (which quite frankly smacks of you saying we're too delicate for The Truth), it's that it's the wrong word. It's inaccurate. There is no requirement for an editor to discuss his edits to an article at some special centralized talk page, and expecting an editor to do so in advance - and calling his edits "vandalism" when he doesn't defer to your wishes - is unproductive and disruptive. (Note: as the editor is an Israeli-based Jew and the Sabbath has just begun, it might be best to timestamp this (I don't know how) to give him time to respond after the Sabbath ends.) --NellieBly (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Archiving blocked for 5 days. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the anon is correct as to the guidelines. Although there are errors in WP:LINKING, the RfC authorizing the change in the guidelines specifically exempted timeline articles. It's not vandalism, but it is unhelpful and distruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite possibly true: However, the way to be right is not to accuse people of things: It is to engage them in conversation, convince them you are correct, and if you cannot do that, then bring in neutral parties to evaluate the dispute. Accusing people of things that they did not do makes you lose. If you lose, and your position was the correct one, then Misplaced Pages loses. That's why you should not behave that way, ever. --Jayron32 19:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

my method may have been wrong but i have been trying to finger in the dike against the flood i knew would come --- if only i had been listened to at the begining the massive list below would now not exist ---

User:Davshul has made changes to all these articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1969_in_Argentina&diff=prev&oldid=461606429 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2011_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=461609054 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2011_in_the_European_Union&diff=prev&oldid=461611386 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2012_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=461639619 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2010_in_France&diff=prev&oldid=461643558 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2011_in_France&diff=prev&oldid=461646189 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2011_in_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=461930100 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2011_in_Northern_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=461930248 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2011_in_Germany&diff=prev&oldid=461554952 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2011_in_Romania&diff=prev&oldid=461604489 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2011_in_Argentina&diff=prev&oldid=461605345 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2011_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=461504010 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2011_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=461504240 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2011_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=461506025 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2010_in_South_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=461554109 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2011_in_South_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=461554262

--70.162.171.210 (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The return of Michael Paul Heart

Main account (most often used):
Michael Paul Heart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Old socks:
Tillie Jean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
BenjaminDavidAharonDvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
DrakeProf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Brian D. White (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
DrakeProf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
71.214.251.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log  · WHOIS · RDNS · trace · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Latest sock:
LittleOldManRetired (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous AN/I threads (both initiated by MPH socks)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive691#Misconduct_at_.22Ark_of_the_Covenant.22
Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive693#Outraged

I don't think I've ever seen a sockpuppeteer who does a worse job of covering his tracks or seems to be more delusional about believing that he's fooling people than Michael Paul Heart. He basically suffers from two rather unusual obsessions. The first expressed itself by turning tachash into this bizarre morass of original research, novel synthesis and personal opinion. The second was an intense need to edit a picture caption of the Ark of the Covenant to say that the picture was wrong, wrong, wrong because the rings that the staves go through should be located at the feet of the ark, not higher on the sides (I kid you not). His inability to convince anyone that he was improving the article resulted in this jeremiad of a parting message. Of course his decision to "walk out of hell" didn't stop him from creating half-a-dozen socks to continue arguing for his POV and initiate specious threads on AN/I attacking other editors for cleaning up the messes he left.

That looked as if it had all died down, but MPH actually kept at least one sock in reserve LittleOldManRetired (talk · contribs). While MPH was making accusations with his other socks, this account (created on May 4th, before Tillie Jean (talk · contribs) had started an AN/I thread) was innocuously editing a few unrelated articles until Oct. 9 when he went seriously to work on Tachash. To see the result, take a look at the article's history from then to today. And just to make sure no one could possibly miss who was doing this, he also did this (reverted by me, restored by him) at Ark of the Covenant, letting us all know that those rings should be in the feet, the feet, the feet, feet, FEET of the ark. I guess he thinks he can convince the community that there are actually two people alive nutty enough to share his obsessions. I have tried and I cannot make myself believe it.

Today Drmies (talk · contribs) reverted his um, work at Tachash, and he, naturally, reverted back So here's what I think should be done.

Option one - Do an SPI, find any other undiscovered socks he may still have, block them all and ban him from Misplaced Pages. He's never been anything but trouble to the project and he's never going to be. No amount of lying or being caught at it seems to be enough for this guy. He's variously claimed to be a Catholic, a religious Jew, a college Professor and I don't know what else. I realize his other accounts are probably stale, but we have the IP he was using and it should be easy to check. (I don't think this is outing, he basically outed himself by sockpuppeting so obviously).

Option two - Same SPI, same block of his accounts, but leave one live - Michael Paul Heart (talk · contribs), then topic ban him from Tachash, Ark of the Covenant and anything else having to do with the Bible. Personally, I think option one is a lot more justified, but I mention this just in case anyone wants to give him an eighth chance to edit honestly. Since he's never done anything but sockpuppet and lie to the community non-stop, I don't think he deserves it, but I present it as an option. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support community ban. This kind of disruption has to be prevented, and I would be concerned that an editor known for original research, falsifications, and extreme fringe beliefs will take those tendencies to other topics if banned from editing one specific topic. A formal, clearly spelled-out community ban is useful to other editors (especially non-admins); I use WP:LOBU often enough, and I'm sure other editors do as well. (This is why I'm very much against letting a "de facto ban" be the status quo.) --NellieBly (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: editor has just created article The Tachash (animal). --NellieBly (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban - second chances are good, third chances even, but there comes a point where the foot must be put down. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban, and would suggest SPI/checkuser to look for sleepers (it wouldn't be fishing, as we do have a genuine new sock and he has used sleepers before) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban. This is a troubled individual. We can probably add User:Hermitstudy to the above list. As Michael Paul Heart, this editor would occasionally let "other people" edit from his computer, like his mother, and his scary Marine friend. Tendentious to be sure. Although MPH's version of Tachash here, at 211900 Kb, is a work of art i.m.o. (not an encyclopedia article, but a work of art no less) The Interior (Talk) 15:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

  That's what really makes this kind of sad - on having a skim read of that version, it looks like a very impressive piece of work that may well deserve to be published somewhere (probably somewhere where there can be proper peer review), but it's absolutely not appropriate for an encyclopedia article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support a community ban, though grudgingly, I guess. This editor was the bane of my existence for a while, and when Steven J. and others came to aid on Tachash it was a great relief. I don't like topic bans or community bans, but I think we have no choice here: the level of delusion (I borrow the term from the nominator of this thread) is so high that, in my opinion, no amount of coaching, mentoring, or supervising can prevent further disruption. Sock puppeteering in a basically good-faith but obsessed editor is a terrible thing--just look at their comment on my talk page, "only the nonsense OR submitted or inflicted by Hermitstudy and Michael Paul Heart was not included." Having to call some of your own hard work "nonsense" just so you can keep other parts of it, that's not good: a ban is probably the best thing for Misplaced Pages and for the editor. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Request - Could someone do whatever is necessary to initiate checkuser proceedings and flush any possible sleepers? I'm sorry, but I'm just not familiar with the formal proceedings on how to do that. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

AWB usage suspended for Waacstats

I have edited Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage and commented out Waacstats from the list of users. This should prevent Waacstats from using AWB until it is decided what to do about certain problems that have occurred recently.

• On 14 Nov. Beyond My Ken warned Waacstats: "Lotfi Zadeh is an electrical engineer and computer scientist, he is not an 'artificial intelligence researcher'". I am not sure if that one was done using AWB as it does not include AWB in the string in the edit but other edits made by Waacstats with AWB don't always do so.
• on 19 Nov. Wizardman You're spelling "baseball" wrong ... (20:24) Again, it's baseball rather than "basebeall" (20:41)
• on 26 Nov. PBS. People who lived in the British Isles before the Act of Union 1707 were not British. So the change you made to William Heveningham(1604–1678) is not correct. says he was an English politician in the first line and the stub is {{England-politician-stub}} so how did you come to the conclusion that he was a "British politician"?

I then went to see how many articles Waacstats might of edited incorrectly and was surprised to see that Waacstats was editing 10 a second, so I pulled the plug, rather like hitting the stop button on a bot.

I have let a message on Waacstats's talk page:

suspended your AWB usage], for two reasons the first is that this talk page show that you have been careless on at least 3 separate occasions this month. But more worrying is that despite being warned about carelessness, you are making 10 edit a minute. There is no way in that time you can check the that changes you are making are correct. In your last 50 edits from

• 08:28, 26 November 2011 m Didier Boulaud ‎ (→References: Add persondata short description using AWB)

to

• 08:32, 26 November 2011 m Francis Hillmeyer ‎ (→References: Add persondata short description using AWB)

The minutes (28 and 32) my well bot be full minutes:

• 28, 8 edits
• 29, 10 edits
• 30, 11 edit
• 31, 10 edits
• 32, 10 edits

(I've miss counted by on there are only 49 edits there)

I conclude that you have broken at least the first two of the Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules of use. I will follow this post up at WP:ANI, the suspension is like a bot stop, it may be on refection that you can have the privileged back very shortly it depends on the consensus but as an administrator seeing your caress edits on three separated occasion in less than 2 weeks I am not willing to let you change 10 pages a second while a consensus is reached at ANI.

OK what is to be done. This is the first AWB case I have dealt with so some guidence would be appreciated by my (and I suspect Waacstats). If the consensus among informed opion is that I have been over hasty with the suspension then someone can reinstate the line (and reverse the suspension) without waiting to here from me. -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course nobody should edit war, and I'm all for shutting off AWB if someone is mis-using it, but Lotfi Zadeh is in fact an AI researcher. He was even recently inducted into the IEEE's AI hall of fame, per his biography. He is best known for work on fuzzy logic, which is an AI topic among other things. See also his CV which describes more of his AI work. I don't think BMK's warning was appropriate. 67.117.144.140 (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism campaign involving fake references

Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk · contribs) is an agenda editor and edit-warrior who has been part of a small but pertinacious group pushing ideological positions of certain fringe groups regarding French royalism. He was edit-warring in support of Emerson 07 (talk · contribs), who was recently blocked for revert-warring and also had several apparent sockpuppets blocked (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Emerson 07). Most recently, Mophon joined Emerson in edit-warring with this and this edit. In these edits, he inserted an alleged reference to support a contentious BLP claim: "Prutkov, Kozma (2010). Annuaire de la Noblesse Moderne des Maisons Principales de l'Europe. Montréal. ISBN 1925-5594. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)". This is apparently a fake, made-up reference.

"Kozma Prutkov" is a fictional writer made up by some satirists in the 19th century. There exist neither a book under the given ISBN, nor a book with this alleged title. There is a website calling itself "Annuaire de la Noblesse Moderne" (noblessemoderne.com), but its content pages are deadlinks. References to this alleged publication appear to exist only on several Misplaced Pages editions in several languages, where they all seem to have been inserted during the last few months by suspicious royalist agenda accounts, especially Rapportroyal (talk · contribs) (sp-wiki: , fr-wiki: , en-wiki:

Making up fake sources to bolster a POV agenda is one of the most serious forms of vandalism. I suggest an immediate indef-block of both Rapportroyal and Mr. D. E. Mophon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

OT: Thanks for introducing me to the word "pertinacious" - it's a great word -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Vandalism+lying+general dickery= indef? You get my vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed. Making up references, esp. book references, is a stab to the heart of RS and AGF. Mophon will be blocked; Rapportroyal inserted the same reference again after being urged by the boss not to do so: also indef. Fut. Perf., as thanks for your tenacity you get to take Kozma Prutkov (talk · contribs) as a sock. Congratulations. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Good idea to indef anyone connected to this behavior. This is not to be tolerated. --Jayron32 18:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• indef away - this sort of behaviour is a complete no and we should waste time with people who think it is acceptable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Good blocks and I'd suggest WP:BAN immediately as well - this sort of thing is something that should be 100% zero tolerance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Astrology discussion snowing

There has been discussion at WP:FTN, on Talk: Scorpio (astrology) and elsewhere about a template that has been added to all articles on astrological star signs that some of us consider to be unencyclopedic because it involves repeating the same chunk of information in each article, some of that information being poorly sourced.

I commented at length, and I think patiently, on the question, and suggested that WikiProject Astrology was the place to sort out whether the template was encyclopedic or not.

On 24 November, User:Zachariel (Zac) notified members of WikiProject Astrology of a discussion. To be fair, he did post on the WikiProject talk page, saying simply "Need for discussion of issues has been put to WP:Astrology project members". He didn’t post about the discussion on WP:FTN where this was under consideration or notify me or anyone who had contributed at FTN. I had explained that I wasn't going to join the project but would contribute there from time to time.

My first impression was that Zac’s notification of individual editors had been very selective. I posted in a new section on the WikiProject talk page to say there was prima facie of vote-stacking. On investigation, it does turn out that he notified each member of the project. It has taken me hours to sort out who was and wasn’t a project member, or notified, mainly because so many listed project members are inactive, and several have changed their usernames. Most listed haven’t edited anywhere on the encyclopedia for years, some are blocked, and he himself is still listed under his previous username.

Zac also notified three people who aren’t project members. User: Ihcoyc, User:Lighthead and User:Prof.Landau. The last of these has not been editing for a long while. I don’t know why the other two were notified.

What may be of concern is that since the discussion was opened, in the last three days, five new members have joined the project: User:AxelHarvey, User:Dwayne, User:Logical 1, User:Robertcurrey, User:Ken McRitchie.

Zac introduced the discussion with a very long post, containing his own interpretation of my view, using only one of the three examples that I had given as typical.

Then various editors snowed in to support his position. They include three of the five new project members: User:AxelHarvey, a few minutes before joining the project; User:Robertcurrey, commented on 24 November, added his name on 26 November; User:Ken McRitchie, commented on 25 November, added his name on 26 November.

Most of those commenting in the thread declare themselves on their user pages as professional astrologers or writers on astrology, or are easily identified as astrologers active on the Internet.

I see few arguments that address the actual question: whether a WikiProject should recommend a template that involves repeating the same text across a number of articles.

Would you please advise whether this amounts to vote stacking? Any other advice about how to move forward on article quality would also be appreciated. Thank you. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've been following developments off and on through an editor I have worked with the past who's involved (User:Bobrayner). It appears that the Astrology project has been trying to add questionably sourced content to articles; the discussion in question would allow that questionable content to stay. Bob, who has a history of removing questionably sourced content, attempted to remove the questionably sourced content, but was reverted by Astrology editors. I feel that the content in question needs to be discussed in a full community noticeboard where editors not involved in the Astrology project but familiar with verifiblity and reliable source guidelines can weigh in Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This is unsurprising. Robert Currey recruits editors from offsite to meatpuppet for the pro-astrology point of view. This is a serious problem, and I suggest that discretionary sanctions be applied liberally on these articles. Involvement of the larger community via RFCs has also been effective in limiting the damage this behavior causes. Skinwalker (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

How does this get moved forward to resolution please? An RfC is already open on Astrology. I have raised the issues on talk pages, on RSN, FTN and now the WikiProject. Non-admin users who are willing to wade in to try and sort the mess out, by improvement to the articles, quickly become seen as "involved". Itsmejudith (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I dunno...you started this thread. Skin, it sounds like you feel that Robert Currey should be blocked for meatpuppetry Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, it's practically impossible to get support for a meatpuppetry block - even in patently obvious cases. I think RFCs and topic bans are more tenable and effective solutions. Skinwalker (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean Template:Zodsign1? That is an odd template William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

An RfC is a good step, though I don't see one active on the Astrology talk or on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astrology related to this template (to get one active such that the community notices it, you need to use the instructions here). So, open one of those. I'm going to accompany that suggestion with a non-partisan warning that the next person or people I see revert-warring on Template:Zodsign1 is/are getting blocked for edit-warring. Having an RfC open, if one indeed is, does not give anyone license to revert anything to their preferred version. This is not directed at anyone in this thread in particular, but at everyone involved in this entire thing: the warring is going to have to stop, now. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am not formally a member of the astrology project, but I have done some editing on astrology related pages. My take on this is different. There is a large body of available public domain text that's recognized by astrologers as significant and authoritative, including works by Claudius Ptolemy, William Lilly, and Alan Leo. This material is available for wholesale import and updating, and meets all the usual tests for being a reliable source. I'd like to be more involved in updating and expanding the pages with information from these sources, but the pages have been lawyered to death by the "sceptical" contingent. A large number of editors, including a number of IP editors, remove content willy-nilly, and post dismissive messages claiming that astrological sources are from an "in universe" perspective, as if astrology were a fictional subject. The template's an attempt to respond to one recurring cavil, concerning the difference between the tropical and sidereal zodiacs. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Smerdis here. There are reliable sources for the description of astrology, both ancient and modern. This is a separate issue from whether astrology is a pseudoscience: even if it is, it is only correct to describe astrology and its history from the sources the field itself considers reliable. I have observed some of these sources rejected by overactive skeptics. For a long time we did not have a good historical picture of Gnosticism: due to the elimination of "heretical" sources, we had only the descriptions written up by Gnosticism's opponents. A full description of astrology and its terms must be done from its own sources. Scientific analysis of its claims should certainly be included, but the basic description can't be restricted to such modern scientific criticism. That would defeat the purpose of an encyclopedia. Yworo (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

First, I would like to clarify that I have commented on the Astrology Project discussion six times since August and being on my Watch List it is of interest. I did not add my name to the list of members of the project originally as nothing seemed to be happening and I considered that further highlighting my interest would be used against me as indeed it was today with Itsmejudith's comments. When Zac made this proposal and others followed, it felt appropriate to add my name.

Second, Skinwalker - this is the third time you have accused me of meatpuppetry or recruiting editors using this same link from March. Anyone who reads the public link, which I have not taken down, will see that I was not recruiting editors and if anything, advising people to follow the WP rules and not to go to the Astrology Page to edit war simply because other editors had been banned. As far as I know no one became an editor as a result of those comments on a Facebook page and I challenge you to find a WP editor. If you feel that there is a case against me, then you should go through the proper channels and I will answer it. It is time to put up or shut up. I believe it is quite wrong to take advantage of the fact that an editor does not have the protection of being anonymous to dredge up external information in an attempt to make something out of nothing. Robert Currey talk 23:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Both of you are involved editors, at least as involved as I am. I already raised the primary source nature of ancient, medieval and early modern writers. There is extensive historical research on these periods, and that's what we should be using. Having articles restricted to modern scientific criticism is just a red herring. We are talking about history here. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This is an example of the sort of lawyering that gets in the way of building these articles constructively. Whether you label Lilly, Leo, or Ptolemy as primary or secondary sources is should be a matter of indifference. They are treatises. Their texts are recognized by astrologers as foundational authorities. All of them write as the presenters of an established tradition, not as doing original research in astrology. If you object that astroiogy is a pseudoscience and doesn't use empirical methods, you don't get to complain that the authorities consulted are out of date. The main focus of an article on Scorpio (astrology) ought to be "What does astrology say about Scorpio"? When you have reliable public domain material that we can adapt easily, we should grab with both hands. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

MarcusBritish

Has made a number of PA’s against WebHamster This has resulted in a wikiquete discussion ] in which MarcusBritish has made a number of highly confrontational comments, and sees this as some kind of a battle in which you are either an enemy or a ally ]. He has accused me of saying things I have not said ]. I don’t think the user is generally a problem, but in the subject of WebHamster he has a highly aggressive battlefield mentality.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So in short, what you're saying is – "if you want a blocked user banned outright, you should be blocked". And you question my mentality? You do realise that I'm more than willing to push this type of reaction through ArbCom and throw your attempt to question my integrity into the firing line, I hope. Wasting you time, trying to make a name for yourself Ste. You stand in middle-ground, making false indications that you support one opinion, then another, but in reality you're luring people. There is nothing here worthy of ANI interest. It took EIGHT years to get Webhamster blocked, and he still has people toadying to his every desire. Where do you thing that puts you, apart from clear as mud sycophancy to ANI, Hell bent of pushing your own POV? Laughable liberal wish-wash. Ma®©usBritish  19:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I am here because more then one user has said your commeents about webby oversteped the mark, and you response is this attitude.Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't take "the mark" of a BNP supporter as a reliable. You're as petty as it gets. Your motives are not above suspicion. In fact I suspect you're looking for retaliative action because you "can't win" with your unassisting remarks at WQA. Don't know why you bothered in the first place, your entire history there did not have anything to do with the aims of WQA. Ma®©usBritish  19:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I just say; over the last couple of days you two have done basically sod all except argue about this topic... There is a level of maturity in simply walking away from a confrontation and finding something productive to do. No one has to have the last word here. But what we could do is divert this attention into writing some article content. :) --Errant 19:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The issue is not whether the user should be banned, but that it is inappropriate to use terminology such as "prime nut," and "the only good thing that could ever develop in what little brain he does have is a tumour." to advance such a case, and to accuse anyone taking exception to those personal attacks as being in some sort of collusion. Gerardw (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As someone who is supporting Webhamster in overturning a block, which had a ~65% pro-block consensus, the question of your motives, COI, or bias leaves me to conclude that you will say anything to contradict me. Ma®©usBritish  19:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've been on the receiving end of some of Marcus's vitriol, sure. But I don't see the need for administrative action here.

  Now, the above accusation (in response to Gerardw) is really in bad faith, and I'm sure Marcus would say something similar about me: "you don't support a block so you're partial"--which of course works both ways: Marcus supported a block so he's not partial? Come on now. "Liberal wish-wash" is nonsense; Marcus, you'll have to live with the fact that people disagree, and that it's not always for political reasons, and that your argument is self-defeating.

  There's a bit more--besides accusations of partiality, there was some nonsense of 'all of us' Hamster defenders being a club of regulars at Hamster's pub in Manchester or something like that, which isn't just in violation of AGF but also extremely silly. I mean, really--geolocate me, or, if you really don't want to put your money where your mouth is, give me your address and I'll send you a postcard from Alabama.

  Anyway, I don't want to compile a laundry list. I think that Marcus's behavior left a lot to be desired, but I don't want another editor blocked as a result of this mess. I hope Marcus sees that not everyone in the community feels as he does, and that ruffling feathers is not always a good thing. No action please, if Marcus keeps his cool. Or finds it. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A touching example of floccinaucinihilipilification, from Drmies, there. Ma®©usBritish  00:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

UK Independence Party

Could we have some admin eyes over on above article new user repeating the edit war of a recently blocked editor and don't know how to fix the image which has now been changed to a nazi flag Mo ainm~Talk 19:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Englandstruth (talk · contribs)...yeaaahhh...no agenda that's obvious there... (also, I've notified them, since this is clearly the user in question)- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Any commons admins around want to block commons:user:Xijky? -- zzuuzz 20:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Also changed the photo of Nigel Farage to Hitler. *sigh* --‖ Ebyabe - Inspector General ‖ 20:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
    • And now Xijky is re-blocked here and blocked on commons. That's the Nazi flag sorted. Back to any other issues... -- zzuuzz 20:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi I just corrected information on the page, I never changed any pictures. To point out I am a paid up member of the civic nationalist and libertarian party called Ukip, not the right wing one in the article, I attempted to rectify the article and put correct descriptions in and they have been blocked and now I am being threatened with being blocked.

I would think that Wiki being an encyclopaedia for information about many subjects, Wiki would at least want to have the correct representation of a subject rather than one written by many Non Ukip supporters. Conflict of interest? Not from my corner.

Sources I can cite are the website, the manifesto and policies which show the party is a Libertarian, civic nationalistic, and centralist party. (Englandstruth (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC))

What do third party RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

We're having a lot of problems with political parties at the moment - the UKIP article is a disaster zone because of people trying to push their own POV. Respect Party is also in trouble, massive edit wars going on too. More editors/watchers would be handy doktorb _words 20:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I can understand that, but people are welcome to verify me from my FB page it is open so not in breach of any data laws: https://www.facebook.com/groups/133900563380335/ That is a ukip page I run promoting ukip and the Ukip Blog site.

My POV may be bias towards the party, but in my defence you would not ask a mechanic about a plumbing article, Meaning who better to post about Ukip than either a supporter or member of the party.

Cheers for your comments. (Englandstruth (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC))

That's funny. Tell us another one. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, let's play horse. I'll play the front...you just be yourself. Leaky Caldron 21:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• If you are affiliated with the party, it'd be a very good idea for you not to edit its article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Ducky socks, page protection

I'm sure this report would be rejected at SPI for being ducky, so I'm putting it here, plus a request for page protection together. Korean language has had 5 accounts try to insert the same unsourced fact over the last few days. The account names all have a similar style, staring with "Korea":

• KoreanInfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Koreankorea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KoreanInfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Korearesearchteam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Koreanpedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They've all been trying to dramatically increase the amount of Korean speakers in the infobox.--Crossmr (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Errr...why would it be "rejected for being ducky"? A CU might be declined because  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me, but a simple SPI report? No. (also,  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me all blocked for deafening quacking) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Also found:
• Ask1korean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Koreanresearcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KoreanResearchCenter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - the oldest account
  • - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    • SPI page - if additional socks appear, they should be reported there and we'll see about protecting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

user:Unlimitedtruths

The edits by Unlimitedtruths (talk · contribs) demonstrated that their sole purpose on Misplaced Pages is to promote Michael Crook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and his books (note: article on the subject has been salted due to possible socking and disruption where the article was repeatedly recreated).

This single purpose behavior can be seen by viewing the repeated rejections of the submittal at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Michael Crook (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs), as well as the edit histories at 2 Unlimited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Rome, New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

After having external links removed from 2 Unlimited as linkspam (links to www.nightshad.net/books.html), the user is now adding material about a defunct fanclub that existed between 1993 and 1996 of which Michael Crook was president, and is advertising a non-notable book by Michael Crook that was created about the group.

Note also that the behavior is similar to the SPA behavior of Blogging4truth (talk · contribs) and the suspected socks from that account. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: On my talk page, the editor has also engaged in personal attacks , as well as showing a complete lack of respect for following site policies and making threats to sockpuppet. . --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• So, let's see...promotional editing, Godwinian personal attacks, threats to sock, and their username pretty much sets out an agenda, to boot...I think this adds up to someone who's WP:NOTHERE. And loudly quacking for block evasion to boot. Indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom voting open.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:SecurePoll/vote/240 Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 00:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards