Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:37, 15 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)

Since when did this become a discussion about me? As I've seen it, nothing has been discussed about the WP:PERSONAL done unto me by said users, and more of a bashing to me. I find that unfair, especially given SoapFan is a repeat offender from his previous sockpuppeted account. _{MusicFreak7676} 05:28, 15 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)
• Support, despite TopGun's declaration that he'll withdraw from mediation (in fact, that statement makes me even more certain that this is necessary). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:VOLUNTEER might the more appropriate one to link to "declaration", I don't want this as an excuse to be construed all over the topic area that I edit. I'm already burned out on this dispute which lingers forever starting again after being resolved numerous times. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support, bans are too heavy. As Regentspark & AshLin have said, these two editors are constantly in conflict but, properly managed, this is an overall productive conflict - adding new info to the projects while keeping the others POV in check. The main negative result of the conflict is excessive wiki-lawyering that consumes the time of other editors, but a ban is not a solution, tho it may seem very tempting and desirable to some editors who are tired of the long and constant boxing match, which sometimes results in halt of progress of an article. A temporary conditional topic ban seems right, but what is really needed is more one on one direct interaction between the two. Disclaimer:I have had one instance of difference with TopGun in the past, which was amiably solved immediately by edits by Darkness Shines. Anir1uph (talk) 18:12, 15 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)

Hi, I am just defending my self when I say that disputes follow me rather than pointing fingers. Even the above proposal doesn't seem to point much at me - the alternate above of six month site ban is already being opposed as it is not nearly the appropriate solution to this... I really don't see why I would be banned for anything at this moment. The reason I would not support a conditional topic ban on myself is that all my edits are in this topic area and I don't want the mediation to be used as an excuse to stop me from editing other wise. I have previously given diffs that I was editing all the Pakistan related articles and the opposing editors followed up there and it would be inappropriate to now ask me to stop editing there. Also, the mediation can not override the consensus already attained previously at different venues by more than just these editors who are involved in the mediation. As far as that is respected, I will not start the Taliban dispute elsewhere and continue at the mediation, all the other disputes are unrelated and were never included in the agreement that I made to the mediation when it started... other wise the simple alternate proposal is to let RFCs handle it by involving other editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Different RFCs have yielded opposite results. So, mediation is warranted. Sunray, I think a condition for the mediation to be finally successful is for the participants to finally present the reliable sources which they base their positions on in the mediation. The disputes which end up in litigation have very much to do with sourcing or lack thereof and how to correctly represent what reliable sources are saying. JCAla (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think RFCs have yielded opposite results. If you are pointing to the one at Taliban article, that also was closed as more need for discussion to attribute the POV. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

TG, you haven't suggested any alternate conditions. JCAla points out the need for mediation and the importance of sources. I agree with that. The issues identified on the mediation talk page focus on WP:NPOV and WP:VER. Looking at sources will be crucial to our getting anywhere. However, there have been continuous interruptions for disputes in article space and WP space.

Therefore, the mediators suggest the following conditions:

Participants voluntarily agree to:

1. Cease major edits to Taliban articles and Pakistan articles related to the Taliban, and avoid complaints about one another, or disputes on article talk pages or Misplaced Pages pages other than according to agreements on the mediation talk page.
2. Remain civil in the process (subject to the mediators' discretion, to terminate the arrangement if participants violate after a warning)
3. Agree to freeze editing on the subject matter in future instances (post-mediation) *unless* they reach consensus on the talk page. This would be similar to a voluntary 1RR rule for these editors, as an extra safety net. Sunray (talk)

Discussion

I am already not making any major content edits to the Taliban dispute in question but this thread has nothing to do with that dispute. I will continue to normally edit rest of the Pakistan related topic area as that is unrelated to this and I did not take any other dispute up at this mediation either (on purpose so that the dispute at hand is resolved), so this would be an irrelevant suggestion as far as I'm concerned (and my not editing there will not make any difference). So, seriously I don't see the point of the alternate proposal which is on the mediation matter rather than on the conduct; the violations are not occurring in just one topic area. Remaining civil should be fairly easy for every one... Magog asked for us to stick to such an agreement about civility and not commenting on the editors before at Talk:Taliban but JCAla withdrew from it later. The issue here is the IBAN vios... I'm already in favour of blocking right away when they are made. The mediation can not continue anyway if the editors involved are disrupting wikipedia at other places, that is what should be avoided. If the editors can't keep themselves from disruption they should be blocked in the first place; if they can, good.. let's resolve the content dispute civilly. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds promising. I've modified the first condition along the lines suggested by regentspark. Sunray (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• For the sake of clarity, could you make it clear that the restriction applies only to Taliban related articles and Pakistan articles that are related to the Taliban? TopGun is a major contributor to Pakistan articles and restricting him from editing those articles is onerous. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 16:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• In "Participants voluntarily agree to: Cease major edits..." can the definition of major edits be explained? Also, in "avoid complaints about one another", can it be made clear what avoid means; when' and to whom can they complain in case of a violation. Only so there are no loopholes in the future. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd presume 'major edits' means 'anything that isn't a minor edit'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• Question, "freeze editing on the subject matter in future instances" As in I cannot add content to an article after mediation? That seems a little much. It is not a 1r restriction on such articles, it means I cannot add content to them. I am currently working on getting an article up to GA, it involves both Pakistan and the Taliban. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreement

Participants signify their agreement below (~~~~)

• Darkness Shines (talk) 20:23, 15 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)

Could I get an admin to look at this user's behaviour since my comment above? I'd like very much for him or her to become a useful member of the project, considering their obvious research skills and intelligence, but they have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to benefit from advice, and to continue disruptive behaviour. It is increasingly difficult to WP:AGF when an editor:

• Engages in WP:OUTING behaviour here. I'll admit that I raised the possibility of this IP:editor being the subject of the biographical articles he edits, given the obvious WP:COI issues raised, also the possible vulnerability of the subject.
• Disrupts discussion on content by making personal attacks and inserting his contributions contrary to the flow of discussion. He has been repeatedly directed to WP:TALK and WP:INDENT. A good example of this behaviour is here, where I am attempting to reword an incorrect statement in the article. The content is unimportant here, but by following successive diffs, the disruption becomes apparent.
• Ignores warnings and advice. The edit history of his talk page is instructive, where various warnings placed by a variety of editors are blanked and the offending behaviour continued. An edit summary of "deleted unread" is hardly something to build confidence in this user's ability to become a cooperative editor.
• Is possibly a sock puppet, pretending to be a new editor so as not to be bitten. This possibility was raised here by another editor. While an existing editor may edit as an IP, if they engage in disruptive behaviour taking advantage of the latitude extended towards new editors, they shouldn't.

I think that I have been understanding and polite to this editor, but the disruption is becoming hard to ignore. --Pete (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Can a IP check please be made on the recent edits made by User:NeilN to see if they match those of Skyring? It appears that the history of NeilN began at almost the same time as Skyring was placed on a one year ban. Noting the previous rulings, it was noted that Skyring may have created sockpuppets and kept them in reserve. I could be wrong about this, but I'm not certain. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 07:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPI is that way. But yes, you're wrong. I'm glad to see you seem to have finally stopped comparing editors to rabid dogs and mislabelling edits as libelous, false, and defamatory though. --NeilN 14:02, 15 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)

User:NeilN, 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'll take your point on that diff, must have selected the wrong one. Baiting aside, HiLo's rising to the bait is hardly the way to deal with things. My political POV is exactly the reason why I avoid editing in political articles. I would be vastly surprised if they could find anything to complain about in anything I write, since I solely focus on copy editing, but if they do my talk page is always open for criticisms and opinions. Blackmane (talk) 08:49, 15 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)

Nothing so sophisticated; just a plain rabid mongrel. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 20:30, 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)

If you assume "that there is no evidence", it would be a stupid and very incorrect assumption. I have a life outside Misplaced Pages. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not HiLo48 (or Craig Thomson for that matter!) but now I know how, I'll do that if he doesn't. Give me a couple of hours. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 21:54, 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)

....he brought an extremely vague question to RSN ...' I don't agree; after this happened my questions basically boiled down to

1. Can my.talk.com.au be used to source the JPG, since it is a Fairfax-owned and operated site; the JPG was used in a letter to the police; and the JPG was created by Fairfax in the first place; and

2. Can "Independent Australia" be considered as a 'reliable source'?

Those questions aren't rocket science. There wasn't any meaningful response, so I went back to state that, as there were no objections, I'd re-insert the material deleted. It wasn't until after I stated the foregoing that anyone meaningful responded.

After I'd experienced a certain recalcitrant who was willfully playing stupid while others and myself were trying to put NPOV balance in the article, it appeared to me as though I was encountering the same on RSN. I apologise if my perception of your response is mistaken, but the impression I got then was that you were playing the same sort of games. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

We can't use political blogs as reliable sources. Not when the affair is front page news in every metropolitan daily and leading the evening news bulletins. We have many excellent sources to use on this, and they have a wide coverage. If one has to resort to a site run by one or two guys pushing their own partisan views - and the "Independent Australia" blog is about as balanced as the North Korea Daily Buggle - then one might ask, why are the big broadsheet papers not carrying the same fascinating and alarming stories? It's not just one particular outlet you scorn as a source, it's every daily newspaper in Australia! You also wanted to use an image that had been obviously tampered with and had no information as to provenance. I'm happy, more than happy, that you are participating in the Misplaced Pages project, and that you bring your own views and perspective, but you have to play by the rules. They aren't arbitrary policies and guidelines laid down from on high, they are procedures we have all developed together, often wrangled over and disputed, but they work, and given the amazing variety of people contributing, that is a miraculous and inspiring achievent. --Pete (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

RS/N has a well established and specific format for questions. Despite the page and edit window indicating this format to you, you failed to specify the required information. Despite requests for you to specify the required information, you failed to do so. Reconsider the collegiality of your editing in relation to RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. RSN required 3 things to be identified: (1) the source(s) (they were); (2) the article (which was); (3) the content (which also was, pertaining to the JPG). There was no response until after I stated that "since there were no objections..."; nor was there any request to clarify my questions prior to me posting that. If someone had asked me "what is / clarify your question" before I made the "since there's no response" post, I never would have made the latter. Having never seen the RSN before, let alone used it, I had no experience or knowledge on how to ask; I was referred there and was trying to do the right thing in order to improve the article. Although I appreciate the need for processes, it seemed to me to be a lot of hoop-jumping just to get a very simple yes or no answer to two (what seemed to me to be simple) questions. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't indicate a source or proposed edit here, "2. With regards to 'Independent Australia' (http://www.independentaustralia.net/): if this can be considered by Misplaced Pages as a reliable source, I intend to link to certain documents from this source in the Craig Thomson affair. I am reluctant however to reference some articles from the site itself, as some articles are clearly opinion pieces and are thus not the neutral reportage of news. Question: can IA be considered as a reliable source?"

You don't indicate a source or claim supported here, "1. With regards to mytalk.com.au: That said, I will restore the JPG in order to provide a balance to the article which it currently lacks."

Author, date, title, publisher. It isn't that hard. Stating a claim to be supported. It isn't that hard. Next time you enter a forum you're unfamiliar with, do bother to determine the locals customs because your current attitude is fundamentally non-collegial. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I begin to see what you're getting at, however the JPG at issue was within this PDF file (http://media.mytalk.com.au/2ue/audio/Brandisletter.pdf) which I'd previously linked to, as "Annexure A". I take your point though; I should have linked to the JPG itself. With regards to using IA as a source, the question I was asking was along the lines of if it was considered to be as (a) blog or personal website, or (b) as a publisher in the same way that crikey.com.au or Washingtonpost.com are considered to be internet news publishers. Or, put another way: if I wanted to link to news articles from The Washington Post website and asked you, "would that site be considered to be a reliable source?" without nominating any particular article on the site, you would most likely reply in the affirmative. I was asking the same question with regards to IA. If the site in general could not be considered to be a RS - ie it's considered as a blog or personal website - then there would be no point in specifying particular articles from it or propose edits using that source as a reference. I don't know how I can make these points any clearer or phrase the issue any other way. With regards to your comments about working in a cooperative relationship with reasonable people, I am not opposed to that and in fact that is what I am trying to achieve. The article left in the state it was at that time was a defamatory attack article, and I was trying to restore some balance to it. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Entire RSN exchange is here, any reviewing editors may want to note that the exchange is chonologically dis-ordered as there were several conversations going on at once in there. I think it speaks for itself. If others have more questions somehow, please leave me a note on my talk page. -- Despayre   03:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• From the onset, I believed that edits were being done to the Thomson articles in less than good faith and/or otherwise in violation of policy, and that there has been a conflict of interest at work in negatively slanting the POV of the article for the advantage of vested political interests, such as those of the Liberal Party of Australia and/or the extreme right-wing racist hate group, One Nation. In light of the problems encountered here, I am therefore presenting the following URLs for examination without passing comment on their content.

http://skyring.livejournal.com/480997.html

http://markmail.org/message/t7korungbwcg6wr6#query:+page:1+mid:qkcjypf2tp2gatvi+state:results

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Skyring#Statement_by_party_1

http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Skyring

After examining all of the above in detail (and other URLs which I have not mentioned above), it appears to me as though you have a clear WP:COI and WP:COATRACK issues at work here from a player who knows how to game the system. There is also an established history of similar behavior to that complained of now - why bother keeping a history if you're not going to learn by it. I note also that topic bans have been placed on editors before and that ought to be considered in this instance, but your own views may differ. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I won't comment on the material immediately above except to say that I hereby withdraw all contention that the IP editor is the biographical subject of the articles on which he is working. His research skills are way better! On that note, he or she should be encouraged to stick around and contribute in a positive manner. We need this passion. --Pete (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not so sure about that. I suspect that passion may sometimes get in the way of objective editing, for more than one player on this topic ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. You are very good to say so. Admitting a problem is the first step to overcoming it. Now, do you have any sober evidence to back up the emotionally intense claims made above? --Pete (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you even realise that I was talking about you (among others) in that post? There is masses of evidence, but your machine gun approach to editing makes it very hard to isolate for policemen who want it all present in point form on the back of an envelope. (Do you have any idea how many edits you have made to Craig Thomson related articles and Talk pages over the past two weeks?) HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. You bent over, I couldn't resist the target offered. Why not, if my edits are so outrageous, just pick three of the absolutely worstest? Admins are (hopefully) busy and committed dedicated people, and when they request your guidance, why not direct them exactly where you want them to go? --Pete (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"You bent over, I couldn't resist the target offered." this kind of language is not needed on wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Skyring (Pete) topic ban

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

• Its not difficult for an administrator to have a historic read of - Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Skyring and see the outcome, - banned for a year as a result of wiki stalking and violating edits in regards to governance of Australia and see the disruption being caused here and see whats going on. - his sockpuppet page Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Skyring although appears on first investigation historic is quite interesting reading also - As a user that has been previously banned for a year for disruption in the governance of Australia topic area and has returned to it and has created a policy violating WP:NPOV article, resulting in a WP:BLP violating and WP:UNDUE content and plenty of disruption. I suggest User:Skyring be topic banned from all articles and their talkpages and content additions or removals relating to the governance of Australia. Youreallycan 05:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - as per above - Youreallycan 05:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support for ongoing active disruption in relation to Australian governance related pages, given a history of disruption in relation to Australian governance related pages. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support This is one of those more challenging problems. Skyring (Pete) is a user obsessed with Australian political dramas. He lives in the national capital, Canberra. That's far more significant than an American living in Washington DC. A high proportion of Canberra's citizens are political junkies. The difficulty is that I don't think he's aware of what's unacceptable about his approach to editing, no matter what others tell him. This makes it very difficult to discuss it with him. It's also worth noting that not discussing, while dramatically changing articles, is a standard approach of his. And I still object to the demand above to provide diffs. In this case it's like picking machine gun bullets, and their cases, scattered over several farm paddocks. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a matter of focus. Look closer at my contribution history. Most of my edits are on talk pages, the Australian political articles numbering maybe a dozen out of many hundreds on which I've contributed over the past year, most often making tiny changes, usually labelled as minor. I've put a lot of effort into Ugandan notables, a BBC radio presenter, a list of things named after the Queen, British merchant ships... It's all there, for anyone to see. I'm certainly interested in Commonwealth political drama, but hardly obsessed, and certainly not to the extent that my contributions here reflect any one focus. If there's any obsession, it's date formats. I like to organise and arrange things in their proper order, and I like to see errors identified and corrected. Misplaced Pages is a sweet playground for nerds like me. --Pete (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I am truly reluctant to respond at this location nowhere near the end of the thread, because it will further perpetuate the massively multi-threaded, scatter gun result of your efforts (which I again emphasise makes the simple listing of Diffs fairly pointless when discussing the real problem here) but my immediate thoughts were, if so many of your article changes elsewhere have been tiny and minor, the massive changes you have attempted to make to Craig Thomson related articles surely demonstrate some sort of obsession with the man, or what his elimination from the scene will do for perhaps your preferred direction for federal politics. (I'm still trying to guess at the real motivation for your huge interest in Thomson's world.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I created an article on the notable topic when Fair Work Australia presented its report and thus provided a solid source. Apart from linking the Craig Thomson and Gillard Government articles to the new article, I didn't touch any other "Craig Thomson-related articles", let alone make massive changes. The article needed to be written, I begged for coöperation on the talk page, the BLP problems were raised at the BLP Noticeboard and

• Comment I like to think that I've learnt from my experience, years in the past. If my behaviour is a problem, where is the evidence? Where are the diffs? (ETA) And would it be too much trouble to ask that the wikipolicies I'm supposed to have breached be mentioned? Some of the diffs provided aren't mine, and those that are mine look okay to me. If the precise breaches could be pointed out, it will help whatever admins step up to work out if there has been any violation of wikipolicy. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• They are littered in the talkpage discussion and the content you created at the Craig Thomson affair - diff - see the removal of content you didn't like because it didn't attack Thompson and its removal by a policy experienced editor User:Collect and your replacement and the revert of your removal by an administrator User:Qwyrxian - there are so many similar situations it seems unnecessary to post more. Youreallycan 05:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the material because the source didn't support the statement. I began a discussion on the wording here where I explain why and suggest an alternate wording which is pretty much a direct quote from the source. The discussion becomes pretty choppy (as noted above) because the IP editor won't follow WP:INDENT guidelines for talk page procedure and takes it as a personal attack when indents are altered or comments moved to their correct place. But that's by the by. The statement in the article remains unsupported by the source and I'd like to fix it. As, I trust, would any editor reading both and spotting the error. --Pete (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You had to be reverted twice, once by an experience policy compliant user and after you replaced the content by an administrator - Youreallycan 06:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The statement in our article remains unsupported by the source. I pointed out the problem and suggested a wording that kept the intent of the original statement but got the details correct. The discussion remains open and I invite you to comment there. --Pete (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Per request from The Bushranger (above in previous section), I hope this may assist to show the points which HiLo48 made there:

Skyring's original edits contained the section heading "Attempts to blame others"; that was a libelous innuendo removed by me (Revision as of 01:12, 7 June 2012 by me (article)).

With regards to points which may begin to illustrate HiLo48's point as originally posted (ie of "...us a scatter gun approach, behaving in an inflammatory way on several related pages at the same time.." please note the following:

1. . Hilo48 comments regarding Bolt (Revision as of 01:56, 8 June 2012 by Hilo48 (talk page));
2. . Skyring restores the libelous innuendo here (Revision as of 01:59, 8 June 2012 by Skyring (article));

3. . then Skyring comes back to the talk page (Revision as of 02:05, 8 June 2012 by Skyring (talk));

4. . and then Skyring puts more garbage back into the article (Revision as of 02:08, 8 June 2012 by Skyring (article).

5. . Later, Skyring made a dishonest edit summary in the opinion of Hilo48 (with which I agree); interestingly, Hilo48 restored a Fairfax opinion piece which Skyring originally wanted to use to further defame the article's subject, but Skyring didn't like the portrayal of that article in the NPOV version and so he then ripped it out.

6. . If there are any doubts remaining that Skyring intends this article to be an attack page and a coatrack, the following edits may be indicative pointers as to the agenda being pursued: a, b, c, d, e, f, and g, which is a dishonest edit summary given the source material.

There's other matters worthy of mention, for example lying about me outing an editor with a COI when that user had clearly and previously identified himself long ago on WP, lying about me when stating the need for page protection, and removing sourced material after the article page was protected. Skyring has also been baiting me edit-warring again here and here, although I admit that I screwed up when using the (undo) function and accidentally removing a comment he'd made in the interim. He's still bating me by moving my responses around and right here, he's at it again with another act of pure pedantry. I hope the point has been made that Skyring's behavior warrants attention again, and leave the matter in your hands. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC) PS: added the wrong diffs; struck-though and amended.

• - @User:Skyring - As for your NPOV content creations that resulted imo in undue violations that created BLP violating content, you created this content - and I WP:NPOV'ed it as per the citation you used, to this - Please see the difference - Youreallycan 06:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, thanks. Could you provide the diff, please? And what is the precise problem? Remember, you're asking admins to examine the evidence. They aren't mind readers. --Pete (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Um - Actually I am not asking admins anything - I am asking the community/experienced users (some of them may well be admins) to look at your history and your disruptive content creations and talkpage contributions and to support topic banning you as a simple resolution to this disruption and your content violations.- Youreallycan 06:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment In these particular circumstances—where political matters in Australia are highly unstable—this does not seem appropriate. There seem to be more problems with the edits of the IP who does not appear to understand wikipedia policy properly (looking at the report on WP:RSN amongst other things). The IP also posted links to messages on an external blog and to another external message from 2005 posted by David Gerard, seven years ago. That kind of editing seems disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The IP has never made a single content addition; never mind a policy violating one and has never been banned by arbitration from the project for similar related policy violations in the same topic area like User:Skyring has - Youreallycan 07:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The IP has extensively edited Craig Thomson affair and its talk page. The IP has also suggested using dubious sources that fail WP:RS. Linking to external blogs and outdated messageboards was also not particularly helpful. Mathsci (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a big difference in attempting to NPOV content and creating clear policy violating additions in regards to living people - I suggest if you support action about the IP that you open a separate thread about the user , this thread is an attempt to address and resolve the issuers created by User:Skyring -If you support User:Skyring;s contributions please make that clear. Youreallycan 07:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The thread about the IP user is on this page, above, and has been open for several days. This discussion is actually a subthread of that one. --Pete (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ Youreallycan. I am commenting on the IP, whose edits seem to be problematic. I don't personally know how any particularly objective article could be written on this particular political brouhaha, before matters are resolved (e.g. in a year's time). If Skyring had been reported or blocked for edit-warring since 2008, perhaps you might have a point. But that is not the case. A far more convincing case of disruption over a prolonged period would have to be presented to justify a topic ban on such a wide range of articles. Here only two articles are being discussed, the subject of the original report, whom I believe some newspapers refer to as a "disgraced politician". Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Australian head of state dispute, Talk:List of current heads of state and government/Archive 3, Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-02-22/List of current heads of state and government, and Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-02-22/List of current heads of state and government for another Australia-related discussion, where unfortunately informal mediation only led to rehashing the same discussion points again. isaacl (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Pete appears to be unaware that WP:BLP is a very strong policy, and that his desire to use articles as some sort of weapon to make sure people know just how bad any "Satan" is, is not how Misplaced Pages operates. Collect (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that aligns with my view that Pete isn't really deliberately breaking the rules. He truly believes that he's editing within the rules, unless simple diffs can show otherwise, as he and his fans here frequently demand. But he DOES break the rules on NPOV and, when one looks at the sum of his Talk page and article updates in sequence, is very disruptive and confrontational. HiLo48 (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Given my participation and input into the recent Jim Hawkins affair, I reject the view that I'm unaware of BLP restrictions. Again, I ask for diffs that demonstrate the allegation made. This matter was raised at WP:BLPN, examined and rejected with no violation found. (See also this earlier mention, where an IP editor threatened legal action if we inserted sourced material.)

Collect, as you labelled the Craig Thomson affair, "classic silly season stuff", when in fact it's been ongoing for three years of front page news with intense public interest in Australia, and the ongoing notability is that it could cause a fall of government in the tightly-balanced parliament where Thomson has been removed from the governing party and now sometimes votes with the opposition, could I ask if you've read through some of the sources that demonstrate that this is not some passing scandal. It may sound like sleazy mud-slinging, but like the Profumo affair, it's been prostitutes in the headlines since day one. Just google "Craig Thomson" to see what I mean. There are reliable sources for all of my edits, and a government body has produced a report listing and detailing 150 findings made against Thomson. It took three years to gather the material, and over a thousand pages to put the case. Thomson was given the opportunity to refute the report in Parliament - in a speech which was carried live throughout Australia and put the Twitter hashtag #thomson into global number one trend for a time - but brought no evidence to counter the claims against him. His position was that he had been somehow set up by his enemies, who had gained control over his credit card, drivers licence and mobile phone, hotel room phone and forged his signature. Repeatedly without his knowledge over several years while he continued to approve the credit card bills, sometimes for thousands of dollars at a time. All of this is supported by reliable sources from the leading Australian news agencies and the subject of keen public interest. This isn't a case of Misplaced Pages smearing a person out of all balance - what I produced was mild compared to the mainstream reports. Thomson sued the first publisher to break the story for defamation, but dropped the case two years later before it could be heard, and paid $240 000 in settlement. That newspaper - and every other within Australia - continues to publish the allegations against him and no apology or retraction was ever made. I invite you and others to examine our coverage at Gillard Government#Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper, which has the same sourced story, occasioning no controversy on the discussion stage, and no input from me except to provide a link to the Craig Thomson affair main story. I invite review and criticism of my actions in writing an article on a notable matter, but I do ask that the sources be read, and my edits examined before making a hasty judgement. --Pete (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

In a period of just over an hour there, Pete made 17 separate edits to this page to create that content above. He has digressed all over the place, delving right into the nitty gritty of detailed content for the Craig Thomson Affair article. He has completely missed the point of THIS discussion, clearly demonstrating his total obsession with Craig Thomson, and an inability to look more broadly at the issues under discussion HERE. A total lack of perspective. In the broader Misplaced Pages context, this editor simply does not know what he is doing. HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 15 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)

Blatant misrepresentation of evidence by Biosketch, which seems to become a pattern of editors agitating for administrative action against editors they disagree with in the topic area. Jiujitsuguy filed a case against me, which proved to be unfounded, then continued to make further allegations without supplying any evidence - not in the correct forum, but on other users talk pages. It seems odd that you think it is okay for editors who you agree with to continue to make unfounded allegations on user talk pages after a failed SPI case. But for editors you disagree with you allege battleground behavior for filing an SPI case in the correct forum. Your reasons for declaring my account suspect could almost entirely be applied to User Ankhmorpork's account, which is newer than mind, and more active in the I-P topic area. In my case these reasons are grounds for legitimate suspicion, but in the case of User Ankhmorpork you are claiming that any suspicion of sock puppetry is "frivolous" and evidence of battleground behavior. The double standards displayed by those agitating against Oncenawhile are extremely galling. It is my personal opinion that this kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is far more troublesome and disruptive to the topic area and the project than anything that has been alleged against Oncenawhile. Dlv999 (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

No User:Dlv999, what you're saying actually isn't true at all and the double standard you perceive is entirely a figment of your imagination. Ankh has contributed extensively outside the topic area. He's edited the Terry Pratchett article, Of Mice and Men, UEFA Euro 2012, and other articles altogether unrelated to the topic area. I'm more sympathetic towards editors who aren't addicted to and obsessed with the topic area and who establish that they have other reasons for being Misplaced Pages contributors than to further a political cause they're passionate about. When you demonstrate that you're such an editor, you'll earn the same respect as well.—Biosketch (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Editors file SPI reports because they think someone may be a sockpuppet. That is what they are supposed to do. They may not know how to do it well in which case they should be helped. Ankh says "I do not wish to have to defend myself". Editors who are the subject of an SPI report don't need to defend themselves. What should happen is that editors and admins help eachother to identify sockpuppets, prepare evidence, file SPIs/run CUs etc, so that everyone is contributing to the eradication of sockpuppetry. The editors complaining about Oncenawhile could have offered to help him. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand (and I'm not saying it's happened here) repeated filing of SPIs in which large numbers of parties are apparently randomly listed as socks without regard to previous SPIs, the requirement to provide diffs etc, can be disruptive, and the clerks are at liberty to shelve such. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sean, so the advice and help I should have provided should have been something like: "Read the contradictory results of the previous SPI you just filed, see that two of the users listed are already blocked and have been identified as belonging to someone else, see that I myself have filed an SPI against the IPs that you somehow think I am connected with, and why the fuck have you decided to attach this latest investigation to my SPI page - the one that you gratuitously created"? Ankh.Morpork 12:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you could have contacted him directly and politely ("why the fuck" is close enough to polite in my world) pointed out the errors in the report rather than coming to ANI or responding at SPI. You could work with Oncenawhile to help him make the topic area better. Apparently he is trying to do that by filing an SPI (and he got lucky because there is a sock in that report as far as I'm concerned who will hopefully be dealt with in due course). SPI harassment you say ? Well, he didn't call you a Communist-Nazi anti-Semite and threaten to kill your family etc etc (a fairly routine experience for some editors in the topic area) so I think you are overreacting a little. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

There are other ways editors could help too. Sockpuppets are often attracted by aggressive editing/edit wars and like to participate. So, if you could tone down your rather aggressive style of editing it might help. For example, you made 4 edits to add an article to the see also sections in 4 articles that were reverted. You reverted the reverts with the edit summary See WP:SEEALSO Links "do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article" and allow readers to "explore topics that are only peripherally relevant." rather than initating a discussion per WP:CONSENSUS. SEEALSO also says that it is "a matter of editorial judgment" and the person who reverted you is an editor who is entitled to participate in the editorial judgment just like you. Rather than being aggressive you could open a discussion at WP:IPCOLL since it involves several articles. Luckily edit warring didn't break out but these are the kind of little things that trigger it and attract sockpuppets. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit. If you actually read the SPI you will observe that I did point out the glaring failings of his report and his disregard of previous findings, to which he rather pathetically responded to and still wished to proceed with the report. If somebody needs that sort of advice, that raises clear competence issues, and if somebody then selects to ignore this advice and proceed, cognisant of its failings, this is sheer harassment. This had nothing to do with "mak(ing) the topic area better"; it was a conscious attempt to remove an editor that did not align himself with the POV he was seeking to promote. Ankh.Morpork 14:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that your assumption bad faith and malicious intent Oncenawhile's actions can be justified by the facts in front of us. Dlv999 (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I have considerable sympathy for your position Ankh and felt much the same way when I had an SPI filed against myself rather gratuitously. At the time I certainly felt that it constituted harassment but that was mainly because I felt obliged to waste my time defending myself against the accusations. I didn't realise until afterwards that there is really very little need to say anything at all (except in response to bullshit 'duck' claims that try to avoid checkuser confirmation) and that I could have said pretty much nothing and still had the same result occur because it was determined entirely by technical data. My (possibly poorly informed) point is that whilst it certainly feels like a hostile act to be so accused you don't actually need to waste time defending yourself (as I currently understand it) and this fact takes quite a lot of the sting out of such actions.BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I read the report and as Elen says, clerks are at liberty to shelve malformed reports, and that is what has happened in this case. What triggers the filing of a report is perceived disruption caused by sockpuppetry, so there is going to disruption whatever happens, either in article space, at SPI, or both. Try not to lose sight of the cause, the actual problem, which is sockpuppetry, not editors like Oncenawhile who are at least trying to do something about it. It's not possible to remove an editor because of their POV using an SPI report. AE is where editors go to remove editors because of a perceived issue resulting from their POV. SPI can only remove editors who have been identified as sockpuppets. This is obvious and I think we can assume that Oncenawhile understands this. If someone suspects that one or more editors might be sockpuppets they are supposed to do something about it. There isn't a team of experienced editors/admins they can turn to for help preparing an SPI case or who could filter out unlikely cases. Support is rather disorganized which is a pity given that sockpuppetry in the I-P topic area is so bad that an editor really can randomly pick 10 accounts/IPs and they will have a very good chance of including a sock. Editors are required to specify a sockmaster even though they very often don't know or care who the sockmaster is. Why should they care ? They just want someone to check for socks and get rid of them. That is how it should work but it doesn't. Oncenawhile picked you as sockmaster but said that he didn't know whether it was you. He just wants someone to help him check for and remove socks from the topic area. Clearly he is unaware of what is required to submit requests that clerks are willing to process and extent of Misplaced Pages's inability to deal with sockpuppetry via SPI. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

One of the most vicious destructive scenarios that often goes unchecked in Misplaced Pages is using the Misplaced Pages mechanisms, policies, guidelines to CONDUCT obsessive warfare. One of the nastiest forms of wiki-lawyering. The fact that it is via mis-use (not blatant violation) of those mechanisms is why it often goes unchecked. It appears that there is a possibility that this is happening to AnkhMorpork and I would suggest that that bigger picture possibility be taken seriously. North8000 (talk) 16:07, 15 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)

Now the user is making yet more personal attacks, this time directed against User:L.tak because L.tak wouldn't give Camoka their Skype account name. This user is not here to edit constructively, and has made nothing but disruptive and incivil edits since coming off of a block. - SudoGhost 19:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Last and final warning issued. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

BLP issue

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

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)

Okay. I will bring it up at BLPN (again, I think). I will tag this section resolved.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:49, 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)

I need consensus to move my documentation pages to a project subpage.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• If one doesn't already exist, it may be useful to have some type of database report on IPv6 blocks for awhile to allow review and watch out for mistakes. Monty₈₄₅ 20:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • This shows you IPv6 blocks.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone's made a basic change that will reduce the chances of this specific incident happening again — if you go to the contributions page for an IPv6 (example), you'll see a big warning saying that it's not an account with a crazy name. Nyttend (talk) 11:39, 15 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)
• commons:Project:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Borovv

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)
• Support topic ban. Although I stated earlier I was reluctant to support a ban, two things have changed. First, the image issue, which I find particularly disturbing. Second, the fact he has not come here to explain himself, even though he was notified and has edited since the notice. If a topic ban means he ceases editing on Misplaced Pages because he has no interest in other subjects, so be it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Let's not discuss a topic ban before getting an even more major concern out of the way. It's asserted that this person copies other people's work wholesale, with the images uploaded to Commons being scans of magazines and books, and the content added to Misplaced Pages being simple copies and pastes of other people's writing. If true, this is a non-contributor who doesn't generate original material and who is damaging both projects, and xyr editing privileges need to be revoked. What are the prose copyright problems here at Misplaced Pages, Bbb23? Uncle G (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Question about WP:BAN

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft has been reopened again due to more WP:BAN evasion by Daft. A site ban applies. Are users authorised to remove any edit by Daft no matter where it is, including other users' talk pages, without seeking prior permission? Obviously, WP:BAN evasion would have to quoted in the edit summary. ----Jack | 18:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• You shouldn't remove any edits until there is a definite link made and until after any potential sockpupppet is blocked and tagged specifically for being a sockpuppet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You mean from other people's talk pages, of course? Obviously, edits can be reverted if they are vandalism. What about vandalism of another person's talk page? ----Jack | 18:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism can always be reverted, that isn't tied to WP:BAN, and no other rationale is needed. Treat the same as you would any other vandalism edit. I'm referring to any edit that could possibly be construed as constructive. Possibly constructive edits shouldn't be reverted simply because if you wrong, then the revert was disruptive. I should have made that more clear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a substantial discussion going on right now over at AN about this very topic. The general consensus seems to be to delete bad edits, and leave clearly positive ones alone. If in doubt, revert, as I don't think there's many admins who'd block a user for following policy in that regard. But as said above, you should wait until the socks are confirmed: if they're not socks, then you've just blindly reverted all of the edits of a new user, and that's not very nice. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. ----Jack | 19:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out that that Elektrik Shoos's summary of the WP:AN discussion doesn't accurately represent years of policy or even the summary of that particular discussion. In general, all edits of banned editors can and should be reverted, regardless of whether they are positive or not.—Kww(talk) 20:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that this is the consensus. There is debate as to the wisdom of this, but it is the current consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Account that should be blocked

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

Someone created the account Answers for Tryptofish (talk · contribs) to leave a message on my talk (that I reverted) that, presumably would have gotten them blocked if they had left it under their regular user name. I'd suggest that the sham account should be blocked. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Notified: . --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks for the very quick response, Future Perf! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Irvi Hyka for the third time in recent weeks

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

Irvi Hyka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who recently was the subject of an ANI report where it was agreed upon that his behavior warranted a warning of ARBMAC discretionary sanctions , is back at it again. He has reached 3RR at Durres (these are reverts of this removal ), has 2 reverts at Bujar Nishani , 2 reverts at Black and Red Alliance (describing an ultranationalist party as "patriotic" and edit-warring over it is highly tendentious), 2 reverts at Illyrians , and two undiscussed unilateral page moves performed without so much as an edit summary (of which he has a long history of, and which was one of the reasons he was previously reported to ANI). This is disruption of a high order and needs to stop. At a minimum, a formal warning of ARBMAC discretionary sanctions is in order this time. Athenean (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous! You accused me because I defend the truth. Bujar Nishani's article, I don't understand why the IP removes the fact that Nishani is sick. He can not move hand and leg. Tis is a fact. This is evident. Durrës, like or unlike Prof. Kastrati is notable academic. His explanation is very accurate. I'm not the only user that protect this fact, user:Mesfushori is he who has written this and both are defending this assessmente Etymologic city name. Black and Red Alliance's article is this party nationalist or not is not subjective judgment. Mr Spahiu was accused by by other parties but in a interview for Voice of America that I published in the article Spahaiu said that AK is patriotic and not nationalist movement. Albanian might have descended from a southern Illyrian dialect. the references from Encyclopædia Britannica Albanians refer to themselves as shqiptarë, meaning “sons of eagles,” and to their country as Shqipëria. They are descendants of the ancient Illyrians, who lived in central Europe and migrated southward to the territory of Albania at the beginning of the Bronze Age, about 2000 bce. like or unlike Greeks Encyclopædia Britannica writes that. Please, Athenean you're judging me unjustly! Irvi Hyka (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You are defending the WP:TRUTH? No, you are just edit-warring and being disruptive. Athenean (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You want the truth? Misplaced Pages does not handle the truth! *ahem* Seriously though, Misplaced Pages operates on verifiability, not truth. Information must be from reliable sources, and you are not allowed to use your own material if it hasn't been published by a RS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

See the ref user:The Bushranger that I published after comment. All the information is based on academic sources. Irvi Hyka (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

And now you have just broken 3RR, for which you have been reported here . Not that it matters at this point, but your "academic source" doesn't have a single publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Athenean (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems Bwilkins is wielding the ARBMAC hammer now. About the content issue, I've added some stuff to the article talk page that should help resolve the matter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

Diff by 24.101.170.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Will notify IP immediately after this. Jim1138 (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• That IP happens to be an open proxy (port #3246). Jes' sayin' .. - Alison 23:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Obvious troll is blocked, but I didn't know it was an open proxy. Extend the block as necessary, I'm not actually familiar with proxy-blocks. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Indef'd as a proxyblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin

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

That was fun --Jayron32 04:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Please remove all the rights of this user as he/she has been blocked indefinitely. Thanks in advance--Morning Sunshine (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where you've made the required notification for someone under discussion here, but what would make you think that? Dru of Id (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

He was blocked on December 11 and hasn't been heard from since. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• This doesn't belong at ANI and removing userrights would be as pointless as this thread, the user has been blocked for 6 months already. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, as you have said, my request is unnecessary and I withdraw it. I'm fairly new to en.wiki so I don't know much about this--Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

What in particular drew your attention to that user? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC) +

FYI, see here; this is an established user, known to the WMF, who simply hasn't edited much at en:wp. Not a malicious sockpuppet. Nyttend (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion review, please

Does anyone have the time/inclination to attempt an assessment of consensus at Wikipedia_talk:INB#Photo_montages_in_infoboxes_of_caste.2Fcommunity_articles? There have been several admins involved in the discussion and it really needs closing off by someone who is uninvolved, primarily because one person disputes the assessment by RegentsPark. Sorry about this as I realise ANI is not a perfect venue: I just cannot figure out which noticeboard would be in this instance. - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we need a formal summary for this discussion since it's output could be used as a 'local-policy' in the India related articles. --AshLey 13:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Troublesome User Edit Warring at Dennis Merzel

Hello, as seen here, the user Ttbakiatwoam has been constantly edit warring and provides no reason for the reverts despite several warnings on his talkpage. He keeps adding content that messes up the formatting of the page. He will not listen to his fellow editors telling him otherwise, so some administrator intervention is requested. Thank you. AlexB531 (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Enso 83 (talk · contribs) is either a sock or meat puppet of the above and has been blocked indefinitely. Ttbakiatwoam has been blocked for a week and 24.10.251.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be auto-blocked. Favonian (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Why does it need an uninvolved Admin to give someone an ArbCom warning, & how do I get one?

There's a new editor (with whom I'm in dispute) that I think should have, if only for their own sake so they understand what they are involved in, an ArbCom warning (the article is under probation). {{subst:uw-sanctions|topic=ps}} says "This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system." That seems a bit odd as it is only a warning, but if that's the way it has to be, there should be some way of attracting an uninvolved Admin other than going around asking people. I've given warning myself but only when uninvolved. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN is a good place to ask for an uninvolved admin to take a look. --regentspark (comment) 19:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

June 15, 2012: the day that Misplaced Pages collapsed under the weight of its own senseless bureaucracy. Warned. Sheesh. MastCell  19:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Point to note: we revised the discretionary sanctions page a while ago, and the "warnings" section no longer says anything about uninvolved admins:

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. From Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

So any user can give that warning, including an "involved" admin. In fact, I think one of the reasons we changed it, back in 2010, was that it was ridiculously bureaucratic... Risker (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I like Risker's answer, but is it definitive? I ask because I recall a quite recent discussion somewhere - I looked, but can't find it, now - about the issuance of these notices in the I/P area. IIRC (?) the result was that only admins should be issuing them, which seemed silly to me. Again, iirc, there was some concern that non-admins might not be sufficiently aware of how to log the notice properly, or that the issuance of such a notice could be used to intimidate newcomers with whom one was involved in a content dispute. I reject both those ideas, but I would like to see this question finally resolved here.

If we all agree that non-admins can issue such notices, too, then shouldn't we also change the language of {{uw-sanctions}}, so it no longer says, "This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator..."? --OhioStandard (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Try {{subst:uw-sanctions|topic=ps|admin=no}}. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, indeed. It does tend to help when one actually reads the documentation. Thanks, Floquenbeam.--OhioStandard (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles

LouisPhilippeCharles operating sockpuppets on other language Wikipedias

• LouisPhilippeCharles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • sockpuppet HammyDoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • sockpuppet Templatier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

See the section "Locked talk page" All access by this account was locked across all Wikipedias at 23:29, 23 December 2010 (see lock log).

I am going through the 225+ page moves instigated by two of the sockpuppets of LouisPhilippeCharles that have been active this year. (See User talk:LouisPhilippeCharles#Moves made by two known sockpuppets)

I have recently reverted a move that was made by user:HammyDoo, a known sock puppet of LouisPhilippeCharles, to the page Claire Clémence de Maillé and came across evidence that LouisPhilippeCharles has been using sockpuppets on other language Wikipedias in violation of his lock across all Wikipedias.

HammyDoo moved Claire-Clémence de Maillé-Brézé to Claire Clémence de Maillé at 15:12 on 18 March 2012‎. At hour later at 16:19 (18 March 2012‎), EmausBot modified the same page (Robot: Modifying , , ) this is a clear indication that LouisPhilippeCharles is also operating sockpuppets on other Misplaced Pages:

• ca:Clara Clementina de Maillé moved by HammyDoo
• it:Claire-Clémence de Maillé moved by HammyDoo
• sv:Claire-Clémence de Maillé move by HammyDoo

Could editors who are also active on other language Wikiepdias please inform administrators of those Wikipeidas that LouisPhilippeCharles is operating sockpuppets on those other Wikiepdias? A list of his know and suspected English language sockpuppets are available:

• Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of LouisPhilippeCharles
• Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of LouisPhilippeCharles
• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles

--PBS (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles ban

LouisPhilippeCharles has been blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages since 7 January 2011 an alteration to a one month ban imposed on 28 December 2010. It has been explained to LouisPhilippeCharles that if (s)he refrained from editing Wikiepdia for six months the block would probably been lifted. However since that time LouisPhilippeCharles has repeatedly used sock puppets, and has made thousands of edits (At the moment I am working through a back log of over 200 article moves by just two of his/her sockpuppets on the English Misplaced Pages).

I suggest that given his/her widespread use of sockpuppets both on this Misplaced Pages and on other language Wikiepdia that (s)he is incorrigible and that this indefinite block this is turned into a ban -- PBS (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Question What is he using his sockpuppets to do? Is it malicious, the requested moves, or not?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards