Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:30, 14 June 2012

• 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

WP:PERSONAL

I am reporting a WP:PERSONAL attack on me by User:Soapfan2013 and 219.79.90.44 for creating personal attacks for the way I handle my talk pages. Yes, it may not unorthodox, but I will close a conversation if I feel it is not in an unhealthy discussion place, and I do not want to violate WP:PERSONAL, which Soapfan has on numerous occasions. And it's gone on long enough. I'm tired of being attacked by people on this site who do not know me or do not like me. And I want something done about it.

Refer to these edits: 01 02 03

I do not appreciate being called a baby by users for the way I use my talk page. How I edit and code my talk page, etc. is how I do it to avoid conflict and keep me somewhat WP:CIVIL, which these users are not months/weeks following the small conflict between members and it keeps me calm and helps me walk away from situations which would prove volatile. I agreed to work with Soapfan on furthering their work in editing soap opera articles following a WP:SOCK case, and that faltered due to us being unable to work together in situations, and since then, they seem to be badgering me around things, and I do not appreciate such. I've had several IPs attack me several weeks ago, and it's deterring my wanting to edit here at Misplaced Pages. I've progressed a lot of soap opera articles by bringing notability and WP:V to them. And situations like this are really hinging that. I realize my past my not have been the most grey, but within the past 4-6 months, I've really been working on staying out of conflict, yet it seems to want to attract to me, especially from said member. I try to remain civil headed and clearheaded, and we all get caught up in a moment, hence why we're always advised to walk away, which is what I always tend to do. But people don't want to let it die, and I'm tired of it.

I've told Soapfan to no longer post on my talk page, and they refuse to comply and at this point, it's distressing that they have such a fixation on me. _{MusicFreak7676} 05:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked several of PJ/Soapfan2013/User:Onelifefreak2007's socks in the past. I've given him another chance with this account, because he'd been quiet for a while and seemed to be handling a return to editing well when I finally figured out that it was him editing. Posting this on Musicfreak7676 was unacceptable and I'm waiting for a response from him and am very much considering blocking him. That being said Musicfreak7676 you are constantly in violation of WP:Civil. You shouldn't have to close or archive discussions to keep yourself civil, you should just be nice. It's not like you're editing in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here. It's soap operas. You get angry and threaten users with "being reported" whenever they make edits you disagree with. That you've found a sympathetic admin in Daniel Case is mind-boggling, because though you are often technically right your attitude is downright awful. AniMate 06:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, when I have people constantly down my back, like you, coming at me and making total judgement on me, my closing off arguments and discussions is how I handle it. It's how I resolve it and close it off and feel resolved, and keeps me from going back into the discussion. Yes, I may not have the best way of addressing things, I do not deny that, but I don't calling people babies, etc. And AniMate, I truly feel like you, as well, have a personal issue against me as you've made it clear you "watch" me. I feel as if you don't WP:Assume good faith around me. And AniMate, I'm a he, not a she. I'm not trying to create another conflict, I'm trying to end it. That's all I'm trying to do, so I can go on editing articles and making articles a better contribution to the site. I'm not doing to either to seem as superior to anyone, either. And I'm not saying that's what you're saying I may or may not be doing, I'm just doing this to stop this bull. _{MusicFreak7676} 06:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies about the gender confusion. I keep an eye on all of the soap opera articles and users. I've been active there and know the socks to look out for. Musicfreak, assume good faith is a two way street. You never seem to do so. Rather than leaving polite messages for those who make edits you disagree with, you almost always threaten to report them. That is not civil. That does not assume good faith. Rarely do threats of reports lead to cooperative editing. I watch you for the same reason I watch PJ, because you both have a history of treating other editors poorly. AniMate 07:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, blocking a shared IP for 24 hours with no warnings for calling someone a baby seems a bit harsh, but whatever. I totally agree with AniMate's WP:PETARDic assessment, especially the bit where he mentions sympathetic behaviour over a sustained period by an admin who should know better. There are specific rules on how and where to request blocks and protections, and for good reasons. Neither MusicFreak nor Daniel Case were following them. 219.78.114.94 (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've informed Daniel Case that this thread is also discussing him. May I remind people that if you criticise others here it is only polite to tell them. ϢereSpielChequers 09:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I would have, but his talk page is protected. Not a good start for a conversation, is it? 219.78.114.94 (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no problems with Daniel Case or his actions... I'm just rolling my eyes at the super friendly person he's taken under his wing. AniMate 10:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record, no formal mentor/mentee relationship exists between us. A long time ago, Musicfreak made an AIV report to which I responded. S/He seems to have decided then that I could be trusted, which is fo course fine with me, and has continued to report further instances of vandalism to soap-opera articles to me for my impartial review. That's it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

When an editor asks another to stay away from their talkpage, that's usually considered appropriate - no matter what the reason is behind it - those who continue to post there after such a warning are usually guilty of some form of harassment (except admin actions, of course). If an editor chooses to close conversations on their talkpage rather than to be baited into arguments, that's also quite fine - commendable, actually. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Usually. Request is a more accurate description than warning. The close boxes are fine but not actually commendable -- archiving is preferred. Nobody Ent 10:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a fine block. And there really aren't specific rules on Misplaced Pages -- we even have a rule that says that. Nobody Ent 10:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, not rules, but you know exactly what I mean. There definitely exist more appropriate channels than prodding your buddy admin, as explained in the policy of this site (here and here). This has the obvious (to me) advantage that such requests are dealt with more impartiality and fairness, and therefore situations like this are more unlikely to develop. 219.78.114.94 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've only gone to Daniel because I've been told by other members to go to Daniel, especially when it concerns soap articles. And whether I archive or close off conversations, it's how I do it. I archive every 3-4 months to keep it in my organization. I'm just irked at the fact that I've asked for PJ aka Soapfan to not post on my talk page because it's clear we cannot co-exist and work together. Our personalities do not match together. Recently I have been taking things to the vandalism report section, I have. And I've been using the warning template. And AniMate, instead of rolling your eyes, you should have come to me and told me you didn't find it appropriate that I was going to him. Simple as that. _{MusicFreak7676} 16:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it is that you needed help understanding that your ways needed changing, too. And Daniel did not give you this help.

But that's OK, I think you eventually found it somewhere else and you are trying to better yourself. Cheers to that, and best wishes for the future. 219.79.73.157 (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay... well, I believe you're the IP that I originally reported hence you're obvious involvement. I didn't find anything anywhere, nor do I believe I needed help. This whole post wasn't about me learning anything, it was to stop the obvious harassment against me. _{MusicFreak7676} 00:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure mate, have it your way. But there must be a reason why you are getting so much shit, and i my view that is strongly related to how you treat other editors. 219.79.73.157 (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I frankly don't see the problem here. I thought the topic was simply that Musicfreak was attacked, not that his ethics were up for review. I have to say, early closure and archiving can be unorthodox and sometimes counterproductive, but that is purely on how he handles his talkpage, not why. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And at other times it can be antagonistic - given a cursory glance at SF's history, it seem quite obvious to me that MF responding then refusing to allow a reply was always going to elicit a response; I'd be minded to view it as deliberate, given SF has Aspergers. If someone constantly has people "on their back", then there's probably a reason why. If they can alter their own behaviour then there'll be less ANIs to deal with. I've often found the best way to avoid being called a baby is not acting like one - pretty simple really. 62.255.248.225 (talk) 07:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

So are there going to be consequences to either of the users, or was this just opened so people could discuss me? Because Soapfan has a clear history of insulting members and abusing WP:PERSONAL on his previous account. _{MusicFreak7676} 04:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Musicfreak7676 and PJ should avoid each other talkpages for at least the next 6 months. If they are in dispute over an article, they should discuss it on the article's talkpage or they can both seek advice from AniMate since he/she is familiar of the tension between these two editors . But Musickfreak7676 and PJ should refrain from directly communicating to each other at all costs because it is obvious they cannot co-exist.

Also, I agree that Musickfreak7676 will have to learn to control his temper and to show a little bit of more patience with other editors. I have nothing against his practice of reporting to Daniel Case. On the contrary, I recently even encouraged Musicfreak7676 to have Daniel Case blocked an obvious sockpuppet. However, I have also seen Musicfreak7676 and Daniel Case taking administrative actions against inexperienced IP editors for minor violations that weren't even vandalism. Remember, we were all new on Misplaced Pages at one time. Unless someone is a vandal and/or a sockpuppet, a final warning should not be used over a first offense. Go for a Level 2 warning instead. Farine (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Appeal

Arbitrary header

Magog the ogre has just imposed a restriction on my editing, he has banned me from editing Battle of Chawinda for two months even though I have committed no violations, there was an Iban violation on the part of the other editor with who I have the Iban yet again Magog sees fit to restrict me. His policing of this dispute has been suboptimal since the start had has gotten worse. I demand he remove himself from policing this dispute, and this restriction lifted. Ok here is the timeline Added by Mar4d. Removed by Dbigrayx. Restored by Nangparbat. I revert back to Mar4d. removed again by DBRX. IP reverts himhttp://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Battle_of_Chawinda&diff=next&oldid=496114020] which I revert assuming it was a sock, I self reverted this once I checked the IP. I have now edited this content twice. TG first revert of this quote was two days after I had worked it twice. There has been no violation on my part Darkness Shines (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If anyone (other than someone with skin in this dispute) is actually interested in the events that led to this block, I will be happy to provide them. I'm not going to do so unless requested, because I'm not going to waste my time when most non-involved who are familiar with this dispute will instantly recognize that the community has been more than patient with both of these users, and that any sanction on them, especially when one of them has been continually trying his hardest to get around the spirit of his interaction ban, is more than fair, given the alternative remedies that could be produced. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Late comment This was a really good answer; it's unfortunate you felt unable to follow through. What I recommend in future similar circumstances is to temporarily let the other party have the last word and wait for a third party editor to respond. If the third party validates your position, no further action is needed on your part. If they don't validate your position it's highly likely they'll phrase their concerns in a way that allows a specific response to any perceived misdeed or lack of clarity on your part. Nobody Ent 14:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain why you have not even warned the other side of this Iban when it was he who committed a violation, instead choosing to sanction me again. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am stuck between a rock and a hard place in a response to that. I really don't want to respond per WP:NOTTHEM, because I'm really tired of always talking about the other party, and because I don't want to WP:SOUP up the conversation for the community. On the other hand, I really want to be fair and give a full explanation. So here it is: TopGun did not violate the ban. As I indicated to you by email, a reversion of vandalism (or, in this case, socking) by one editor is not sufficient to rise to the level of placing a block on the other editor's actions for said content - especially when the first editor self-reverted. And even if it is enough - you yourself have made such edits in the past and indicated you thought they were OK, so you kind of knew better, right? Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

One of those edits was not by a sock, the quote in question was first edited by myself, TG editing if it is a violation and again you choose to restrict and berate me though I had done nothing wrong. You continually do this, all anyone need do us look at the two warnings you gave out after the last ANI thread, one was nice and friendly, the other aggressive. Guess who got the aggressive one though again I had not commited the violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess you caught me, Darkness Shines. I am a proud American; Pakistan is as virulently anti-American parts of the Pakistani population is as anti-American as any nation in the world, save parts of the Afghan population. They harbored a mass-murderer of American civilians in their equivalent of West Point, and then threw the guy who helped out the US in jail for 30 years. They do things like throw US government agents in jail for the crime of being stuck up at an ATM. Their nuclear arsenal scares the daylights out of me, like no one else's. I harbor no such thoughts towards India. And yet, despite all of these thoughts going through my head, I have thrown my hat in the ring with a pro-Pakistan POV-pusher. Or could it possibly be that you are just acting disruptively? Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Having spent some time in Pakistan, and having written a series of articles about it, I would have to say that classifying Pakistan as a whole as "virulently anti-American" is plain wrong - period. The reality is that they try to have their cake and eat it too. Indeed, they will do actions to appease their US friends, then turn around and do actions to appease the Islamic congress. They're a massive double-agent, but everybody knows they're a double-agent. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I've redacted the statement a bit. Although it's a rabbit trail. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. Of course, it's also detracting from the apparent purpose of this ANI anyway, which is apparently to review the editing restriction? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Magog please stick to the facts. Explain why you sanctioned me when I had done nothing wrong and have not even warned the editor who commited the Iban violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

So, let's take this from the beginning again. Darkness Shines was sanctioned because he reverted TopGun, from whom he is interaction-banned. DS claims that his revert was justified because TG's previous edit was itself a breach of the interaction ban. True? Well, in that case, DS is wrong: even if TG's edit had also breached the ban, that doesn't give DS the right to revert again. We can now proceed to investigating whether TG should also be sanctioned, but the sanction on DS is sound. And, insofar as it's restricted to this one article, it's rather on the lenient side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If one is in an interaction ban, and observes a violation by the other party, the appropriate thing to do is to privately notify one's most trusted admin, and let the admin take it from there. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? Am I now to Check content to see if an Iban violation occurred before? It is not my job to check if the other part of an Iban has edited content I had previously edited, and if my revert of content I had edited beforehand is a violation why did Magog not sanction or warn for this? Sorry but with Magog it has been one way at all times, I did not violate the Iban, I should not be sanctioned. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The answer to your question, "Am I now to Check content...?", is YES. Once you are in an interaction ban, if you take that ban seriously and to heart, then you should pay very close attention to the other party's edits, so as to avoid any risk of breaching the ban. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

DS was told this more times than I can count. He's playing coy if he is to pretend he doesn't know better. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions?

By the way, do we currently have a general regime of discretionary sanctions on Afghanistan and Pakistan issues? Given the intensity of multi-party disruption in this area (multiple POV warriors fighting on multiple ideological fronts, plus no end of serial sockpuppeters in between), we surely ought to have one. If we don't, let's get one now (community-imposed), and then apply it on a zero-tolerance basis until the appropriate proportion of editors in this field is gone (that is, at my rough estimate, about 70% of all editors active in the field now). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't comment on Afghanistan, but Pakistan-India sanctions would also be useful in my opinion. Mar4d (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on this. There is clearly a lot of tension in the set of articles that overlap India and Pakistan but, I think, this tension is actually quite productive. A lot of useful content is being generated in this area and the tension is kind of important in maintaining neutrality. TopGun and DarknessShines are leading this content charge and, quite naturally since they have opposing points of view, these two editors are constantly in conflict but, properly managed, this is a productive conflict. Right now, both these editors are being given a lot of rope (thanks to Salvio!) and I think that's a good model for us to follow. Clamping down on both editors is not a good idea (sort of like shooting ourselves in the foot) and, with regard to the current discussion, clamping down on only one editor is a really bad idea. One look at the talk page of Battle of Chawinda does, I think, support my view. A lot of the talk is about pov but a lot is about sourcing and reliability of sources as well. Very healthy and very productive, imo and we should be encouraging this sort of thing. --regentspark (comment) 14:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't share this assessment. I'm not seeing anything useful being done here. What I'm seeing is tons of awfully poor quality content being created, and tons of time being wasted. The "productive conflict" model of NPOV is a failure. We can't get NPOV through encouraging POV warriors to keep up a balance of power among each other. What we need is editors who actually strive for neutrality on their own, and I'm not seeing many of those now. Maybe if we get the abusive elements out, those few that might be able to do positive work could finally come to the fore. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is working, albeit in a dysfunctional sort of way and that's not entirely their fault. The problem with editors who strive for neutrality on their own is that the are unwilling to push the boundaries while POV editors are usually happy to do so (no 'neutral' editor would have created a Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War article but, despite the fact that the article still has neutrality issues, and despite the fact that my first thought was 'delete this crap", I can see now that it is topic worthy of an article). Both TG as well as DS are excellent boundary pushers and are very good at pushing back on each others POV and the resulting discussions are usually quite productive because they are forced to find sources, discuss source neutrality, etc. as a larger body of editors gets involved. You're going to disagree with me even more but I actually think that the interaction ban between these two editors is part of the problem because they are unable to directly address each other and are forced to approach pov edits indirectly and in an oblique way which makes things worse (templating non-IBAN editors, many pointy reverting and then undoing the revert immediately, things like that). Both editors discuss the IBAN extensively and, unfairly in my opinion, get into trouble for doing so. Though I had at one point advocated a strong topic ban on both editors, I would now advocate repealing the interaction ban completely, letting them address each other directly and focus admin attention on treating civility issues with blocks. A much better way of dealing with editors then by discussing the finer points of what is or is not an interaction accompanied by long lectures on behavior that are better left to school teachers. --regentspark (comment) 15:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You're quite right on many points, but if the IBAN is removed the hounding will start again leading to much worse than this. You know DS never edited almost any article I edit before December? Now he edits all following me to each one of them from my contributions list. That is harassment, and I don't want to edit in such environment. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Slam-dunk, emphatic support - I called for these a long time ago. Unfortunately, at that point I was a lone voice crying out in the wilderness; perhaps now people are willing to entertain my point? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose in favour of swift blocks: vios should be dealt with swift blocks, not with further sanctions that will again be reported once they are violated to yet even receive further sanctions. If the admins can not handle violations from the sanctions that are already present, there's no way we can trust that allowing them to throw on more sanctions will help. Taking action on violation of sanctions is the issue here, this solution seems to increase the problem. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

  The problem with "vios should be dealt with swift blocks" TG is that you wikilawyer the heck out of things. This thread is a good example where you managed to weasel out of a block. Perhaps what is needed is for you to agree to be blocked, without question, by any one of a group of admins for anything the perceive to be an iban violation. Are you willing to go with that? --regentspark (comment) 17:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

By swift blocks I do not mean invalid blocks. If I unambiguously violate, block me. The case you pointed out was not taken as a violation before and later reported as a vio, I don't think it is fair to block in a case like that or on something previously never clarified. Each and every vio I report is well clarified and is not blocked on either because admins call it stale (only to see it later again) or because it is self reverted (also only to happen again else where). --lTopGunl (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Part of the difficulty in all this is your expectation that the interaction ban be clearly spelled out in advance. In my opinion, if a ban is in place, then the onus is on you to assume that anything that touches on DS is a violation of the ban and to explicitly get clarification before you make the edit. Your expectation that clarifications will come only after the violation and that you'll always be given the opportunity to correct it is unrealistic and is part of the slippery slope that is pushing you toward a site ban. I should also point out that, in the example I give above, you contested the opinion of several admins that the edit was a violation and only reverted when confronted with a revert or be blocked choice. That too is not helping. You (as well as DS) want to have a small footprint at ANI and on admin talk pages but, instead, the two of you are leaving a giant footprint. As you can see, enough people are getting sick of seeing you on ANI (though, since many of them don't actually deal with the two of you I'm not sure why that is in itself so bothersome) and when that happens - .... - I hope you know what happens. --regentspark (comment) 17:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree about making clarifications before hand in case of edits that might have issues, but we're past that in most reports; which are about clear cut violations after clarification... 3-4 present on Magog's talkpage. Some thing needs to be done about handling those... the ambiguous ones have been dealt well by Salvio without blocks for both sides (though he too was some times lenient though, to let go the clear cut ones if they were self reverted). --lTopGunl (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ban proposal: TopGun and DarknessShines

• The obvious, yet unfortunate response to this whole thing - seeing as various admins talkpages and ANI are all littered with tattling on each other, suspected and real Iban violations, etc, is to just fricking BAN the both of them (DS and TG) from Misplaced Pages for 6 months. During that time, they can learn that childish bickering is verboten and undesired from our editors. During that time they can learn to treat others and their skills/opinions with respect, no matter what. During that time, they can realize that we're fricking serious with our restrictions, and that FUTURE bullcrapola will be met with permanent bans from the project. During that time they can try and get over their ethnic/nationalistic crap. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Nobody Ent 14:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What ethnic nationalist crap? I am neither Indian or Pakistani, my mother is Irish and father English. I have no nationalist views on this whatsoever. But well fucking done on proposing an editor be banned when he has done fuck all wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban for recurrent need for dispute resolution; not endorsing Bwilkins description of editors. Nobody Ent 14:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Neutral for iTopGun -- to be fair, I have not seen the editor on ANI/WQA recently. Nobody Ent 01:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• How soon they forget Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This was being done before and never clarified, it was a reasonable conflict which I reverted. That thread is self explanatory. Also, I've not started any of the threads at ANI since months even to report... I was dragged here. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Very reluctant support - we've been dragged to AN/I far too often for this. This is an extreme solution but if it's the only way to put a stop to this then sobeit. Would it be possible to impose a topic ban on Indo-Pakistani topics instead though? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I have to oppose this ban. Although I would have preferred a topic ban, but WP:TBAN says,"The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive." I believe that although both of them do get in many conflicts, but one can't say their edits on India/Pakistan related articles as disruptive. Please correct me if I am wrong. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 15:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Nobody Ent. Not sure editorializing the issue is helpful. I've been just inside the sidelines enough to see that this ban is needed to prevent disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support if and only if six month bans are the only way to stop this disruption, reluctantly - it seems that blocks are the only way to put an end to this. →Bmusician 16:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Both the 6 month ban as well as the topic ban, the IBAN was placed due to a reason, enforcing IBAN with a block when a IBAN violation has been proved is the correct thing to do. Problem only erupts when the wikilawyering starts. I also agree with RegentsPark's comment below. Blocking for six month is way to harsh and seeing the interference of Nangparbat socks in the incidents, it is highly likely that more socks will erupt.

Also there is a Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/India, Afghanistan and Pakistan going on where all the concerned parties are participating and the discussion appears promising. I dont see any benefit in derailing the hard work done so far in mediation, by forcing a Block or Topic ban when things can be handled in a better way using existing options on collaboration. --DℬigXray 20:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering the recent comments I would also add a Strong Oppose for blocking User:Darkness Shines as proposed above, from what I see is a clear bias against DS and ignoring the faults of TopGun. --DℬigXray 09:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment A ban is like going up a blind alley, seeing the block logs. Has it worked previously? And the answer is no, so why not try something that may effectively end this problem once for all? In my opinion a Topic Ban is necessary here more than anything else. But first the following needs to be identified:
  1. Topics which both editors edit mostly
  2. Topics where both editors have been in disputes

After identifying above I guess it will be easy to move forward with a topic ban that was suggested many a times before too. --SMS 17:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• I would support a topic ban rather than a site ban at this point. Hopefully a topic ban would prevent the drama, but still permit editors to do useful work elsewhere (unless it later turns out that their days are consumed by incompatible but passionately-held beliefs on oceanography or on 18th century French literature). If a topic ban has been tried (I'm not aware of this having been done but I might have missed something) but failed to stop the drama then I would support progression to a site ban. bobrayner (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Nah. I agree that life will be much easier without these two but this is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Both editors are primarily adding content and, I think, there are sufficient checks and balances on neutrality that they are a net plus for Misplaced Pages. A simpler solution would be to require them to only use email when reporting or querying iban violations - take the drama off wiki so to speak. --regentspark (comment) 18:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• I reiterate that this ban is wrong headed. The conflict between these editors is productive, it forces them to defend their povs with a larger audience and with stronger references and that is a good thing. The interaction ban has been a problem because it has not been evenly applied and has been symptomized by blocks being reduced after extensive wikilawyering and talk (I plead guilty to that sin as well, mainly because I'm amazed by the content they're generating and don't want either editor to be blocked or banned). That's our fault as admins, we should discourage wikilawyering, not second guess the decisions of another admin, and firmly crack down on iban and/or civility violations. It is unfair to penalize these editors for the mistakes made by admins. --regentspark (comment) 13:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose on the grounds that we ought not support a ban of editors just because the issue is brought up a lot. Deal with the issue where there is disruption; if it is shown that DS has been disruptive enough to enjoy a topic-ban or site-ban, go for it. Ditto with TopGun. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Heartily support for DarknessShines, whose presence has, from what I've seen, been thoroughly disruptive (and whose block log speaks for itself); not so sure about TopGun. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Much too broad. A topic ban on the article in question might be enough, with an expansion to articles involving Pakistan if necessary. No reason to remove them from the rest of Misplaced Pages. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for TopGun TopGun has never violated his IBAN, even once. This ban serves no purpose. On the other hand, Darkness Shine's treatment of the IBAN has been suboptimal; consult his block log for proof. The only person who should be scrutinized is Darkness Shines. Mar4d (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes he has, quite a few times and has again done so in this very thread Darkness Shines (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll further note that one can not violate the IBAN when discussing the IBAN itself (forexample in this discussion). --lTopGunl (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, you can - once you changed from supporting simply a ban on both of you, to removing yourself as that made it a discussion about them, or made any individual discussions about DS as opposed to defending the proposal against yourself (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Disagree with that. This is a report about the IBAN and it's appeal. All the discussion here is relevant to that, and I should be allowed to freely discuss or support/oppose. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic bans This drama was interesting sometime ten years ago for roughly a nanosecond. When a conflict gets so bad that ANI is disrupted by constant, childish bickering we have reached the point where stronger restrictions are necessary. I am Neutral regarding a full site ban; what ever gets the drama to stop is the correct action. SÆdon 04:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• oppose too harsh.-- altetendekrabbe  07:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose for Darkness Shines and oppose generally in favour of alternative proposal below. The Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/India, Afghanistan and Pakistan should be given a chance to work. Especially Darkness Shines has worked hard to present dozens of reliable sources there to further the mediation process. JCAla (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support of indefinite topic bans on pain of long blocks. This has gone on long enough, and both involved editors have been repeatedly told to back off. This acting-like-six-year-olds "he started it, no he started it" crap is getting tiresome. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Diffs? Where have I been wrong about the violations? Reporting violations is not an offense.... making them is. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If you were obeying the terms of the IBAN and not constantly checking, you wouldn't be reporting violations. Right now you're both looking at each other and waiting for the other to mess up so you can tattletale to ANI, and regardless of who started it (and I think I speak for everyone here), it is really getting old. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually this is getting contradicting, an admin above said you should be paying close attention to each others' edits so as not to violate the ban, that automatically means I'll be aware of any violations that are made and will be bound to report them so that I'm not later accused of making vios my self when I later edit the content I added. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support in the case of DarknessShines, neutral in the case of TopGun. DarknessShines has become much too frequent a flyer on ANI, and I think we've gotten to the stage where enough is enough. One would think that someone in the thick of so many disputes would learn to take especial care to edit with the utmost respect for civility, neutrality and consensus. Ravenswing 16:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Just a question. There was another TopGun who also edited Middle East subjects. I hope this is another user? My very best wishes (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, it is definitely another user. →Bmusician 08:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The user name is different, his has a space. I usurped this username as I couldn't create it (the previous holder didn't have any contributions). --lTopGunl (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support for Darkness Shines - unrepentant violations of his interaction ban, blaming everyone but himself, which is where the blame lies. I turned down numerous chances to block him, and he still blames me for his situation (chutzpah!). Oppose for TopGun, but place TopGun on civility parole for the recent conduct which got him blocked - meaning any non-involved admin can block him at any point for handling himself with anything but the utmost of care . Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've always been civil. My recent tangential remarks were due to three bad blocks thrown on me consecutively (one even being for reverting the banned user Lagoo sab), and all three were reverted. My comments other wise have all followed WP:CIVIL, always. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Taking a look on User talk:TopGun and the past ANI threads concerning TG and DS one can clearly see that even TopGun indulges in blaming everyone but himself, extensive wikilawyering and comments such as No , he did it, you did not block him and similar comments. A lot of people here at ANI will agree that TopGun is not as clean and innocent as Magog is trying to prove above. Moreover TG's 1 week block has been lifted already and DS is still blocked for 2 weeks. I am sorry to say this but, what I see here, is a clear bias against User:Darkness Shines.--DℬigXray 09:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You of all should not be commenting on me, because you're the one doing the blaming right now. My block was lifted because it was not a violation (and esp, it was not a symmetrical block related to that vio either in the first place). And reporting a vio with a diff is not "blaming everyone but myself". Furthermore, you have a history of coming to ANI discussions that do not concern you to make comments on me... it is quite telling that you labeled my caution of that as a threat last time. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Prove that blanket statement Magog. Whenever I have erred I have immediately self reverted. There has been no wikilawering, no argument, just straight revert. I have never blamed anyone when I have made a mistake and have always corrected those mistakes. As for turning down numerous chances to block me, I believe my block log tells a different story. You first blocked me for doing a single revert, my first revert on that particular article ever and my first revert in three or four days. Your excuse? Edit warring. You have threatened and blocked me at even the slightest chance. So prove that this is "all my fault" and that I have been unrepentant when a mistake was made. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• People need to remain fair and balanced here. Darkness Shines should be unblocked like TopGun to have similar possibility for defending himself. BOTH committed a violation of the IBAN and both recently had a similar number of violations (DS being blocked more often for them) but only one editor has been unblocked. The good faith gestures shown by Darkness Shines should be taken in account. Darkness Shines has agreed to a topic ban and thereby to not edit in the topic area until mediation is concluded. If the other editor were to show a similar good faith gesture people could all move forward to mediation and leave this unpleasant litigation behind. The mediators have raised interesting questions which, if addressed, could create a framework from which to work from. Darkness Shines has provided dozens of reliable academic sources in the topic area and people in the mediation are waiting for others to do the same. JCAla (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. India-Pakistan edits are contentious and I agree with Regentspark that the dialectic is keeping the other's crappy references out. Disclaimer:I have had differences of POV with TG in the past. AshLin (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose for Darkness Shines Conditional Topic Ban until Mediation is completed (as proposed below) seems quite fine.Agree with JCAla. It doesn't look fair to give one of the two involved users'..chance to defend himself while the other is deprived of the same.Since DS agreed for a topic ban until mediation is completed, it is now time to lift the punitive block from DS so that he can participate here. This also follows neutrality. Thanks ƬheStrikeEagle 12:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support for Darkness Shines as his only purpose here seems to add strong ant-Pakistan POV (examples: , ) to Pakistan related articles. He has been in disputes with most of the editors who are working in this topic area and TopGun is one of them. I did suggest "Pakistan" topic ban for DS previously but his continuous POV editing, hindrance in improving articles in this topic area and hounding has forced me to support an indefinite site ban. --SMS 14:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with User:Smsarmad "Lets Start Banning editors who disagree with Pakistani POV", perfect way to go --DBigXray 15:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

Why is there no content between the "Appeal" and "Arbitrary header" headers? Was content removed from there, or did someone just put a level-3 header immediately below the level-2 header? Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I just added it to make editing the first section easier. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, good. Nyttend (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

More violations

I've reported a few more vios on my talk page in a report. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hounding

• The interaction ban was placed because I was being admittedly hounded (first saying things like RC patrol and later admitting to following me around) and I was in full support of it... even got the thread reopened when it was being closed. This was where I proposed a site ban before but due to my own conflict, it appeared retaliatory. Hopefully it doesn't now that I've not made a violation myself here. . This hounding has still continued and has violated the spirit of IBAN: (an article I'm a major contributor to where DS just appeared), (appeared here right after I edited for the first time), (and another one where he never edited before). There are many more and would take up useless diff digging. This has not been reciprocated by me. And not to mention calling it a violation when ever I report one, contest one reported against me or get involved in an IBAN related discussion like this one. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• This is another Ivan violation. One was already explained I was reverting Nangparbat, the other was on RC patrol which anyone. can see I do occasionally and self reverted once I looked at the articles history so as to warn that user. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying very hard to think of a reason not to indef both of you now and end this time sink once and for all... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that the proposal at hand, basically? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I mean unilaterally do it and see what happens. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Though I've been against it, I'm beginning to think I'm mistaken. If TG and DS can't figure out what's what when faced with a site ban, I don't see this ever working out. An indef is beginning to look like the only sane solution. --regentspark (comment) 03:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Alternative: Conditional topic ban until mediation has concluded

These folks (TG, DS, along with JCAla and Mar4d) are currently involved in mediation. So far the mediation hasn't gone far due to skirmishes between them elsewhere. One approach might be to give TG and DS a conditional topic ban. The condition would be that they work out their differences and show that they can edit harmoniously in accordance with WP policies. One of the ways that they might achieve a more collaborative approach would be through mediation. The mediators are willing to try that, if they are. Sunray (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Thanks Sunray. I for one am willing to let them try this restricted approach. Unfortunately, they're both currently blocked, so, assuming this has traction at all, if someone could ping them with this as a question, that would be great. --regentspark (comment) 18:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• "By Sunray. I will go along with a topic ban until mediation has concluded." - Darkness Shines (brought over from here) 09:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The mediation is the right venue to determine the honesty of the editors with regards to abiding by the rules of wikipedia (sourcing, civility, etc.) and gives both editors (and the others) the chance to work out a common basis to work from which could prevent extensive future disputes. JCAla (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose ban: for myself as it will hinder general progress, most of my edits are in this topic area only and also because this thread is not here because I made a violation; I've made no violations atleast on those things previously clarified and my block was reverted as not a vio. To be serious, the disputes follow me around. I'll try not to engage in the same dispute on different articles while the mediation is on, but I can not say the same for unrelated disputes or for conduct disputes which are the prime issue. Also I think the mediation is kind of failing (not due to the content itself, but because of the conduct disputes that are there going in the parallel and out right denial of each others' views at different venues including the mediation). I will, however, still make good faith attempts to continue the mediation until it is rendered impossible due to the conduct scenario (I will withdraw though if a topic ban is implemented on me due to this thread as I had no part in starting this other than correctly reporting a vio). --lTopGunl (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support This will be reasonable, both can be topic banned until the meditation process is over. Site banning one or both while the mediation process is running is clearly not the best option. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 07:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Wholehearted Support This is in fact a constructive way, that will actually be beneficial to the project. Blocking is only a final option when everything else fails. Admins needs to be specially careful while dealing with promising and good article contributors such as User:Darkness Shines. The process of mediation had been proposed for reasons such as this. Lets rise above from the mob mentality of lynching editors and think wisely and allow people who are willing to handle it in a better way.--DℬigXray 09:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I hesitated to support the proposal above as I felt that was draconian, but I find it unbelievable that these two can still continue to bicker even when facing a full site ban. Time for a holiday for us all - they are both clearly incapable of acting like adults towards each other and so I support this restriction. Basalisk ⁄_berate 13:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support Completely agree with DBigXray.Block should be the final action when everything other than it fails to achive the objective.Let mediation be given a chance.I'm sure Darkness Shines would try to settle any disputes whatsoever so that he continues his great contributions in sock-puppetry fighting here.Blocking for 6 months doesn't seem fair as it is not the case of any serious sock-puppetry or abusing.Just another part of Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts.....so can be resolved with mediation.Thanks ϮheჂtriԞeΣagle 13:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support I am more than willing to refrain from editing existing articles in the topic area until such a time as mediation has concluded. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Establishing conditions for successful dispute resolution

I'm glad to see that the idea of a conditional topic ban is generally supported. However, I am somewhat concerned about TG's comments above (particularly the "disputes follow me around" statement). IMO mediation will not work unless participants cease pointing at others and take responsibility for their own behaviour. In an earlier section, regentspark said: "There is clearly a lot of tension in the set of articles that overlap India and Pakistan but, I think, this tension is actually quite productive." I agree that the tension has the potential to be productive under certain conditions. The key will be to get conditions that the participants can all buy into. My co-mediator, Lord Roem, and I, are considering this question. In the meantime I would like to hear from TopGun as to what conditions he thinks would work, bearing in mind that the alternative proposed, above, is a six-month topic ban. While I am looking for comment by TG, I welcome others' comments. Sunray (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

disruptive editor with unsustainable PoV

Hi,

I have been doing battle since 16 May (It all started here) with Stodieck (Talk), who has a technical PoV about aircraft that he is trying to stitch into several articles, including Canard (aeronautics), Stabilizer (aircraft) and Wing configuration. He is abusive, does not listen to reason or accept the majority consensus of other editors. He has most recently taken to misinterpreting sources, which has started to confuse other editors. The main evidence of this may be found on Talk:Stabilizer (aircraft): see my posts from 5 June downwards for diffs and other links. I notice that this user has been censured before on their talk page. Please help, I am at the end of my tether. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again,

Stodieck is again making edits without prior discussion or consensus. Diffs:

And also going back and editing a previous discussion comment that I had replied to, making an IP edit:

while logging in to make new comments, e.g. these two new comments were made respectively before and :after the IP edit of the old one:

Please, at least tell me why nobody is responding to this request? Am I doing something wrong or missing something out? I'm not asking for a technical judgement, just a call on this editor's behviour. 20:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment The reason you are getting little traction here is that primarily this is a technical content dispute. I have more than a sneaking suspicion that you are mostly wrong on this. A control surface ahead of the wing will act as a positive feedback mechanism for pitch instability, so calling it a stabiliser is Orwellian or lazy terminology at best. As to the behaviour of the other party, yes, it can be very annoying if one is a technical expert in something and wiki policies are repeatedly used to frustrate the clear expression of fact. So I suspect he is frustrated by your obtuseness. Greglocock (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks so much for responding. Yes of course there is a technical dispute going on, but that's not why I am asking you guys for help. My problem is the other party's behaviour - riding roughshod over etiquette as I have tried to document. We cannot resolve the technical issue until the parties involved are behaving in a civilised manner. I am carefully avoiding technical issues here and focusing on the behaviour (so I'm not going to respond to your technical comments here). Why is that not working? Do you need more diffs of bad behaviour repeated here as well as on discussions I have linked to above, like when I got insulted on my own talk page, or should I be posting on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, or what? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I realize that you are dealing with multiple issues here, and I acknowledge that you have kept WP:COOL while attempting to get things sorted. This is just the wrong venue for most of the issues you have brought, and that's why so little traction. It helps (here at AN/I) to bring actionable items with specific requests that require administrator intervention. You may want to re-review WP:DR and (if necessary) start a thread at WP:DRN. Note that DRN has it's own guidelines for what works best, so be sure to review them. Copied from header (above):

--Tgeairn (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Melanie and Martina Grant

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

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

User:87.112.146.112 posted a request to my talk page asking that "sensitive and personal information regarding their children and relationship information is kept private". This was as a result of multiple unexplained removals of content on the article Melanie and Martina Grant. I removed the information but I am unsure of what to do as of right now. Thank you. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Re-opened, and dealt with: I've removed and rev-deleted the information in question in the interest of the subject's privacy, as I believe it comes under the "contact information" provision of the WP:BLP policy. It may be in the public domain -- lots of things are -- but it doesn't mean that it belongs in a biographical enyclopedia article. -- The Anome (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Your RevisionDeletion didn't seem to do anything, as the alleged content is still visible in earlier revisions. -Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I've hidden a few more revisions' text, and I think I've got it all now. -- The Anome (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks good from here, thanks for helping! Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Constant attacks by editor

121.216.230.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has strong views on Craig Thomson affair. He's also constantly accusing others of vandalism and of inserting libel and defamation. , , , , , , via edit summaries and section headers. The material in question has three different sources and judged not to be libelous by an admin . He was warned by me about WP:TALKNEW and personal attacks and has received other warnings, for example. He's still continung , . At this point I'd like an admin to step in and make it clear to 156.* that these attacks must stop. --NeilN 09:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

As the target of some of these attacks, may I rise in the defence of the IP editor. He is a new editor and he feels strongly about the material. He is getting good advice from more experienced editors and I trust that he'll let it sink in and become more co-operative as time passes. I feel sure that he can provide some excellent work once he becomes more familiar with the way things happen around here. I am not particularly offended by his assaults on my various sensibilities and I forgive him. I do however, echo NeilN's request that it be made clear by an admin or two that continued transgressions will make his participation difficult. --Pete (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Craig Thomson affair

This article is the centre of edit warring, POV pushing, and the addition of blatantly false and defamatory libel. User:Skyring (alias Pete) has persistently baited other editors and myself, lied about the contents of his edits, added poorly sourced, defamatory, and opinion sources to the article, inserting blatant lies into the body text of the article, and slanted the article to become an attack page again, after edits were made to try and add some balance to the article. He was joined by User:NeilN who continued to play WP:GAME. I request that experienced editors look into the matter. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm largely with the IP editor here. It's a very sensitive topic. One that could bring down the Australian government. We've had partisan posts in the literal sense, from a member of the opposition party!). It seems to me that both Skyring/Pete and NeilN have been aiming for the article to have a particularly critical POV of the subject. The IP editor was definitely provoked by unacceptable editing practices, especially from Pete/Skyring. (His new position fascinates me.) This is not a simple case of one badly behaved editor. HiLo48 (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have exactly one edit to the article (a revert of a "vandalism revert" by the IP). My talk page posts consist of trying to get the IP to quit with the defamation and libel accusations and trying to understand your position regarding the absence of reliable sources. --NeilN 11:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have exactly one edit to the article Exactly. You've been concentrating on WP:GAME and finding 'better' things to do than fix the article itself - like your threats and baiting on the article's talk page, running round all over Misplaced Pages to 'get that anon user to see how things are done here' and all your little games left on 'my' (this IP's) talk page. And what about your moving of my responses around on the article's talk page, and then invoking some nonsense about 'incorrect intending'? Both you and Skyring did that, and did so deliberately to bait me, NeilN. Instead of examining and fixing the serious problems then present in a BLP article - which you knew about well before this blew up () - you've been more interested in harassing me and wasting my time and that of others by playing The Misplaced Pages Game - e.g. , , , etc etc. But let's get back to the article:

1. . There were defamatory and false allegations of fact previously in it and they were being used to push a POV agenda; they were altered or removed.
2. . The article was full of defamatory innuendo and in such poor shape that it prompted one editor to ask if the subject of the article had been found guilty of anything by a court upon that editor's initial examination.
3. . When Skyring alias Pete deliberately restored the innuendo and referenced a source cited by the legal system as a reckless libeler, I removed them again.
4. . What many people outside Australia may not know is that the subject of the article began defamation proceedings against a major media empire, whose publications would ordinarily be considered a reliable secondary (ie neutral reporting) source for Misplaced Pages purposes. What happens when these previously hereto reliable secondary sources are also the defamation defendants of the article's living person? They cannot really considered to be neutral reporters of fact in that instance, can they?
5. . The other national media source whose opinion sources Skyring liked to use is owned by Murdoch, and so that should speak for itself.
6. . For you and others to falsely describe my edits as 'vandalism' when I attempted to put some balance into an article which Skyring and his (ex?)Liberal Party of Australia chum were busy making into an attack page before HiLo48 and I came along (and before Collect cleaned it out) to try and put it right simply isn't true; what happened to your assumption of good faith?
7. . Your friend Skyring alias Pete is baiting me with nonsense after I added a comment on the AfD. And he's still at it, moving my comments around and trying to bait me. He knows perfectly well that I had already addresses that very issue right here before, when Ball couldn't cope with the fact that some people see through the smears perpetrated by the Liberal Party of Australia. For the record, (a) I am not Craig Thomson; and (b) I reiterate the fact that, unlike Ball, I have no past or present membership of any political party. So AFAIC, Skyring's comment falls into the "when did you stop bashing your wife?" category. Before choosing to ignore him, I had previously asked that editor to stop his lying and harassment, and that was redefined as "a personal attack".
8. . For the record, I assumed good faith with Skyring until he (a) inserted material which was demonstrably false and untrue (which I referred to as 'lying'; why sugar-coat a turd and call it birthday cake?) and (b) removed any material which conflicted with his POV that the subject should be presumed guilty of offences and/or torts without trial; in Australia, that is called defamation. I am not the only person who can see that a slant and bias is being added by certain editors and the article is/was in poor shape, with such descriptions as, eg bad and opinionated content creation, adding his own POV slant, and creating the page as a perfect place to hang one's prejudices.
9. . Also for the record, I assumed good faith with you until you started playing games with me - moving my responses around on the article talk page to bait me, and your making of threats to report me to ANI and so on, but it now appears to me as though you support Skyring's POV pushing and gaming the system. Then again, you're not alone in that; the sort of game playing I've experienced here (e.g. (reply to false accusations by Skyring maliciously deleted by User:Armbrust; (semantics and games from User:Despayre when I attempted to jump through hoops to get approval for sources which had been deleted by the POV pushers) and this from User:Dennis_Brown (that edit was 'a legal threat'? Oh, please; can someone put the lid back on the glue?) amongst many others which I can't be bothered to cite) is both a travesty and so incestuously ridiculous, since the policies are being gamed by a handful to promote the outcomes which those policies were intended to prevent. The preceding are a few examples of the kind of circle-jerking which puts people off participating in Misplaced Pages. I began editing the article to fix the POV and source problems which were clearly obvious and thus enhance the integrity of the project by contributing to it - NOT to argue with recalcitrants, NOT to spend hours jumping through hoops, and NOT to play stupid games. Despite the good efforts of HiLo48, Collect, Youreallycan, and some others, this experience has certainly put me off making any further contributions - but what does that matter; I guess that won't matter since I'm 'just an IP and thus a non-citizen'. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

1) Please provide a diff where I moved your comments. 2) Please provide a diff where I called your edits "vandalism" 3) You can repeat it all you want, but the text I was discussing ("Fair Work Australia asked lawyers to commence proceedings in the Federal Court against Thomson and others named in the report's adverse findings") was neither libelous or defamatory as it was reported by three different sources. 4) Trying to get you to calm down and make your points rationally is not baiting you. Comparing an an editor to a rabid dog who needs to be put to sleep and stuff like this however, is. --NeilN 05:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

, as with your friend Skyring alias Pete, I am not wasting any more of my time playing your games any more, and I will not respond any further to your edits, "questions", and baiting. We're done here. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The article was a splendid example of "silly season" stuff - it used huge amounts of unneeded and irrelevant details, and a strange "timeline" which did not improve the article. As always, sufficient gist is left for the reader, but Misplaced Pages is a poor place for campaign pamphlets, at best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

{ec}x many :Admins might also want to drop a word or two to HiLo48 about the repeated personal attacks on Pete. I've no horse in this race, but have just read through the talk page and no matter how frustrated one gets, flinging insults like this, this, this and this is pretty much beyond the pale. Blackmane (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You cited this, and Hilo48's reply there was hardly an insult; all HiLo48 did in the section you cited was to relocate the part I added. Look again at his(?) response - it is very civil, especially given the circumstances. As for what you called an 'insult', I call it as I saw it; lies are false statements knowingly made as statements of fact, and is defamation is the knowing dissemination of false information by person A to lower the opinion of person B in the opinion of another. Skyring repeatedly inserted both into the article and it was removed. I agree that what I wrote there wasn't a very nice way to put it - but it was done with the intent to quickly get administrator attention onto the article quickly, and in that, it succeeded in its aims. Your subsequent citations regarding HiLo48's previous responses were in response to baiting and edit-warring by Skyring. And, que surprize; here is Skyring baiting Hilo48 again, so poor little Pete is hardly an innocent party here. However, given this struck-through comment it's not surprising you're interpreting what's gone on in the way you are. I guess at least Skyring alias Pete or his friends NeilN and DDB will never complain about anything you edit, hey. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like someone to address the behaviour from Pete that got me fired up. For a couple of days he followed an editing pattern of placing a comment on the Talk page, then immediately changing the article in line with his comment with his opinion, before anyone had responded on the Talk page. This behaviour continued despite repeated polite requests to stop. Ruder requests (yes, against Wiki rules) worked. He finally paid attention. I'm proud that I protected the article. HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, HiLo. Could you provide an example, please? Most of your "ruder" comments came during the time the big football game was on, and I suspect you didn't check previous discussion or follow the links provided at the time, being distracted by other things. --Pete (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I've said my piece here. And I suspect that we follow different football codes anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Baseball, and only very mildly - the last game I watched was the Reds whipping the Mets at Citifield, after a dinner at Mickey Mantles in 2009. But come on, you've raised my name here without the courtesy of informing me about it, do you have anything specific to say? --Pete (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he was required to inform you that he mentioned you in this thread, considering you had already commented here and were presumably watching it. Doc talk 11:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Getting fired up is one thing, but verbally abusing another editor is completely unacceptable. If this "affair" brings down the Australian Government, another will take its place. Nothing ever really changes regardless of who we vote for (yes, I'm Australian) and to be honest, Gillard is a joke, but that's neither here nor there. Blackmane (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Edit: Striking inflammatory remark. Blackmane (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This article looks solid to me. What's libelous or defamatory about it? Contrary to the article being POV or agenda laden, it seems like those fighting for it to be altered from a simple report of what is available in the media to a whitewashing have a POV agenda. Obotlig ☣ 22:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

What's libelous or defamatory about it? Obotlig, do you mean before or after Collect expertly ran a broom through the article? Collect removed the nonsense, but the POV pushers are back at it again. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This is important. Seriously, can we get an experienced admin onto this. The Craig Thomson or Health Services Union affair is a major and ongoing political controversy in Australia. It's been front page news since 2009, the nation's leading politicians are talking about the subject, and he's been getting all sorts of abuse and possibly death threats. His Twitter account is getting some worrying messages. A lot of working people hate him, after the release of the damning report by Fair Work Australia last month into financial irregularities involving union funds dating back to 2002. The affair has huge political significance, given that the minority government depends on his vote and would fall without it. I've been working on an article about the affair over the past month since the release of the report.
A few days ago a new SPA IP editor showed up and began making edits, strongly partisan edits in favour of the subject. A very distinctive pattern, indicating somebody who knew a lot about the controversy, but preferred to use political blogs rather than mainstream media sources. He was challenged about his identity, but gave an odd and evasive answer, saying he has no political affiliation and is not being paid to edit. As Craig Thomson himself is no longer a member of any political party, i wondered about this, and had a look at his IP address and other stuff.
I take no offence at any of the many personal attacks made against me, above and elsewhere. New editors don't know the rules and usually learn quickly enough, and while Misplaced Pages can be a harsh playground, there is a lot of help around for those who seek it. Could I ask someone to take a closer look at this user, hold his hand, give him some guidance, and maybe get him to feel more at home. I'm concerned about the level of tension and aggression exhibited by this person, and if he is indeed the subject of the "Craig Thomson affair", trying to edit articles concerning him, then he can run into a lot of rocks, as do many BLP subjects doing the same thing. In any case, whoever he is, this editor is a fellow human being and clearly under a lot of stress. --Pete (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The primary problem, and the reason for this users stress was the opinionated POV attack content you, User:Skyring had created and are still attempting to recreate and publish using en wikipedia in relation to a living subject of one of our articles - your contributions expose you as a clear conflicted partisan. Youreallycan 07:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've stuck to reliable sources, and refrained from pushing my own opinion. In discussing political matters, there are always people who have a contrary and strongly-held opinion and view the thing as a football match, where they cheer on their saints and take no criticism, while damning the opposing side as demons who can do no good at all. I stand by all my edits on this matter. Regardless of anything else, even Thomson admits that union funds were spent on prostitutes through his credit card number and never repaid. The Fair Work Australia report goes into forensic detail on this, repeated by every media outlet in Australia as a major story the next day. If we are to have an article - and we already have several in various places - dealing with the matter, it is incumbent on Misplaced Pages to present the facts, back them up with sources, and be as fair as we can, with regard to NPOV and BLP. If there are any of my edits which represent original research or personal opinion, please point them out. --Pete (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You, User:Skyring, are a biased partisan attack content creator in this instance - others have also pointed them out. I have also had to revert and NPOV some of them. - You are also a single purpose account in regards to this subject for the last five weeks. Your contributions to this topic have been commented as POV and undue and BLP violating by multiple experienced editors as you are well aware - your content addition has been removed as violating and undue in regards to Misplaced Pages policy - and so on and so on - Youreallycan 07:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Wow. There must be lots of offending diffs with my name on, then. Perhaps you could be more specific, perhaps list three of the ones you really hate? --Pete (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You will probably never recognise it, but quite possibly most of your edits are unacceptable. I have debated several with you (when you paused long enough for that to happen), and you never seemed to understand. I've encountered this before on Misplaced Pages, an editor who simply cannot comprehend what they're doing wrong. For the sake of the encyclopaedia, they usually still end up being blocked. HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but all I'm seeing is opinion and no details. This is Misplaced Pages and we don't lose diffs. Pick three you say are bad and show how they violate wikipolicy. Please. --Pete (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That's gaming. You know it's more complicated than that. The behaviour I first called you on (and subsequently many more times), was seeming to initiate discussion on the Talk page, then immediately changing the article before anyone had even responded. WP:Consensus means nothing to you, despite later writing an essay on how important it is. You did it many times. You really don't care what others think. (Unless they're barracking for you.) Such bad faith editing and hypocrisy is very confrontational and never helpful to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can't provide anything to support your claims - which I reject - then you put yourself in an awkward position, where the only recourse is to be disruptive. --Pete (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, provide diffs please. If you can't provide evidence of your claims, this will be closed as no action. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

NO! PLEASE READ MY POST JUST ABOVE AGAIN! (Although you give the distinct impression that you haven't read it once yet.) Diffs alone won't show you the problem with Pete/Skyring's behaviour. It's a serious problem, but you have to look at the timing pattern between Talk page posts and article updates to see it. This editor uses a scatter gun approach, behaving in an inflammatory way on several related pages at the same time. Diffs form one page won't show you that. If You close this just because simple Diffs won't show the problem, you're not doing an effective job. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It's something like an aura, maybe? It don't show in diffs, it's something that you just feels in your water and you knows. The hairs on the back of your neck all rise up together and a wolf howls in the lonesome distance... --Pete (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A "where wolf", maybe? Doc talk 12:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, if "diffs from one page won't show you that", then...show diffs from multiple pages. If you can't provide diffs of your accusations, then we have to assume that the refusal to provide evidence means that there is no evidence. It's not the admins' job to go digging - it's your job to back up your accusations with actionable evidence, which is something you have, so far, singularly failed to do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Craig_Thomson_affair is a bit of a mess with strong "suggestions" of COI and socking being made which, IMO, do not belong in such a discussion. Might someone examine the excess verbiage? Collect (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I just happened to stumble across my name up there in the middle of that wall (just barely made the top 10! ), and thought I'd add a little clarity to the section that refers to me. My only contact with the IP was when he brought an extremely vague question to RSN, a template was posted by another editor asking for more info, and after some time he said something to the effect of "I see no one disagrees with me here", to which my response was this explaining that that would be an incorrect assumption, and tried to provide a little clarity on the issue he was having at RSN. That's pretty much it (he never responded)... *shrug*. I have now archived that section on RSN as I don't see any value in going down that road now that larger issues with that article appear to be in the forefront. -- Despayre   16:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Abusive language by User:Sayerslle

After I replaced some loaded language with more neutral terms in the article Siege of Homs (see diff), User:Sayerslle called it "utter lying garbage" and accused me of "censoring" the article (see diff). When I pointed out (see diff) that this is no way to interact with a fellow Misplaced Pages editor, he responded on my Talk page (diff) repeating his earlier words plus accusing me of propagating POV. This does not appear to be the first time, either, seeing as this user was blocked from editing in March this year for personal attacks against editors. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm with User:Sayerslle here. There's nothing inherently wrong with the word "regime" in this context, and if that's the language used by the cited sources, it should stay. Additionally, although his language was sharp (and I'd advise him to moderate his tone a bit), I don't think it qualifies as abuse. Mark Shaw (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TaalVerbeteraar. Sayerslle was using a bit of hostile language and assumed bad faith. And not just against Tall but also against me too. Also, even if the sources use the word regime the word itself is derogative in this day and age, which implyes that the journalist was not totally neutral on the issue. Misplaced Pages, per its own policy, has to keep the proper level of neutrality. If we start using the term than we are taking a side in the conflict, which is unacceptable on Misplaced Pages. EkoGraf (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

its not 'the journalist' - its used over and over again in RS , BBC etc - the fact you want 'the word itself' to be dclared inadmissable on wp because you have decided it is unacceptable is absurd imo - i don't think neutrality means what you think it does. i think it means reflecting what is out there in RS without prejudice and pre-determned ideological preferences - reflecting also the language used, not some language you've decided in your own pov ghetto is ok. i called garbage a remark that was imo garbage - and taal denying he said something, he evidently did say 'encyclopedias cant use the word regime' - then he said ' ie. wikipedia editors' - but where was the ie? ' he added it later - pathetic. Sayerslle (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Abusive discussions don't lead anywhere. When trying to obtain WP:CONSENSUS for a change or a specific wording, polite discussion on the article talkpage is best. If consensus is against the word, the that's the reality. Abusing others, downplaying their intelligence or their edits is uncivil. Referring to their edits or actions as "pathetic" is also uncivil. Again: WP:CONSENSUS rules, and WP:CIVIL is a golden rule (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

if consensus is against 'regime' being allowed on wp I'd be surprised. youve got 'this user dgaf***' box onyour page - is that CIVIL?? - i find it kind of aggressive language on your user page. still, you think its your prerogative to lecture me? Sayerslle (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If you think that's not civil, better not read WP:DGAF then.... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sayerslle, I won't comment on the actual point of contention - there are arguments either way - however, as BWilkins said, the way you've gone about the discussion is unhelpful. I suggest you try to have a full discussion with the users you have a disagreement with on the article talk page - be sure to focus on the content and not to comment on the editors involved. If you're finding it difficult to come to a resolution the dispute resolution noticeboard may be of some help (but do attempt to resolve it yourself first). ItsZippy 14:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The call for civility apparently didn't work: here, Sayerslle tells EkoGraf: "i regard you as a thoroughly nasty piece of work". This happened several hours after the request for civilized discussion was issued by ItsZippy. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal Attacks from user:Toddst1

Legal threat

Adamelliot1000 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Threat

Editor is brand new WP:SPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeffed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've also reprotected the page; the fact this chap appeared instantly upon the expiration of the previous protection says something. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, but couldn't this be the subject of a BLP trying to correct it (however sourced, that's a question on a different level), and being (incomprehensibly) prevented by us? Blade, he's written several comments to you on his page. Could you explain to him how to contact WP:OTRS, please, or otherwise reply to him in humanspeech? I suppose info-en-q@wikimedia.org would be the place to direct him. Best, Bishonen | talk 09:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC).

I wondered that myself but I would think that the subject or somebody representing the subject would be able to write better then Person being spoken about is not admin. of the page and admin. is in violation of Wiki policy. and would know that the "department of justice" couldn't do anything about this. IMHO this is a pissed off fan. However, he still might have a point. In the source used for the quote in question, it does appear to be hearsay and one could argue that it's undue weight. Might this be a case where we would need a primary source like a transcript to back up something mentioned in a secondary source? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree there's not the slightest chance that the user is the famous lawyer. But he could be, say, a great grandchild who has been tasked to get rid of it cause grandpa doesn't understand these computer thingys. Or some other circumstance. You can see where the complaint might be. Egg Centric 20:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the comment Ron Ritzman referenced above, I sense some significant WP:OWN issues and likely usage of threats against anyone who has un-whitewashed the article. Though, on the other hand, we are dealing with some very negative, but sourced, statements about his comments made in public on his radio show (I mean, all this stuff is in The New York Times, so Misplaced Pages may not be his last concern, though all eyes are upon us and this site...). In my opinion, I think Lichtman himself would have found a way to contact the WMF a while ago if this is such a pressing issue.

This wouldn't be the first time, either, as The Bushranger noted. There are many single-purpose accounts and IPs there, but I can't make out what is going on, whether it's socks or a lot of his Lichtman's followers and enemies being at odds against each other and engaging in an edit war of over 250RR (yes, about 250 straight reverts) and 4 months. Frankly, I am disappointed that this article was not full-protected (or outright deleted since any protected version will be The Wrong Version) a while ago. However, I am terrible at mindreading what exactly the community wants, and I am not going to try. --MuZemike 22:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack

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

Yesterday afternoon I requested an unblock. However one user: The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who replied to the block on my talk page User:86.163.14.254 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), accused me of 'horrific attacks' against another user and used abusive language against me. Although my IP address has changed since yesterday, I would still like to request a block against this user.86.163.15.120 (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing on that talkpage is a violation of WP:NPA. The contributions of the linked account are very much horrific attacks. As you were blocked, and are now evading that block by editing/posting, it will be necessary to block this IP as well (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with BWilkins. This IP is now accusing Blade since he did not unblock him in the name of "horrific" and "Abusive" languages. Blade is calm, but when IP's like you turn to prove that you're wrongly blocked when the reason is pretty clear- Even I would be frustrated. Yet, Blade was cool. Yes, the matter is over. Dipankan 09:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It may not be a personal attack, but the response to the unblock request ("Now to give you a taste of your own medicine, kindly go fuck off.") is incredibly uncivil. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

True, but that's a matter for WQA once the editor themself decides they have a desire to live by the policies of Misplaced Pages. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

But why is the administrator not equally required to "live by the policies of Misplaced Pages"? Malleus Fatuorum 10:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

They are. Civility is handled at WQA. NPA can be handled here if extreme. Same rules apply to both. No NPA has occurred, but some incivility. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That's clearly bollocks, but have it your own way. Malleus Fatuorum 10:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked users are not fair game for policy violations of any sort, particularly in view of their inability to petition for redress at the usual venues. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

He's not really blocked. He's an IP-hopper... as he demonstrated here. And he'll be back again and again, until he gets tired of it or until a range-block is imposed. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

But said by an administrator, so different rules apply, none mainly. Malleus Fatuorum 09:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No they should not and the refered comment was uncalled for. Problem here is that the victim is in no position to redress the issue himself (whatever his own violations where in the first place is immaterial to admin conduct). We admins are the first major point of contact for new editors and outside observers, so our conduct should be exemplary. Agathoclea (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A block-evading IP-hopper who throws obscenities around ain't much of a "good faith" user. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. We don't respond to personal attacks or incivility with further personal attacks or incivility. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant. When you invoke the F-word towards someone, which amounts to a verbal punch in the nose, you've no right to gripe if you get that same punch thrown back at you. Such griping is the depth of hypocrisy. And an obvious sign of a bad-faith user (that, along with the block evasion). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Our civility requirements do not vanish because we are provoked; in fact, a main purpose of these requirements is to prevent escalation of bad behavior. Me, I think some users well deserve a "fuck off" quite frequently (abusive comment "harmful to the community" removed by Floquenbeam, probably against policy). But our civility policies, and the expectation of a higher standard of behavior for administrators, rightly discourage me from doing so. Incitement to riot is not an excuse for rioting. --jpgordon 13:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is simple, at least in theory. If the IP really is a returning troublemaker, then Blade's outburst was a bad idea (Blade already acknowledged on their talk page it was a mistake), but certainly understandable and human, and we're being trolled by the IP (indeed, we're trolling ourselves, in fine ANI tradition). If the IP is not this person, then it was much more serious, and it is really unacceptable for an admin to say that to someone they only suspect is a returning troublemaker, and the IP is owed an apology and Blade needs to rethink his approach. So in spite of the fact that people seem to think it doesn't matter whether the target of Blade's comments is the troublemaker in question, I think it's vital to know. It's the difference between an understandable momentary slip, or casual consequence-free admin abuse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It's simpler than that. Cops shouldn't get to tell people to fuck off, no matter how much they deserve it. It's harmful to community. --jpgordon 14:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    • In what way sysops are "cops"? Dipankan 15:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• (re to J, not to D) That response is indistinguishable from a response by someone who didn't read what I wrote. Also, as I mentioned on your talk page, it's a hypocritical thing for you to say. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion - I think we should all just leave this, nothing good will come of continuing the discussion. Blade got a bit hot under the collar in response to borderline trolling, sure, but so what. The IP is a banned user, give Blade a break. It's more productive to just move on and forget about it. Basalisk ⁄_berate 15:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I know this has been archived, but to briefly sum things up from my perspective. 1. This is the latest of several incarnations of an IP-hopping editor who has repeatedly attempted to foist an Indian hagiography onto us and feels the need to denigrate China at every possible moment (this, when read in context, is demonstrative); the writing style is unmistakable if you've seen it enough 2. the now-deleted comment aimed at Elockid was absolutely horrific, and any account would be immediately indeffed (given it's an IP, obviously we have to treat the situation differently), 3. though I generally don't feel stressed out on Misplaced Pages, a combination of closing the PC RfC (which should be done in the next day or so) and waiting for the inevitable flood of angry comments, as well as some RL issues (a wedding and PDD-NOS aren't a good combination, if you catch my drift) really wore on me for the last couple days, and I didn't have my regular computer background with me. Given that, I wasn't feeling in a very charitable mood when I saw the unblock request, and as I said it wasn't my best moment. I know what I need to do going forward, so I'd like to leave this behind me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Go, and wiki-sin no more! But I say again, and will continue to stand by this, that when someone throws an F-bomb, they have no right to complain when it's thrown back at them. That is not an endorsement of throwing it back -- it's a condemnation of the double-standard that certain IP's, in particular, seem to think they are entitled to (an entitlement too often enabled by other users here). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's more or less my personal feeling, but if it bothers this many people I can make an effort to be more tactful; I'm not going to have a 100% success rate, but if it'll lead to fewer complaints I'm more than willing to try. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Better to soar with the eagles than to waddle with the turkeys. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Alexia (condition)

Can someone other than me please remove the speedy deletion tag from this article? I'm in the process of fixing up a botched cut-and-paste page move, and I'm fighting off a rather dim bot that can't tell the difference between this and an article author deleting a speedy deletion tag from their own new article. I'm oh-so-tempted to just block the bot, but asking someone else to remove the tag seems like a less confrontational way to fix this. -- The Anome (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yah, I've noticed things like this happening a bit more recently so I don't know if something changed. I rm'd the speedy notice. I wouldn't block the bot, because however annoying it is in this case it really does help in many of the more standard cases where someone makes a crap page and then reverts the CSD tags. Syrthiss (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Persistent reinsertion of OR at Masculinity and personal attack

The Masculinity article is a big mess and original research is rampant. On June 3rd, I removed a section which consisted entirely of original research and replaced it with a section that was based on reliable secondary sources. I explained my changes on the article talk page. Since then, an IP from Missouri has been reverting my changes and reinserting the original research despite my attempts to explain the OR policy on the article talk page and on the IP's talk page .

Before you say "this is a content dispute" and shoo me away, please take one minute of your time and see for yourselves that these two journal articles, for instance, that the IP keeps reinserting do not even mention masculinity, let alone a "decline" in masculinity.

• "The sperm count has been decreasing steadily for many years in Western industrialised countries: Is there an endocrine basis for this decrease?"
• "A Population-Level Decline in Serum Testosterone Levels in American Men"

Yesterday, the IP reverted my attempt to remove OR and attribute opinion with the edit summary "stop the vandalism and harrasment , sonic youth". I consider this a personal attack. I hope that someone will take the time to intervene. If not, I'll just leave the OR, remove the section I added, and move on because I've had it. Thank you. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've reverted to a likely clean version and full protected the article for one week, and left a neutral warning on the article talk page. We really can not examine the OR here at ANI, it should be filed at WP:DRN. Since his edits are not vandalism, even if they are incorrect, then WP:3RR / edit warring rules apply, so you have to use the dispute resolution channels for this. I also left a notice on the IP's talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dennis, I appreciate it. I understand your point, but I just don't have the energy to go through a lengthy dispute resolution process when the case seems so clear to me. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this week, others will join you on the talk page, and a consensus will form. If he is going against an obvious and clearly articulated consensus on the talk page, this would open up other avenues for admins, without needing to go to DRN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong source usage in German battleship Tirpitz page: incorrect details.

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

I've found wrong source' usage in German battleship Tirpitz concerning of the details of K-21 attack. The initial article text deal with unexpected locution "K-21 fired a pair of torpedoes" and with the authors conclusion "both of which missed".

My corrections are:

• .

User Parsecboy said that my correction is Soviet propaganda. And Parsecboy hasn't answered the questions at the talk page ].

Yes, the results of the K-21 attack is disputable up to now (so the authors' conclusion is not the objective truth). But the event (K-21 attack) is in the text. If it's propaganda, so cut it of the article. But if the article consists K-21 episode, it will be correct to cite the initial source (or the others refering the one) which says about details of the attack.

The problem is that the sole initial source of the K-21 attack is the Soviet Navy documents, because the Germans haven't even observed the attack (and K-21 too) and are not able to give us any details from the other side (at least the Germans maintained that). The K-21 war log and other navy docs say that there were 4 (four) torpedoes and 2 (two) explosions heard by all the crew (not about results of the attack - hit Tirpitz or not!). Garzke & Dulin in their "Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II" give us the details (about pair of torpedoes) that are rely on nothing, 'cause there are no Soviet sources with pair of torpedoes and there are no Germans at all. So this mistake must be corrected.

Unfortunately, Parsecboy (and Denniss) are not able to ground why they prefer Garzke & Dulin from the list of respected historians (see Parsecboy, 21:44, 27 March 2012]), and ignore others from the same list in spite of obvious mistake. But both of them have made undo after my correction.

So, I have to ask the community to help me with that episode. --Zh.Mike (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be an ANI matter - this is a matter for the article talk page or WP:DR. And you MUST inform Parsecboy and Denniss of this discussion.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've notified by their talk pages. I haven't seen ANI-notice at the topics above and could not use the template correct (if You are able, please do it) --Zh.Mike (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that this be closed. My advice is to seek an experienced person from Milhist to look at the matter and give his opinion.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

SPI harassment

Towards the end of April, I filed an AE regarding user:Oncenawhile. On the 23 May, Oncenawhile opened an SPI against me with the suspected puppet being 74.198.87.103. This was found to be unrelated. He was advised of a sockpuppeteer that was consistent with this IP.

Despite this, on 11 June, he opened another SPI against me and amongst the farrago of suspects, he once again sought to link me with this very IP. In addition he listed two accounts (Tutangamon and Jabotito48) that had already been identified in a previous SPI case as belonging to another sockpuppeteer and had already been blocked at the time of his report. Finally, he listed an IP (91.180.72.97) that I had previously tried to take SPI proceedings against, as part of the Belgian IP range which he also included. The clerk Dennis Brown stated that it "looks like fishing to me."

I do not wish to have to defend myself against petty, tenuous SPI cases that are patently groundless and ignore previous findings. Please advise.Ankh.Morpork 21:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• I would have to recuse myself and offer no comment on this ANI discussion as I'm involved in the last SPI investigation as a clerk trainee, but will verify my statement above and note that I just closed the last SPI due to a lack of connectability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant of whether CheckUser is requested, it is expected at SPI that when you file a case, you use diffs to explain i) how the accounts/ip addresses belong to one individual and ii) how they are being used abusively. In light of the facts that Oncenawhile does not appear to have done that, and that in the wider context, there does not appear to be any grounds for an SPI to be filed, I suggest to Oncenawhile that he refrains from filing frivolous cases if he wants to keep his ability to edit Misplaced Pages. WilliamH (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ankh misstates the case when he writes that Once "opened another SPI against ". What Once wrote, quite correctly, was that he didn't know who the sockmaster was, but that there were a lot of IPs and obvious socks (e.g. Kipa Aduma, Esq.) at an article that's normally pretty quiet, with fewer than 100 edits in three years, with focus on supporting Ankh's position.

I'd have felt frustrated, too. Kipa Aduma, Esq. is certainly someone's newly-created sock, and Jabotito48 and Tutangamon were only blocked as socks recently, while most or all of the IPs are probably banned users. Of course Once should have checked the accounts and IPs he listed for existing blocks more carefully; I assume he just felt exasperated by the high level of socking going on at that article, and was thus less thorough than he should have been.

That carelessness was poor practice, but since probably 20% or more of the accounts and anons active in the I/P area at any given time are socks, I think it's also just very poor practice to discourage anyone from filing an SPI if they feel they have the grounds to do so. Such requests are the only resource we have to try to deal with a problem that's nearly swamping the topic area, and until the Foundation comes up with some serious way to address the problem, we should all file more rather than fewer SPIs. Given the current situation re socking, it's my opinion that it's just not helpful to the project for anyone to take offence at being mentioned in an SPI; YMMV. --OhioStandard (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Oncenawhile appears to have a personal vendetta against AnkhMorpork that borders on obsessive. It started with this inquisitive and rather nebulous question on Ankh’s Talk page and quickly escalated barely a month later to his first SPI against AnkhMorpork. That SPI resulted in  Unrelated But oncenawhile was unsatisfied and continued with his badgering by filing the instant spurious SPI.

There are three elements in Oncenawhile’s SPI that evidence bad faith in the extreme and classic BATTLEGROUND behavior. First, of the the noted IPs in the instant SPI, some geolocate to Belgium while others to Toronto. Two other named puppets, Jabotito48 and Tutangamon, edit from Argentina. Unless, Ankh is the host of Globe Trekker it is ludicrous to assume that he is the master. Second, Oncenawhile had already been unequivocally told that IP 74.198.87.103 has nothing to do with AnkhMorpork yet he included it again in the instant report. Third, one of the accounts that Oncenawhile included as Ankh’s puppet is 91.180.72.97. The absurdity of this is that Ankhmorpork actually brought a case against that particular IP for socking and Oncenawhile, who obsessively watches Ankh was aware of this.

This behavior should not be tolerated in any forum. It amounts fishing and harassment. It is disruptive in the extreme and wastes everyone’s time. The accused is required to devote time to defend against it and administrators whose thankless job it is to patrol these boards are required to expend needless time to investigate, respond and close.

Oncenawhile has done this once. The first time he gets a free pass. Now he does it again. Does he get another free pass?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The same thing happened to me recently. I had a dispute with other editors and an SPI was filed on me. I knew it would fail or I could have had closed it with an office action. It was still a pain in the butt to have to defend myself from wikidrama.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• The fact is, the page in question has seen a number of sock accounts (some now blocked) edit warring in favour of Ankhmorpork's position. This activity is highly detrimental to achieving a consensus on the page. Ankmorpork is not correct in saying that a second case was filed against him. In fact Oncenawhile filed a case listing a number of suspected accounts that had edit warred in favour of Ankh's position. He categorically said that "I do not claim to know who the puppetmaster is..." It seems to me that Oncenawhile was making an honest attempt to address a very real problem on the page in question and in the I-P topic area in general. Also I find Jiujitsuguy's righteous indignation to be a little hard to swallow, given that after several content disputes with me he filed a SPI investigation against me , which turned out to be entirely unfounded. Instead of accepting the decision and moving on JJG decided to start making totally unfounded allegations about me being a sock on other users talk pages. .Dlv999 (talk) 3:15 pm, Today (UTC+5.5)

Oh - I hadn't noticed that before but in that last diff JJG is again accusing me of being a sock despite the fact that the SPI cleared me. I thought he was just being uncivil to my face but hadn't realised that he was maligning me behind my back on other users talk pages as well. BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well, yes: As Dlv999 reiterates, Once did state very clearly that he wasn't making any assertion as to who the puppetmaster might be, and no one suspects it was Ankh, at this point. On the contrary, Ankh is the only editor who consistently supports Israel's current policies that I've ever seen call out an obvious pro-Israeli sock, and he's to be commended for that. I'm sure there must have have been others who have done the same, i.e. called out socks that favour their own usual POV, but I've not seen that. More usually they seem to be welcomed with open arms.

But, as was pointed out to me privately, despite his statement that the puppetmaster was unknown, Once also appended the 11 June request to the already-existing Ankhmorpork page. That was an understandable action, given that many of the socks seemed to be supporting Ankh, but it certainly wasn't the brightest idea I've ever seen, either. I wouldn't want any editor to take that as an acceptable practice, but I'm also willing to AGF to the extent of supposing that his doing so was lazy rather than anything intentionally sinister, and was probably motivated in part by the frustrating (and ridiculous/deleterious, imo) requirement that one has to name at least a pro-forma sockmaster in filing an SPI.

When a new, obvious sock shows up in a hotly contested topic area, though, there's no reason we should have to guess whose sock it is, as I see it. That requirement just stirs up drama, and is entirely unnecessary. Many of us have struggled with the problematic nature of that requirement for some time, actually, e.g. about how to deal with "throwaway" or "day use" accounts, often revived as "sleepers" months or years later. ( See this discussion, for example. ) These accounts purposely limit their editing to short bursts so their editing patterns can't be recognised and affiliated with any known sockmaster.

Really, these kinds of hard feelings and false positives are built into the current system, in that it's required to identify a likely sockmaster, a task that can take hours or days, compared to the sixty seconds or so that it takes to create a new sock. Besides, with so much off-wiki canvassing for new pro-Zionist editors ( something Jiujitsuguy can't truthfully deny having done himself, having written at least one article in an international magazine to do so, btw ) by such a wide variety of hasbara organisations, editors in the topic area are just tired of it. It's wrong to vent that at any particular editor, but it should be understandable, too, when every fourth or fifth editor that one interacts with in the topic area is a sock, whether a named account or an anon. We're supposed to assume good faith, and I support that, but when bad faith is so extremely rampant in a topic area, and the Foundation is steadfastly unwilling to address the problem, it has to be realised that these kinds of problems will keep arising.

And as for assertions that an editor mustn't suggest an IP represents an editor who's known to reside in an entirely different location, that's just gratuitous. Anyone with enough resources and motivation can create the appearance of dozens of independent users; we have some prolific sockmasters who do so regularly, and it'd be foolishly naive not to recognise that national governments do this all the time. The U.S. put up a spec on a GSA request-for-proposals website that I saw around 18 months ago for software and infrastructure to make it easier to create undetectable socks for the stated purpose of influencing public opinion in Iraq and Afghanistan. It'd be hard to maintain with a straight face that the government of Singapore didn't have around a dozen socks watching over the Misplaced Pages pages for candidates in its sham "elections" not long ago.

And coming back to the extremely contentious Israel/Palestine topic area, Wikimedia Israel even gives editing lessons to Israel's official government propaganda (aka "hasbara") arm, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a demonstration of utter contempt for our COI rules. It'd be completely foolish, just extremely naive to imagine that the Ministry doesn't have the motive, will, and ability to hide its participation in the topic area, or that other national governments and well-financed partisan groups don't, as well.

So, again, as things currently stand, and until the Foundation decides to get serious about the rampant problem of socking, it will remain my opinion that it's selfish and irresponsible for any established edtior to object to the minor inconvenience of having to deal with being named in an SPI. It's my opinion that doing so elevates one's own personal needs above the good of the encyclopaedia.

I'll even go further than that, actually: If anyone suspects an account or IP of socking, feel free to name me as the pro-forma sockmaster in any SPI. I'll not object in the least. If that's not sufficient, I'll even give checkusers a plausible rationale to run their tools by saying here that I run tens of thousands of sock accounts, and am responsible for almost all the socking that occurs on Misplaced Pages, in all topic areas. We should automatically and regularly run checkuser tests against all accounts and IPs anyway, in my opinion, and flag the possible hits for further review. That wouldn't solve the problem of technically sophisticated sockmasters, but it would certainly help overall, and help avoid these kinds of kerfuffles and the hard feelings they often give rise to, as well. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I must say that I too find JiuJitsuGuy's righteous indignation to be nothing short of comic since he was involved in claiming I was a puppet when I first started editing, hounded me on my talk page at the time, and continues to refuse to interact with me or engage with my comments other than by making veiled references to the fact that he still considers me a sock. But, hell, why just have standards when you can have double standards. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy's behavior in this regard is significantly worse than anything Oncenawhile has done. It is a reflection of the current dysfunctional state of the topic area, that he feels it is appropriate to come here and agitate against oncenawhile rather than keep a low profile in light of his own actions. Dlv999 (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy isn't going around filing SPIs at his opponents, now is he. He filed one against Dlv999 for understandable reasons – Dlv999 joined the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area not that long ago, edits only in the topic area and nowhere else on Misplaced Pages, and appears daily at articles where his account never contributed before consistently advocating for one side of the dispute. It's not uncommon behavior for editors in the topic area and not necessarily disruptive, but when a new user appears and is as prolific an editor as Dlv is, it should come as no surprise that someone'll want to alleviate concerns he may be an incarnation of a banned editor.

BHB's story isn't that different, and an editor refusing to interact with him is not an example of misconduct. There are editors I don't have interactions with: sometimes it's just better for the topic area that way.

Oncenawhile's case is different. This is the second SPI he's filed against Ankh and it's altogether a decidedly frivolous and WP:BATTLEGROUND SPI considering the nature of the first one. There are socks in the topic area. Some of them may be commenting in this very discussion. You try once, it doesn't work, you move on and live with it. If there's something amiss, someone else'll probably pick up on it before long. You don't keep filing SPIs as a tool to eliminate an editor because you perceive him to be a threat to a POV you're trying to promote.—Biosketch (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Subtropical-man disruptive editing

Subtropical-man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a bold change however it was reverted by AussieLegend but was again re-added by Subtropical-man which I then reverted as it was challenged.

Subtropical-man then post's a threatening comment on AussieLegend's talk page my talk page and the talk page of the Sydney article in violation of WP:TALKNO and keeps adding it (, ) even though the talk page is for content relating to the article. They are also accusing both AussieLegend and myself of meat puppetry, which isn't the case. Bidgee (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I not accusing about using socks-puppet, I wrote it before (+ description of the changes). Why user Bidgee lie?

The discussion was written in order to seek help from others users. This discussion had to solve a big problem, which lasted several years. The discussion was removed by accused. I stopped writing these discussions. Thus, the case can be closed. I founded a new topic. Subtropical-man (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly has Bidgee lied? --AussieLegend (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Here: "They are also accusing both AussieLegend and myself of meat puppetry". This is lie. Subtropical-man (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your comment on the Sydney talk page was soap boxing, the talk page isn't there for you to make uncivil and baith faith comments directed at editors and no it isn't a lie, your comments basically is accusing AussieLegend and myself of meat puppetry. Bidgee (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Just to provide a bit of background on the relevant content to make the water a bit less muddy, an IP recently made some edits to the lead of Sydney, but these were reverted by another editor. They were then restored by the IP, and again were reverted. Curious, I had a close look at the lead and realised the lead content was disjointed, something that was originally brought about by this IP edit from April, that slotted stuff about Sydney being an "Alpha+ World City" in as the second sentence in the article. I then cleaned up the lead, grouping related content. However, the "Alpha+ World City" stuff is not addressed anywhere in the body of the article, so it shouldn't be in the lead. Later that day I moved it to its own section and amended the lead appropriately. Another editor did question the need for the content at all, which is where Subtropical-man got the "removal of the controversial separate section" in his edit summaries. However, his resolution is to delete the section and move undiscussed content back to the lead, which is not appropriate. As per MOS:LEAD, if it is not covered in the body of the article it shouldn't be addressed in the lead.

To Subtropical-man's allegations, these are baseless. Bidgee and I are both Australian editors and both have Sydney on our watchlist. He can certainly not claim that we have a monopoly on the article. There are plenty of editors, including Subtropical-man, have edited the article without any opposition from either of us. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You explained one example. But, please see history of changes from today to few years back - dozens of examples. Other users can not change anything in this articles without discussion or consent from Bidgee and/or AussieLegend, while Bidgee and AussieLegend do what you want, without the consent of the other users. Almost never can enter new changes to the article, because they are reverted by these two users and almost never be reverted changes by these two users - because they are reverted by these two users (we are must first discuss). Subtropical-man (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I gave FIVE examples of your own edits dating back seven months, demonstrating that what you've said is clearly not true. You haven't provided any proof of your claims. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Here's hoping that Subtropical-man gets the message: your behavior is considered disruptive by a number of editors, including this one. Accusations of dictatorship etc. are not conducive, and your lack of engagement in talk page discussion signals that you are not really interested in acceptable ways of conflict resolution (there is a conflict, there is a talk page--you do the math, and then the rhetoric by way of substantive discussion). Personal attacks and unfounded "last warnings" may lead to a block for disruptive editing--let this be a kind of "last warning". Bidgee, I don't see a reason for a block yet, and I'm hoping that the troublesome behavior won't continue. If it does, well, you can add diffs below. Drmies (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how do I respond? For several years watching this article and I see what happens. Very rarely, another user can make changes to this article, In most cases, these editions are withdrawn by Aussielegend and Bidgee. I do not want to scream at them, I do not want to complain on they. But I have to react, explicitly say what happens. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You can start by not screwing around with other editor's comments on this page! If you do that again, I will block you temporarily. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how do I respond? For several years I'm watching this article and I see what happens. Very rarely, another user can make changes to this article, in most cases these editions are reverted by Aussielegend and/or Bidgee. I do not want to scream at them, I do not want to complain on they. But I have to react, explicitly say what happens. Please do not suggest that I made ​​the last edition in article of Sydney (before reverts by Aussielegend and Bidgee nad) and I also reports these allegations. It's not revenge. Just - I had to say stop. Today is this day. That's all. If necessary, I can call "on witnesses" other users, who have a similar opinion as me in this case (it is not threatening, this is a proposal to allow other victims to have spoken). I do not know what to do. Instead of constantly criticizing my style of discussion, please help. Please take a look at the article and history of changes (a few years back) and/or please observes this article in future, to avoid such activities. Sydney is the article in Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages is 💕, anyone can edit, not only two users. PS. Sorry for the bad methods my debate and my weak English (I'm still learning). I finish and greet. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, not requesting a block, I'm just wanting the editor to cease the uncivil and bad faith comments. Bidgee (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like that too. Subtropical-man, here's the deal: the evidence presented above by Bidgee suggests that you have made uncivil, bad-faith comments (those various accusations--and see WP:AGF). They should stop. No ownership is claimed or proven, and that two (or more) editors disagree with you should not be taken as evidence that there is a group actively opposing you--you should probably see it as an indication that your edits are deemed problematic by (in this case) a couple of experienced editors. Misplaced Pages works via consensus: it is up to you to seek such consensus; obviously the way in which you have tried to imposer your will is not helpful. Please seek a more cooperative approach, via the talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Monopoly by User:Bidgee and User:AussieLegend

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

The problem is serious, the problem concern the monopoly of two users:

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

For a long time, user Bidgee and AussieLegend create a monopoly in the articles about Sydney and rest of Australia. Other users can not change anything in this articles without discussion or consent from Bidgee and/or AussieLegend, while Bidgee and AussieLegend do what you want, without the consent of the other users. Almost never can enter new changes to the article, because they are reverted by these two users and almost never be reverted changes by these two users - because they are reverted by these two users (we are must first discuss). They have other rights, Bidgee and AussieLegend can make new changes without discussion, and undo changes by others users without discussion. This is unacceptable and contrary to the principles and the idea of ​​Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is 💕 - anyone can change it. Other users have also noticed this problem - I propose to notify about this case on the page discussion, to gather witnesses. User Bidgee do not give me no choice. I tried to get along on discussion page - User:Bidgee delete a discussion . Therefore it is necessary to alert administrators. He overtook me - his complaining about my write in a discussion about such things, clever. However, I wrote in the discussion that someone would help me, this discussions has been removed and matter of my applications in discussions is closed. The remaining case of monopoly. Subtropical-man (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"Other users can not change anything in this articles without discussion or consent from Bidgee and/or AussieLegend" Well, that's clearly not correct. Your creation of this section is a response to Bidgee raising concerns about your behaviour on our talk pages, and edit-warring in the article. On our talk pages you wrote "Soon I make changes to the article, you can not go back without discussion", which is not correct. Any changes can be reverted and, when you make a bold edit and it is reverted with an appropriate edit summary, you should then follow WP:BRD and the status quo generally prevails.You don't just bulldoze the edits straight back into the article. I suggest you read MOS:LEAD, which will provide you with an explanation of the purpose of the lead section. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This is an editing dispute, in which in my opinion Subtropicalman is the one who is not following process. And, it is clear from the editing history and discussion page that Aussielegend and Bidgee are not the only ones who disagree with him. (my position on this issue is more in line with Aussielegend and bidgee than it is with Subtripicalman).

I don’t see why this should be on ANI. At best, any ANI discussion should be about Subtropicalman’s actions. --Merbabu (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Camoka4

Camoka4 (talk · contribs) was blocked for edit warring on Schengen Area, and the talk page's consensus is against her changes. Their first edit after being unblocked was to make the same exact edit yet again, and when reverted, resorted to personal attacks on my talk page, which isn't the first uncivil thing the editor said to me, before they were blocked for edit warring they asked me if I know how to speak English, and if I was hired by another editor, and then after being unblocked, commenting that if I see that as a personal attack, I must need to see a doctor. Perhaps I'm a bit biased here, but I don't think this is appropriate, or that this editor is here to edit collaboratively. - SudoGhost 23:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

in response to opening this discussion, the user posted this on my talk page, asking me if I was autistic, but that they also weren't personally attacking me. - SudoGhost 23:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm involved in the dispute on Schengen Area and share SudoGhost's concerns. In addition to the edit warring and personal attacks, edit's such as this one in response to near-unanimous opposition to the changes being proposed by the user demonstrate at best a clear lack of sufficient communication skills to work in a collaborative project but more likely an attempt to be disruptive. TDL (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

And now further edit warring, apparently to make a WP:POINT about something they said on my talk page. - SudoGhost 00:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no edit warring. I proposed something with arguments on talk page. No-one replied to my topic. and I changed the article accordingly. It's not a major edit anyway. If you still have any disagreements, why don't you write them on talk page rather than here? Obviously you don't have to say anything except your obsessions about me.--Camoka4 (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There is already a days old consensus against your edit. You started a new talk page section and then reverted against consensus, knowing full well consensus is against it. 20 minutes is not enough time to decide that nobody will respond to a discussion that duplicates an existing one. However, this is not about disagreements about the content of the article, it is about your increasingly disruptive behavior. None of your edits since your block expired have been constructive, and your only two article space edits were to make the same exact revert that got you blocked in the first place. - SudoGhost 00:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I am involved as well (in fact I am the one starting the revert war last week (when doing the R in BRD), not responding (I was asleep), not speaking English (well, that's partly true...)) and think there is a competence issue. Today (mind you, after coming back from a 3RR block), he first makes his change (the one he got blocked for before) at 1:08 at Schengen Area, then starts a new discussion at Schengen area (1:46), after which he admits he had been too fast in reading consensus last time. Then, at at 2:12, he makes the change again! I am not sure if I am capable of explaining him that we can not find consensus in 30 minutes, after discussing the issue (including policies) at length before, and after his own admission he understood the issue...... L.tak (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

BLP issue

The Talk:Luka Magnotta is having issues as well as the article. I boldly added a bolded statement to the top of the talk page. Many statements have been made that may be against wp policies and guidelines. I think they have all been reverted though. Admin may wish too look over the talk and article pages and possibly erase some of the history. This may be the wrong venue, if so just resolve/move/erase etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• For now, unless there are specific diffs or editors you wish to single out, it's probably not a matter for this board, but thank you for pointing attention to it. A note on WP:BLPN might be more helpful. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Mistaken IPv6 block needs to be undone

• 2001:718:1E03:5184:8CA3:8DDA:38D5:6D2B (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IPv6 address was blocked because an admin thought it was an account with a deliberately confusing name. Apparently not the first instance of something like this. We may need a watchlist notice directing everyone to IPv6 info. Equazcion 23:35, 13 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow, that is really quite funny...and interesting. I'm sure there must have been a community discussion(s) somewhere about these IPv6 addresses and how they will affect the project. Anyone want to drop a link for those of us not in-the-know :) Quinn 23:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps until this is a bit more common knowledge, the "This is the contributions page for an IP user" box at the bottom of the page should be moved to the top of the contribs page (and maybe a colored box that doesn't blend in with everything else), to make it more obvious (if this is technically possible)? - SudoGhost 23:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. But first the account needs to be unblocked. The admins who were so bent out of shape this morning, about an IP having the F-bomb thrown back at them, on the grounds that it makes wikipedia look bad - this is far worse. It makes wikipedia look stupid. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked, but I suggest we leave this open for a bit. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

How about having a bot leave a message on the talk pages of anyone with the administrator bit explaining the intro to IPv6 and what it means from an admin perspective? Resolute 00:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is one discussion Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236#IPV6 blocking and here is another Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#IPv6 schoolblock question and I know that I saw one more a week or so ago but I can't remember where at the moment. There are probably more detailed ones as well. If anyone wants to add links to those that would be helpful. MarnetteD | Talk 00:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

meta:User:Jonathan_de_Boyne_Pollard/Guide_to_blocking_IP_version_6_addresses is pretty handy. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There should definitely be some centralized place for specifically Misplaced Pages related FAQ and discussion, so that when the inevitable questions arise, we can simply say "see ongoing discussion ]." We have a page WP:IPv6, and it seems like the talk page there should be the place to centralize discussion, but very little is currently happening there. Quinn 00:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Also see WP:WikiProject IPv6 Readiness and User:Jasper Deng/IPv6. Equazcion 00:29, 14 Jun 2012 (UTC)

...and http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2012-June/060896.html. Equazcion 00:31, 14 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I've requested a watchlist notice here. Equazcion 00:48, 14 Jun 2012 (UTC)

... don't forget the current conversation at the Admin's Noticeboard - all admins should be monitoring that board for announcements - that is what its real purpose is, after all (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

What's currently the most accessible general introduction/help page about IPv6, not just for admins but also for other editors? (I've seen normal contributors getting irritated because they thought a bunch of IPv6's were some kind of sinister sock pattern.) Can we get WP:IPv6 redirected to such a general help page? Currently it redirects to the wikiproject, but that's perhaps not optimal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Uhgjughfgh

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

I was going to place a warning on this uer's talkpage but then I found a whole bunch of warnings already in place including two final warnings User talk:Uhgjughfgh. The user made 4 factual errors over at The Powerpuff Girls which I undid I think there enough warnings in place here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If they get to four warnings, put a report in over at WP:AIV, I've done so already. tutterMouse (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I was not sure where this went. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

spam only account

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

Dustmagic (talk · contribs) has just returned from an extending break to reinsert advertising. almost all their edits are advertising. this account only serves to spam despite being warned previously. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Indef'd as a spam-only account. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Troubling editor

Borovv (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Edit-warring topic (archived after 48h with no activity)

Sun Myung Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is not a report that can be written concisely. Borovv has demonstrated a disturbing pattern of edit-warring, copyright violations, and cluelessness in his edits of the Moon article. Most of it is set forth in my post at WP:3RRN, where I expressed ambivalence whether I should be reporting him there or here. Given the lack of administrative comment on the report, I suppose it should be here or not at all. Hard to read people's minds.

With respect to the copyright violation, what he did was he copied a portion of a source to the Moon article and cited the source (). When I reverted because of a copyright violation, he reinserted the same text, but this time cited a different source so the copyright violation was hidden ().

He attacks editors, accusing them of vandalism because they disagree with him (). He accused that same editor of sock puppetry, as User:JamesBWatson pointed out here. He accused me of having a conflict of interest, also merely because I disagree with him (). As this last diff shows, he also mistakenly thinks I'm rolling back his edits when I am reverting them with explanations, one example of many illustrating his lack of understanding of how Misplaced Pages works.

I brought him to the 3RR board because of his edit-warring, although I made it clear it was a slow edit-war, not a breach of 3RR itself. One of things he was warring about was the insertion of this text, which, among other things, cited an unreliable source. (As an aside, he writes very badly, no doubt due to poor English skills. He also has trouble with citation formats and other technical issues, which are annoying to have to clean up.)

From a content perspective, he is obviously very interested in the Moon and related articles, and he repeatedly adds tangential material to the Moon article (already way too bloated as it is with irrelevant material), such as this edit, where he was reinserting material I had removed that was malplaced, non-neutral, and about Moon's son, not about Moon. As you can see, his edit summaries continue to be problematic.

If you look at his edit history, you will see he is effectively a WP:SPA, interested only in the Moon and Moon-related articles (since about February 4, 2012). I rarely accuse editors of having an agenda, but I think I would be safe in saying he has one. His edits are too consistently non-neutral to believe otherwise.

I'm not sure what the right sanction is. A topic ban seems right to me, but I suppose that would mean I should go to WP:AN. I also think, practically speaking, it would be the equivalent of an indefinite block because he doesn't seem interested in anything else. A block of some duration is another route. He has no previous blocks, which makes me reluctant to propose an indefinite block (or even a topic ban for the reason I just stated), despite his defensiveness, his apparent inability to understand policy, and his slyness.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Borovv just added a Moon image to the article here. This is an image Borovv uploaded and claims is his own work. Borovv has a long history of uploading images, many of which are Moon-related, some of which have been deleted as copyright violations. Since I've become more concerned about Borovv's editing, I've nominated two images for deletions at Commons (including this one). If Borovv is misrepresenting images as his own work, that's disturbing. If, on the other hand, these images are his own work, that is also a problem because for him to have been able to take the image reflects a probable conflict of interest.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is clearly unacceptable since it is tendentious and improperly sourced. I was going to suggest that the user be indeed banned from editing that one article, but a perusal of their other sub-par work (the writing and sourcing)--note how many of their edits are reverts--is a clear indication to me that the editor is here with an agenda, and it is not one of collaboration. (BTW, Bbb, "be a man" might well be an invitation to a bare-knuckle fist fight. Are you man enough?) I think this editor should not be editing WP at all. Drmies (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I had similar problems with this editor when I attempted to expand materials already in the infobox regarding Moon's many children by different women, starting here. Moon calls his current wife and their children his "True Family," and children from other women have been systematically censored from this article. I had not been involved in editing this BLP before, but I was struck by how it reads like a hagiography prepared by Moon's adherents. I was also intrigued that the User:Borovv username was so similar to User:Borock, an account which makes opposite edits to the Moon-related articles. I would support a topic ban of User:Borovv and would encourage uninvolved editors to take a good look at this controversial leader of a new religious movement, the same way we carefully confirm information on L. Ron Hubbard and other NRM leaders. Jokestress (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Move review for Perth and for Season 2

Vegaswikian (talk · contribs) and George Ho (talk · contribs) have decided to try out the new proposed Misplaced Pages:Move review process, to review the closure decisions for the requested moves for "Perth" and for "Season 2".

The move review process is open to any editor but it might be particularly helpful if admins provide input, since it is usually admins who do requested move closures. The options are endorse, overturn, relist.

Background: I'm posting this here since some of you may recall a previous AN/I discussion a few days ago. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"Advertising account"

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

Advertising account (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks like it's being used for purely promotional/spam purposes. Could someone take a look at it? Prioryman (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Whacked. Next time, simply report them at AIV. Max Semenik (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. I hadn't realised AIV also dealt with spammers; I'll remember that for the future. Prioryman (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

What an incredibly innocuous name. Well done for catching that. WilliamH (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

See, I first saw that name and figured it was a friend of User:Example or something similar. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Bad taste edits at 2010 Northumbria Police manhunt

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

Some months ago the abovementioned article was among a small group of articles that were the subject of a series of bad taste edits by an anonymous and dynamic ip (see here for an example, as well as the histories of The Spectator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Help for Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), and the activity ultimately required this and other pages to be protected . Things died down for a while, but the user concerned is now up to his old tricks again. The past few days have seen several similar edits to both 2010 Northumbria Police manhunt ( ) and The Spectator ( ). I feel this issue needs to be investigated by Misplaced Pages because the comments being made have the potential to cause great distress and harm to the relatives of David Rathband, the deceased policeman who was involved in the shooting that sparked the 2010 manhunt, and sadly took his own life as a result of the injuries he sustained in the attack earlier this year. I feel that at the very least the user needs to be prevented from making edits to this particular article. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It's an anonymous IP vandalizing the page every time, so requesting semi-protection ought to do the trick. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• As an aside, the smallest rangeblock which would contain the IPs recently used to edit 2010 Northumbria Police manhunt would be 92.0.0.0/10. That's rather big; with the current state of our tools I expect it would cause some collateral damage to other editors. Semiprotection would be a better move. bobrayner (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Blocking a /10 isn't actually technically possible - you'd have to block 64 separate /16 ranges. Is isn't operationally feasible here either, as you say - it's practically the entire range from one of the UKs biggest mobile providers, so the collateral would not be acceptable. All three articles are now semi-protected. Black Kite (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Cheers. He clearly has some issue with these topics, but hopefully if he can't edit them he'll get bored and go away. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:FS Ban lift request

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

I was banned from WP:FS before it became inactive. I would like to engage in discussions about reviving it since I have realized that I have many sound files to create (like those found on this White House page) that could use the feedback from such a group of editors. Can I have my ban lifted so that I can initiate some discussions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This will probably work better on WP:AN then here. Could you give a quick link to the context of how and why that restriction was imposed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

From my perspective, I was banned based on some racist lies, but I don't think that is really what you are looking for.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I will post my request at WP:AN--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have posted at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#WP:FS_Ban_lift_request. I am not following this page so comment there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards