Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:00, 6 May 2010

• 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

Tag team editing on History of the race and intelligence controversy

This entire section has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/History of the race and intelligence controversy to centralize discussion and to save space on ANI. –MuZemike 01:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Point of information: 120 Volt monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who initiated several subthreads, was a returning sockpuppet of banned user Jagz (talk · contribs), and has now been indefinitely blocked by Nishkid64. Mathsci (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Timestamp as still active: 07:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC) 69.228.170.24 (talk)

User:Zlykinskyja's actions on Murder of Meredith Kercher

Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs) is quite clearly an spa account, with whom I seem unable to have a calm and productive discussion. She apparently always starts assuming that those who do not agree with her are trying to censor her, or they are vandals who want to defame Knox and Sollecito. I would kindly ask you to read her latest edits, especially those here.

Here, by the way, you can see a sample of personal attacks and threats: edit summary, , , threat?, edit summary, edit summary, , threat, , edit summary, , , , edit summary, edit summary, , , , .

Could you please do something? We had a go at informal mediation, but she called it off, after being the one who had filed the request for it. Salvio ( ) 22:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Salvio. I've tried (unsuccesfully) to explain our policies to the user but their view is quite clearly that "their" information must be included in the article regardless. Their view appears to be that mediation is fine as long as it reaches the same conclusion as them, and when it didn't, they said "fine, mediate with yourself". The article is already a horrible sprawling mess and the main issue is this user, for whom "NPOV" appears to equal "my POV". Black Kite (t) (c) 23:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment: I had not yet seen this edit... Salvio ( ) 23:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness' sake - I hadn't seen that either. I'm not suggesting that's an NLT issue, but the language clearly indicates someone who's not here to edit collegially. I think we'd have to be looking at some sort of article restriction here? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Salvio please stop with this harassment by you and your cohorts (including Black Kite) of repeatedly filing complaints and making personal attacks against me. The bullying going on with this article is simply ridiculous. I have repeatedly raised the issue with the bullying on this article and it just gets ignored, unless it is directed at the pro-guilt side of the case. If the insults and bullying are directed at the non-pro-guilt side of the case it gets ignored. This harassment effort is clearly intended to drive me, the sole remaining non-pro-guilt editor, off of the article, along with these efforts to delete much of my work.

As for the issue with the mediator, I felt uncomfortable with his position that all statements by lawyers are untrustworthy and should not be included in the article. I felt that showed a bias against allowing the views of the lawyers into the article, which would interfere with the inclusion of the views of the defense attornies. That is a perfectly legitimate concern of mediator bias. So I decided that I did not want to use him as the mediator, but I was reconsidering that. In the meantime, I have been hit with all kinds of insults and personal attacks just because I said did not want to proceed with him as the mediator. Because the administrators on here have NOT helped at all, and the mediator did not seem unbiased, I have felt that my only recourse is to contact someone higher up at the Misplaced Pages Foundation. That is not my first choice, but SOMEONE has to help with these BLP and NPOV issues that could result in defamation against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

At the same time there is a focus on deleting my hard work on this article. The pro-guilt editors keep removing, reverting, deleting my work, as the sole remaining person on the other side. The other editor who was on my side apparently gave up on the article today, feeling completely defeated and driven out. I don't have time now to post diffs or further discussion, but can do so tomorrow.

This follows the recent incident where I was called a "cunt" and other foul language was used and nothing was done against that person. Also someone recently posted a false "BREAKING NEWS" report that Amanda Knox, the defendant they keep trying to paint in a bad light, committed suicide. That false report was left as a "breaking news" headline at the top of the article for two hours and no one did anything about it. The information spread to the Newsweek site, as well as Zimbio and other places on the Internet. Nothing was done to the person who posted the false report. Then the other non-pro-guilt person posted a minor joking remark and was blocked for a day. He is so discouraged he probably will not be back. So it is just me left as the sole person raising the issues of BLP and NPOV seeking to have the defense views included, and not just the pro-guilt/prosecution views. But I would say that facing all this deletion of my work as the sole remaining person on the other side of the case is an impossible situation. There needs to be an administrator who will please stop the bullying and one sided-deletions going on with this article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite is NOT an impartial observer. He posts WITH the pro-guilt editors against me, so having me blocked or banned would help his cause. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that sums the problems up well, though not in the way the user probably intended. They admit to pushing a particular POV "non-pro-guilt editor" and sums up anyone who disagrees with them as a "pro-guilt" editor, despite the fact that (as the talkpage and article history shows clearly) that those editors are merely trying to ensure that the article conforms to our policies. Incidentally, I have edited the article precisely once (to fix a factual error), and I am categorised as having a POV. So the question is, in which direction do we go? Dispute resolution is clearly going to be useless here, so we are left with article enforcement or WP:RFC/U. Thoughts? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite, you have made your bias clear on the Talk page, including posting a personal attack against me, which I had to ask another administrator to have you remove. You would just love to eliminate the only editor left on the other side. But that is just so unfair and detrimental to Misplaced Pages to allow harassment against a minority view editor to remove that contrary view from the article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Saying that you were unable to be neutral on this article was hardly a personal attack (especially as it's clearly true, as you're proving here). Nevertheless, far better than "eliminating" an editor here would be for that editor to at least attempt to work collegially with everyone else. However, you are so adamant that everything you put into the article is necessary, correct and needs to stay, and most things that other editors do is wrong, that it is impossible to do so at the moment. The article would improve far quicker with reasonable input from all interested editors. At the moment you are preventing that from happening by attempting to argue against everything that is being suggested, even when it has consensus from many editors. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that isn't what you said. The administator asked you to remove the language where you said words to the effect: you are so emotional you are incapable of NPOV editing, along with other personal remarks directed at me. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That exactly what I said, and here's the diff - "It also appears clear from your emotive language that you aren't capable of taking a neutral viewpoint on this issue". Not a personal attack; I removed it only because it wasn't helpful. There weren't any other "personal remarks". Black Kite (t) (c) 00:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

To deny there are two camps on this article, and have been for a long while, is ridiculous. There are editors who consistently edit in a manner tending to paint Amanda Knox and Raffaele as guilty of sexual assault and murder and delete anything that does not agree with that view. I have tried to include the minority view that they might be innocent, as they claim, but I am vastly outnumbered. Now, you try to eliminate me entirely. Now, once you succeed in harassing me off the article or getting me banned, the hundreds of hours I have put into this article in research and writing will all be deleted. That is the goal. And that is so unfair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It is pretty hard to be collegial when you are constantly harassed, insulted, attacked, sworn at, and these endless attempts by Salvio and crew to get me banned from the article. Yes, I am upset but how would you like being treated like this, and being all alone as the sole remaining minority editor. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As for the mediation, to put me up on charges over objecting to mediator bias is utterly ridiculous. The proposed informal mediator (who had no prior experience mediating) made repeated statements that lawyers are untrustworthy, that they do not tell the truth, that they are not truthful even when they express their opinions, so the views and opinions of the lawyers should not be included in the article. This injected a major stumbling block to including the defense side of the story, since the defense view could only come through the lawyers for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. I felt that the position taken by the mediator was extreme, since there is no rule at Misplaced Pages saying that lawyers are so untrustworthy or dishonest that their opinions cannot be included in the article. I felt that this was a bias that would interfere with NPOV, so I did not want to start mediation with him in a few days as scheduled. However, he asked me to reconsider and think it over and I was doing that. These statements by Salvio and Black Kite implying or suggesting that mediation was tried and failed are false. The mediation had not yet started. It was expressly agreed that it would not start till April 30. So, I had to give notice prior to that day if I did not want to go forward. Furthermore, this informal mediator had never done mediation before, so I only provisionally agreed to try him out with the understanding that nothing would officially start till April 30. Given his extreme views on lawyers, and the importance of the views of the defense lawyers in the article, he did not seem the best choice to me as a mediator, but I was reconsidering. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You propose mediation, put it on hold, and then pull out, even though the mediator you balked at suggested a replacement mediator. Not very reasonable. You insist that all your edits stick and none of your wording be edited, in violation of WP:OWN. Not very reasonable. You extensively use non-English primary sources and you insist on including too much information, turning what should be a summary article of the information available in reliable secondary sources into an impenetrable blow-by-blow account. Every comment you leave on talk pages and noticeboards is a wall of text arguing that you are being persecuted and bullied, while providing scant support for this claim. Please stop this pattern. You cannot use Misplaced Pages to 'right great wrongs' - we are not investigative reporters and Misplaced Pages has no opinion. Your advocacy for Amanda Knox is appropriate for a blog or website, but not for a neutral encyclopedia article. Continuing to disrupt the editing of this article in this manner will end with you being blocked. You can avoid this by altering how you approach editing. Please take the advice I give to any single-purpose editor: edit articles on something totally unrelated for a while, to get a break and to better learn what it is to be a Wikipedian rather than an activist. Fences&Windows 01:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for help and you attack me like this, including many false accusations. When have I ever used non-English sources, maybe one or two out of hundreds of sources that I have added? You accuse me of making up the claim that I am being treated badly, without even knowing the facts? You suggest that I refused a substitute mediator unreasonably, when I stated that I was reconsidering the first person? You say that I unreasonably refuse to allow my work to be edited, when many hundreds of my edits have been removed, likely more than any other editor on that article has ever been subjected to. Yet there is no help for me, only blame. Over and over I have asked for help and it is ignored. I guess the only real recourse left is indeed as I thought. I will write to the Misplaced Pages Foundation about how this is being handled. I will set the whole thing out in detail for them to look at, and maybe then I can get some help. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If you honestly where reconsidering the first person (Hipocrite), what exactly held you up to do so?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I was very busy but trying to watch his edits. I saw that he defended me from a personal attack---the first person on this site ever to do that. I also saw that he wrote that he intended to demonstrate through his handling of issues that he and I really did not have major differences in views and that he in fact agreed with me on many things and we could work together well. So I wanted to watch, as he expressly suggested, and then make up my mind. But there has to be help somewhere, someone has to help with this distressing situation. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"I saw that he defended me from a personal attack"

Believe it or not but he wasn't the first and won't be the last. That includes even me, like it or not:

"So I wanted to watch, as he expressly suggested, and then make up my mind."

And what changed your mind (since you stated "I was reconsidering the first person.")? What exactly did he say or do after you withdrew from mediation that led you to dismiss your reconsideration?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't try to misrepresent the situation. I never dismissed my reconsideration. I just got tied up with this utter nonsense on here instead. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I.m.o., Zlykinskyja should take things less seriously. It is well known that Misplaced Pages is not so reliable when it comes to controversial non-scientific topics. So, spending a lot of much energy to make these types of articles better can be a complete waste of time. Let me give a typical example of this. Consider the case of Barry George. He was convicted for the murder of Jill Dando, but this conviction was later overturned. Now, all the relevant facts of this case that are known today were in the public domain many years ago.

It was a BBC documentary a long time ago that brought to light the facts that proved that the conviction was unsafe. The BBC handed the information they had over to the Criminal Cases Reviews Commisions and Barry was eventually acquitted. Now, if you look back at the editing history of the Barry George article, you see that you always have an article that is very biased toward the prosecution POV, right until the moment a court actually makes a ruling in favor of the defense position, even though those rulings were pure formalities.

Had the editors been better at writing a truly NPOV article, they could have written the article as it is now way back in 2006 when the BBC had made the documentary (except for the fact that Barry would still be in prison, of course). What you see instead is that while the evidence from the BBC documentary is edited in the article at the time, some time later other editors edit in some of the by then completely irrelevant arguments in favor of the prosecution. So, you get a "false neutrality" effect that is hard for any single editor to correct. Count Iblis (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a little soothing comfort. I can use some. I will check out the article you suggest tomorrow. Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Why has no one pointed Zlykinskyja to the No Legal Threat policy, and blocked her? Woogee (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Because Zlykinskyja's explanations of the actions are not actually legal threats, but rather issues of policies such as WP:Wikihounding, or keeping the article neutral, per WP:NPOV. The basic intent was to establish some article-specific guidelines, as to how the suspects would be labeled (hint: not as "the 3 killers"), and include the Italian legal status that Knox/Sollecito are not jailed for the verdict (while on appeal still "presumed innocent") but perhaps as flight risks or such. Those would be "rules of procedure" for editing the article, as a more advanced issue than just following the British English spellings. Perhaps an attorney at the Wikimedia Foundation could help establish a policy that allows editors to set warnings, linked to an article tag-box, as to which "hot-button" phrases would be designated from exclusion in an article. I think it would be great to get some direct input, from Wikimedia, as to what wording to follow (or are the policies sufficient). For example, excluding the term "gang rapists" for 3 people not even proven to have met together previously. Such a list of ground rules would be documented, so that other editors, coming to an article, would get a summary of do-and-don't actions that apply. Perhaps this might become a common practice as subpage "/rules" for each affected article "Talk:ArticleX/rules". Please don't think that anyone is intending to sue Misplaced Pages, but just help to improve the rules about neutral wording. Does that seem clear? -Wikid77 06:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I will refer this matter to the attorneys at the Misplaced Pages Foundation is not a legal threat? Woogee (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, because you can't threaten Misplaced Pages with Misplaced Pages's attorneys. Abductive (reasoning) 22:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Kind of resembles a legal threat towards some of the editors though. Might not violate the letter of the policy, but sure sounds like it's flirting with it in spirit. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't, although if you put it in perspective with this clear legal thread they made here narrows the interpretation.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A legal threat means to threaten to take legal action, such as suing Misplaced Pages or suing someone. Saying you are going to file a complaint with a higher-up person at Misplaced Pages or write a letter so that some of the issues can be addressed is not a legal threat. It is not an intention to sue anyone, but to provide notice of the problem to those who have the knowledge and abilty to solve a problem that is not otherwise being correctly addressed. That is all that was intended. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That's against policy as well, I believe. If you don't agree with a decision, you try to shift consensus so that your preferred version will prevail. You most definitely do not go shopping for a sympathetic ear. Salvio ( ) 20:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Random section break 1

Could we please concentrate on the issue at hand (namely Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs)'s behaviour)? I think we really need someone to step in: take a look at her edits and her edit summaries. It's not a matter of content, it's a matter of uncollegial demeanour. Salvio ( ) 09:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not at all appropriate for one of the feuding editor's, a non-administrator, to remove another editor's comments here as Quantpole did, by placing Wikid's comments in a hat. Wikid was responding to the erroneous claim that I had used non-English sources extensively and inappropriately. Only an administrator should remove or enclose an editor's comments on this Board. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If an administrator believes that Wikid77's comments are relevant to the discussion here they are more than welcome to un-hat. Quantpole (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, looking at the editing page, Salvio has characterized me in his last edit as a "vandal". That could not be more untrue. I have spent hundreds of hours researching and writing and trying to do a good job, despite being subjected to a great deal of harassment while simply trying to participate as a minority editor. I have been attacked over and over, and my work has been deleted amd reverted over and over, even while I was simply in the act of typing my edits into the article. Literally, my very legitimate edits have been deleted as I was typing them! So, there needs to be a consideration of the actions of Salvio and his cohorts towards me, not just a consideration of my very distressed responses to the abuses that have been going on. To say my responses have not been "congenial", while not looking at how I have been treated, is unfair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Never written anywhere you're a vandal — which I do not think you are —. I used the only template I knew that would show your talk page and your contribs. It does not mean I think you're a vandal.

My opinion is that you're a POV-pushing, self-righteous WP:SPA, but not a vandal: you honestly believe you're trying to make the article better. Salvio ( ) 10:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment. Even the comment of an entirely uninvolved admin inviting her to refactor a comment was seen as biased . Salvio ( ) 10:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Salvio--you also push your POV that the prosecutor in this case could do no wrong. You allow no negative comments of him or the Italian legal system. You oppose any of my work that shows otherwise. Why is it wrongful POV for me to include doubts about the prosecution's case, but not inappropriate POV for you to oppose any material presenting such doubts? You paint me as a wrongdoer, but you are pushing a POV just as much. There are many questions and doubts about the behavior of the prosecutor presented in the US media. CBS News, 48 Hours TV Program, and others have repeatedly raised the issue that he has relied on a psychic, and has prosecuted over 20 people in the last two years for satanic or Black Mass type activities or efforts to cover that up. He is seriously doubted in the US media. He has been convicted of abuse of office, and has been barred for life from ever holding public office (pending appeal). But my efforts to include the views presented in the US media are opposed. You allow no questioning of his work. You want me silenced. I post as a minority editor, but the information I have tried to include is very much mainstream US media. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, no one should be typing comments in here in out of sequence--a type of refactoring-- and then failing to sign and date the post. That it very unfair because it makes it difficult for me to respond. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

My opinion on the article can de found here:

My point is that, in doing this — I mean to try and write a NPOV article, which is what we are all trying to do, I think —, we may risk defaming the prosecution or the members of the Court of Assize, if we're not careful; this is a good example of what I mean: In terms of Mignini's stupidity, well that was clearly shown in the documentary. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

and

No, but that shows what you think of Mignini... In Italy, you can criticize, even harshly, a verdict (that's why our Judges publish written motivations: to allow for public review of their decisions), but not the Magistrates themselves as persons (attacks such as "mentally unstable" or whatever). I saw the documentary and I deemed it extremely POV. That's the prerogative of TLC, of course, but, still, I hope this article will be far more balanced. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's my only POV as far the article is concerned. I've already stated and iterate that, quite frankly, I do not really care whether or not Amanda Knox is guilty: I'll stick with whatever the Appellate Court will decide, since I think that they're in a better position than us to render a judgement based upon the evidence presented at trial. Salvio ( ) 11:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that Zlykinskyja previously edited under a different username. I'm not quite sure why they did not get their old account renamed, but I do not think there is any impropriety going on, but it is relevant to see their full history of editing on this article. Please also note User talk:Zlykinskyja, which is full of bad faith characterisations from both Zlykinskyja and Wikid77. I agree with Salvio above in that the two users absolutely think they are the ones upholding NPOV, and cannot see any problems with their behaviour. I have only been involved in this subject for less than a week (after reviewing some images uploaded by Wikid77 that were up for deletion). It is very clear to me from that short time that both Zlykinskyja and Wikid77 are treating this subject as a battlefield and respond to disagreement with accusations of non-neutrality. Though both users have edited other articles they have effectively become single purpose accounts regarding this issue. As can be seen from the aborted mediation, this issue is not going to be solved through discussion. I suggest that both Zlykinskyja and Wikid77 be topic banned form this subject. Quantpole (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You claim Zlykinskyja and Wikid77 have become single-purpose accounts, when Zlykinskyja recently corrected another of the most important crime articles in modern British history, and I have modified templates that have drastically improved over 370,000 articles? You don't even have the slightest clue who you are talking about here. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• If Zlykinskyja = that user, they should definitely not be editing this article, as we've been here with exactly the same issues before (). Their block log appears to show them being blocked for sockpuppetry mainly regarding the article as well (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikid77). Oh, and the userpage that said this. Now that probably tells you a lot.Black Kite (t) (c) 12:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid mentioning their name specifically given what they say on their userpage. I didn't think they were particularly trying to hide the link, given they explain the whole situation on the userpage (without specifically mentioning the other account, but it is obvious that it is the one they are talking about). I don't know the situation regarding any previous blocks so I didn't comment on that. Quantpole (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not know if it is proper for me to cast a !vote, since I'm not an admin and am an involved editor, but I strongly support Quantpole's proposal to topic ban at least Zlykinskyja... If it is not appropriate of me, please strike out my comment and accept my apology. Salvio ( ) 14:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, editors with opposing POV on the article do not have a "vote" to ban another editor with opposing views, as is being attempted here. None of this should be going on. This is not fair or legitimate in the least. This is an attempt to utilize the administrative process to get some administrator who does not really know what is going on to do your dirty work for you so that you can silence my minority view on the article. This is an abuse of the process. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's actually an attempt to address a major problem for the article, which is that Zlykinskyja is not prepared to engage with other editors in the consensus process. I think if any administrator cares to look at the article talk page or any of the talk page archives, they will see this repeated pattern of behaviour. Instead of seeking consensus, Zlykinskyja prefers to add material to the article (which she probably genuinely believes improves its neutrality). Those who disagree, must either put up with this or enter into an edit war amid a torrent of accusations of censorship, bias and harrassment. Hence the abysmal state of the article. But I don't know what the solution is. If Zlykinskyja disagrees with this, perhaps she would provide a few diffs showing examples of cases where she has tried to engage in consensus-building, and I shall be pleased to admit I'm wrong. Bluewave (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a gang-up situation by the editors on this article who oppose me and Wikid77 because we hold minority views that differ from theirs. We are vastly outnumbered. Now they propose that we both be banned. It is part of an extremely upsetting pattern of harassment. While I do not agree with the views of these people on the article, I have never engaged in the type of horribly aggressive treatment against them that they have employed against me. These gang-ups have been all one-way, with them coming after me over and over in an attempt to get me banned or blocked to silence my views. This is not "consensus building", this is not "collegial". This is harassment. This is an aggressive attempt to silence minority views on the article. Removing the minority view will result in BLP violations and NPOV violations, since these people who are part of the gang-up all hold the same views on the case. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have called this situation to the attention of administrators over and over and no one will help. I posted on the ANI Board about this, and an administrator responded by typing out a string of laughter and then marking the matter as "Resolved". But no, it wasn't resolved. And the attacks against me just continue.

It is very disturbing that Black Kite very misleadingly posted a link to a complaint against me from 2009 which he suggests indicates that I had been reprimanded on this article before, and therefore I should "definitely not be editing this article." Yet he misleadingly did not link to the final version, which showed the OUTCOME of the complaint. The complaint was marked as closed by BigTimePeace as a "content dispute", not my misconduct:

Archiving. There does not seem to be a need for an administrative action here. The basic call has been for an admin to take a look at the situation and I am in the process of doing that and will soon post a note on the article talk page with some thoughts, but the core issue seems to be a content dispute (the exact nature is unclear) and some ill-advised comments by multiple parties. Further discussion here is not going to be useful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And that is indeed what it is, a "content dispute" but some very aggressive people have tried to make it very personal against me. They just WILL NOT focus on the real issues, the BLP and NPOV issues, and instead make it PERSONAL. It is very, very upsetting. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite also misleadingly links to a deleted version of the old account that I used. I deleted that, but he dug it up and did not note that it had been long ago deleted. As for the sock puppet issue, I explain that in detail on my current user page. It is there for anyone to see who wants to know the truth and not just concoct allegations and mislead people. As set forth in detail on my user page, I once attempted to change my name for legitimate privacy reasons but did not do it properly in that I failed to mark the old account as "Retired". So I was blocked since it looked like I was trying to have two accounts, when really I intended to switch to a new name. In any event, I paid my debt to society with a long block issued BEFORE I was even given the chance to explain what I was trying to do--a simple innocent name change. So I don't see how that is even relevant. I use only one account now and that old account has been officially retired for quite a while and has not been used since. So to bring that up is just to try and throw the kitchen sink at me and get me blocked for something that has no current relevancy. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Here are some more recent ANI threads for more insight: and .The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There you tried very aggressively to get me banned or blocked after you WikiHounded me, including MAKING UP the false allegation that I had engaged in vandalism. There were no findings against me, and it later was established that your claim that I engaged in vandalism was baseless since it was a SOFTWARE problem. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• See also: edit warring I and edit warring II. Salvio ( ) 15:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As for the edits concerning THE FALSE BREAKING NEWS REPORT OF THE SUICIDE OF AMANDA KNOX, that matter was so serious and so wrongful, that I will need to prepare a more detailed description of what happened there. But I will just say that posting a notice to correct the false report on Misplaced Pages of her suicide was justified under the circumstances. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

AND MY POV OPPONENTS CONTINUE WITH THEIR UNRELENTING GANG-UP!

Zlykinskyja posted one of a series of messages immediately after my post, so I'm taking it that this was at least partly aimed at me. So just to clear up a few misconceptions:

• I don't think I have ever said that Z should be banned. If I have, please provide a diff.
• I don't think I have ever engaged in "horribly aggressive treatment of Z. If I have, please provide a diff and I will apologise.
• Z says she has not engaged in such conduct against me. Well, what about accusing me of hypocricy,, effectively of being a sockpuppet of User:FormerIP,, anti-American editing, accusations of POV editing, and cherry picking facts,not being fit to edit a particular section because of my POV edits, "conspiring to obstruct another editor" and getting "meatpuppets to do my dirty work".. To be fair, the worst of these kind of accusations have not been repeated recently.
• Yes there are different views about the case. But there are probably as many views as there are people - not just the two views that Z tries to use to characterize editors. The only way to reconcile these views is through consensus but that is virtually impossible when one very vocal and opinionated person will not engage in the consensus process.

Bluewave (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, you are engaging in deliberate tactics acting in concert with editors on the same side of the case with you, to try and personally attack me and paint this dispute as personal, when you know the REAL issue is that you and I write/edit in diametricaly opposed views on this case. You write/edit consistently in a pro-guilt manner, while I try to add the other side, to create NPOV balance. THAT is the real reason why you want me sanctioned or banned from the article. You want to eliminate your SOLE REMAINING POV opponent (considering that Wikid has indicated that he is too upset to continue on the article). And I find this all very low, and very dirty pool. This conduct in ganging up against an editor with whom you consistently hold opposing views on the CONTENT, and participating in these long sessions of personal attacks, and taking up hours and hours of my time with these attacks, is just a horrible way to treat another person. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

My "tactics" were to point out some factual errors in a post which seemed to be trying to portray me as someone who has engaged in horribly aggressive treatment and Zlykinskyja as the blameless victim. I don't like being portrayed in that way, as I do not believe it is true (where are the diffs?). I also do not appreciate being described as writing in a "pro-guilt manner" (where are the diffs?). And I didn't ask for Z to be banned (and never have, as far as I remember), but actually said "I don't know what the solution is". And I still don't. Bluewave (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, it is plainly obvious what you are trying to do and I find this whole thing unbelievably vicious. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

And as for Salvio's claim that he is not POV, I dispute that. He has said he does not want any criticisms of the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini or the Italian court that found Amanda Knox guilty. Yet, if the other side of the case, the non-pro-guilt side, is to be included in the article, it has to include information about the problems with the Prosecutor and how he handled the case. So Salvio basically is against including anything that might show how the case against Amanda Knox was defective, if it paints the prosecutor or court in a negative light. He is from Italy and he has made it clear that he is on the article to protect the image of the Italian prosecutor and the Italian court. But that is indeed POV editing on his part.Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I shan't even bother to respond to this umpteenth groundless and gratuitous personal attack.

That said, this thread risks becoming disjointed, just like the other one. Can please some uninvolved editors and/or admins step in and discuss how to deal with Zlykinskyja?

At the moment, a proposal was made to topic ban her and I wholeheartedly second it. Salvio ( ) 17:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course Salvio wants me topic banned. According to Salvio, I can't even say anything on my own Talk page that is negative towards the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini. He has repeatedly objected to the fact that I said on my Talk page that Mignini's investigation of a break-in was done "stupidly." So this he claims might be "defamation." Meanwhile the US media paints Mignini as a crazy person, and Mignini has been banned from holding public office for wiretapping journalists. But on Misplaced Pages, NO CRITICISM OF THE CASE/PROSECUTOR ALLOWED, not even on an editor's private Talk page. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP applies to all pages, including user's talkpages. That distinguish WP from blogs and forums.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you please stop posting out of sequence like you have been doing. Plus, it is ridiculous to say that making a slight criticism of a public figure is defamation or a violation of BLP. Meanwhile, people on here paint the accused as guilty of sexual assault and murder, when no one even know yet that that is true. So it sure seems like different standards are being used. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is what CBS news has to say about Salvio's collegue, Giuliano Mignini, the one we can't say anything negative about on Misplaced Pages, according to Salvio: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20003238-504083.html#addcomm Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You said somethong else: In terms of Mignini's stupidity, well that was clearly shown in the documentary. And I objected about it only once (twice, if you count the fact I quoted myself here). Salvio ( ) 18:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious disruptive SPA, indefinite topic ban. Why are we even allowing this to waste time here. Physchim62 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Salvio, the positions that you have taken repeatedly have made it clear that you don't want certain information coming out in the article that could be damaging to the Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini. Yet in the views of the mainstream US media, there are VERY serious problems with the conduct of this prosecutor and his handling of the case, and VERY serious problems with this murder conviction of Amanda Knox. I am being obstructed and intimididated from trying to include what the US media is saying about this case and MOST of the people doing this are from Italy, England and other European countries (excluding Magnificient). Once you get me banned as you have been trying so hard to do, the mainstream US media view and the entire defense side of this article will be eliminated. THAT IS YOUR GOAL. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel that this is a waste of my time as well, but I have put a huge amount of time into this article and am being treated very badly. BOTH sides of the story should be looked at, not just tossed off like an old dish rag. No editor deserves treatment like that. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, seeing how much time I have put into this, and how over and over I have asked administrators for help, and have never received any, I will simply proceed to do what I should have done long ago, and contact the Misplaced Pages Main Office for help. Good day. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

• Rather than a complete topic ban, I think a one month restriction on editing the article itself could be applied while they're still being allowed to edit the article's talkpage which would give the editor the opportunity to work on and improve her lack of collaborating skills (which are w/o doubt apparent).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but given this editor's history of uncollegial behaviour, I think we would be facing the usual claims of bad faith and censorship, whenever we were to disagree with her on one of her proposals; quite frankly, I think it would actually make thing worse. My proposal is an indefinite topic ban: let her show that she can work and cooperate with other editors on less controversial issues and then, when the Misplaced Pages community is satisfied that she has learnt to accept opinions different from her own, this restriction will be lifted. Salvio ( ) 20:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A complete MoMK topic ban would equal a general ban since they're only interest lays in that area and (I think) the result would be that they stop editing at all till the topic ban is lifted and thus there would be no learning experience for them and the same editor would probably resume with the same approach as they did in the past (since December last year, to be precise). I don't think that would help neither the article nor the editor. Any measures taken and remedies applied should be preventative, not punishment, and should be applied to prevent disruption of the project. I think my proposal does take those things into account and has potential to work as intended.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I see your point and concur with you up to a point. My fear comes from the fact that this user does not appear to wish to change her behaviour (just take a look at what she's just written about me... ) and that, so, we risk starting flame after flame on the talk page... Salvio ( ) 21:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If they don't change their behavior a full topic ban can still be imposed if needed.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's give it a try. I change my !vote to match your proposal. Salvio ( ) 21:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion! Bluewave (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved admin please step in and decide what should we do with Zlykinskyja? Salvio ( ) 21:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think a ban from the article that originally caused the problem (indefinitely) would be apt. The user is, as said above, a self righteous, antagonistic proponent of THE TRUTH, with some highly combative manners when it comes to editing - however it seems that the primary cause is the content of the original article concerned. Is it not likely that constructive editing in other areas seen as uncontroversial by the user would take place after being banned from the article? If this fails, it only results in blocking for violating the ban, and that would suite the wants of some of the more hard-nosed proposals anyway. SGGH 21:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have never said that I am a proponent of the "truth", but only that both the prosecution AND defense sides of the story should be included in the Article. The essence of the dispute is NPOV, not "truth." The truth cannot yet be known because there has not been a final determination of innocence or guilt of the murder in any court. So, I certainly cannot claim to know the "truth." I only claim that both the guilty views and the innocence views be included in the article, and that the Article not be worded to show guilt when that has not yet been finally determined, and the accused are still presumed innocent. The main people on the article with me (who have the most at stake and are the main complainers) The Magnificent Clean-Keeper, Bluewave and Salvio have said right above they do NOT want an indefinite topic ban, but are instead seeking a more moderate remedy. They propose that I stop editing the Article for a month, but continue participating in the discussions on the Article Talk page. While I do not agree that I should be sanctioned at all, I agree with the approach of not editing the Article for a short while, as opposed to a total topic ban. This way, there is not a tossing away of all of my research and knowledge on this case, which is extensive.

The Magnificent Clean-Keeper has correctly noted above that: "A complete MoMK topic ban would equal a general ban...." A total permanent ban from the Article would be way too unfair, and would essentially be a total ban from Misplaced Pages, because I could not continue volunteering here with such a grossly unfair sentence being inflicted on me. I am not a SPA. That is a totally false accusation. I have previously edited extensively on a colonial history article. I have well over 500 edits on this Kercher Murder Article, and previously over 450 edits on a totally unrelated colonial history article. All this means is that I tend to work on one article at a time and can get too obsessed because I am very dedicated about any projects that I work on in real life or on here. But it does not mean that I am a SPA with some sort of conflict of interest in this article or hidden agenda. So for editors who are too dedicated, maybe taking a voluntary break from editing the topic is a good idea. But if I get permanently banned from the murder Article for being a SPA, that would be so unfair and untrue that I would not feel comfortable volunteering here on my other main interest, which is US history topics, and my volunteer efforts here would just be all thrown away. If dedicated editors are just casually tossed away like that on untrue claims of being a SPA, eventually Misplaced Pages will run out of editors. Being dedicated is not the same thing as being a SPA.

The three main editors editing in opposition to me on the article: The Magnificent Clean-Keeper, Bluewave and Salvio have all said that they now do not support an indefinite topic ban, and have voted against it. That should resolve the matter. The other two editors who posted on this thread made only one edit each on the Article just prior to the start of this thread, and their efforts to now totally and permanently topic ban an editor who has been so dedicated as to make over 500 edits on the Article should be without standing. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm restoring this thread, because it was archived before reaching a decision. Can an admin please assess consensus and decide what type of sanction to issue? Salvio ( ) 12:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that any sanction should be issued or that this thread needed to be restored. This is unnecessary. I have already agreed, as stated above, to take a voluntary break from editing the Article for a month to cool off. Perhaps my compromise was missed in this rather disjointed thread. My compromise is reasonable and is basically consistent with what others have suggested above. This is a two sided dispute. There have been uncollegial comments on both sides of the dispute. To "punish" one side and not the other is unequal and unfair. This is clearly a content dispute that breaks down into the pro-prosecution view vs. the pro-innocence view. The pro-guilty editors disagree with me due to my efforts to include "the other side of the story". This was clearly stated by a recent post by an editor who also called me a "bitch" and has made other harassing remarks due to my efforts to include the "other side of the story." To punish editors who post one side of the story, but impose no sanctions when editors on the other side say such things as--- "bitch", "cunt", use the "F" word, post a false report that Amanda Knox commited suicide, and claim that I should not be allowed to write due to having a different viewpoint---would be grossly unfair. So I have agreed to compromise by taking a one month break from editing the article, but continue on the Talk page, as the others suggested--with the only difference being whether the break is voluntary or involuntary. But I am not willing to accept a one sided punishment, when the uncollegialty on the other side is not being punished or even addressed in any effective manner. The policies should be applied equally to both sides of the dispute. If not, then this matter should go on to some sort of arbitration, appeal or whatever procedure is appropriate for higher review. To me, a simple compromise would be a more efficient use of everyone's time. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It is particularly distressing when all or most of the people opposing me are men and words like "bitch" and "cunt" are used towards me, and they say nothing about seeking sanctions for the use of such words against a woman editor. The diffs posted with the filing of this complaint show mostly that I complained of being harassed. They show no use of improper language. Yet, such complaints by me were deemed "uncollegial." Then, the vulgar, sexist and demeaning language and personal attacks against me are ignored and not made the subject of any official complaint or sanctions. If "collegialty" is really the issue, then double standards like this should not be employed in imposing sanctions. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If you voluntarily accept to refrain from editing the article main page for a month, then I'd guess that no admin action is required... That's what we were asking for. If nobody objects, then I'll no longer un-archive this thread. Salvio ( ) 18:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In one of the postings above, Z seemed to be suggesting that other people should also refrain from editing the article. I don't believe there has been any debate about misconduct of anyone other than Z, except in her own posts, and then without any evidence. Can we be quite clear that there is no agreement by anyone other than Z to refrain from editing the article. Bluewave (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

For me, that goes without saying. Salvio ( ) 11:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I am disappointed to read Bluewave's comment that: "I don't believe there has been any debate about misconduct of anyone other than Z, except in her own posts, and then without any evidence." This suggests that Bluewave is ignoring all of my comments above. First of all, there has been no "misconduct" on my part that in any way exceeds the misconduct on the part of the pro-guilt/pro-prosecution/anti-Konx editors (however they might be appropriately described). Clearly, there has been uncollegialty on BOTH sides of this murder case. To deny that is to deny the obvious. There should be no need for me to post diffs, since what has been going on is self-evident to anyone who has been involved in writing this murder article. I offered to graciously step aside on the main page of the article for a while to relieve tensions, but NOT because I am the sole one to have engaged in alleged misconduct. Furthermore, denying that there has been any discussion on this thread about the conduct of others is a denial of reality. My words and opinions on this thread DO count for something and should not be totally ignored like that. Obviously, it takes two to tango. What I have offered as a peacekeeping measure is to step back a bit on the main article page to relieve tensions, but that does not mean that I am the only one at fault, nor does it mean that others can now have a field-day deleting all my work. I would expect others to act in reciprocal good faith and not engage in wholesale deletions of the sections I wrote while I am taking a sabatical from editing for peacekeeping measures. If others were to seize upon my generous peace offer as an opportunity to now delete all of my work, I would not see that as collegial or fair in the least. There are a lot of sections that can be re-worked, not just the ones that I wrote. So while I do not think it is necessary for others to pledge to stop editing, I would hope that there would not be an effort to take unfair advantage of a generous, good faith peacekeeping offer. Things need to be done in moderation and with respect and hopefully reciprocity for my peacekeeping measure. That is all I am looking for. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

In other words, to achieve peace, efforts must come from BOTH sides of this case. Peace will not be achieved if while one side waves the white flag to offer the peace pipe, the other side decides to take that as an opportunity to bring out the big cannons. Peace requires basic fairness. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute: it is a case about the conduct of one editor (Zlykinskyja) and her unwillingness to engage in consensus. I have challenged her (above) to provide evidence that she has ever sought consensus for any of her edits and she has not produced any. She tries to portray a situation where there is a group of editors that are opposed to her; that I am part of this group; and that the group has been rude and uncollegiate. Not only is this untrue—I also find it highly offensive personally. There is no group. I am not part of a group. A group has not been rude to her. Individuals may have behaved rudely or behaved in an uncollegiate way but I don't know if those individuals are even part of this discussion. I don't believe I have been one of those individuals. Again I have challenged Zlykinskyja to provide evidence of bad behaviour on my part and said that I would apologise if such evidence exists. She has produced none. I will not accept being lumped into some imagined group of editors nor be assigned some kind of guilt by association. I have, however, accepted the proposal that Zlykinskyja should voluntarily desist from editing the article, as an alternative to a more punitive sanction. No more, no less. Bluewave (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave: My comments above were not directed to you specifically. I think that should be obvious from the fact that I never mentioned your name or addressed my comments in a manner indicating that I was focusing on your conduct specifically. Furthermore, you now claim that the problem is that I have failed to engage in efforts to seek consensus. If that was mentioned before I must have missed it. However, it is obvious that I have actually spent a great deal of time engaged in consensus related discussions. It is so obvious that I should not have to post diffs, which you know I have a hard time figuring out how to do. But I will make an effort to try to post some diffs since you raise the issue and seem to think it is important that I did not post any diffs relating to my participation in consensus discussions. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a diff from just yesterday in which I engaged in consensus discussions. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher&diff=prev&oldid=360403766 I will try to add more. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, I agree that is a start and is a big improvement on Z's earlier contribution to the same discussion, so maybe things will improve! The original complaint by Salvio was "Zlykinskyja is quite clearly an spa account, with whom I seem unable to have a calm and productive discussion. She apparently always starts assuming that those who do not agree with her are trying to censor her, or they are vandals who want to defame Knox and Sollecito." I think my paraphrasing this as "unwillingness to engage in consensus" is not unreasonable, and this was how I described it in my initial contribution to this discussion. Z's post immediately following this talked of ganging-up, harassment, and "horribly aggressive treatment". Because this followed on immediately from my comment, it certainly appears to be directed, at least in part, to me. When I sought to correct Z's accusations (at least with regard to my own conduct), she added a little heading saying "AND MY POV OPPONENTS CONTINUE WITH THEIR UNRELENTING GANG-UP!" at the top of my post. So, all-in-all, I think I have some justification in thinking Z's comments might be directed at me. But, if they're not, I'm delighted to hear it! Anyway, I don't want to prolong this any further so, once again, I support Z's voluntary ceasing from making edits to the article. Bluewave (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Erik Möller

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

On 27 April, a Fox News article appeared, claiming that Wikimedia Foundation deputy director Erik Möller had made statements supporting paedophilia. The day after, his BLP was locked for a month with the edit summary (Changed protection level of Erik Möller: Excessive vandalism: prevention, due to current coverage in media ( (expires 00:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)) (indefinite)), presumably to prevent addition of this material.

Arguably, the Fox News article was quite unfair to Erik, taking his statements out of context. On the other hand, the press being what it is, we know there are many BLP subjects who have received unfair press coverage, and whose BLP articles are not locked for a month when such material appears -- on the contrary, editors generally ensure that such material is represented, following the NPOV rationale.

Now, thinking about this for a moment, double standards (one standard for WMF personnel, one for all other living persons) cannot be an honourable solution here. Either Erik's BLP is unlocked and allowed to feature the unfair -- but "reliably sourced" -- coverage, or we need to seriously rethink our NPOV and BLP policies, and the standing that journalistic sources should have in our BLP writing. I suggest this situation and its various ramifications are worth pondering over. --JN466 22:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It was just semi-protected. Perhaps a bit early, but not a bad move under the circumstances.--Chaser (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. That mitigates the situation somewhat; I misread the edit summary. Even so, there is still something to think about here. --JN466 22:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There's been more and more so-called pre-emptive semiprotection of BLP's, and there was a big discussion of it at WP:PP last month or thereabouts. I'm not crazy about this trend but I think this treatment of Erik's page doesn't seem exceptional in the general context. Some people even want to semi-protect all BLP's. In reality we're probably heading towards flagged revisions. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• It is supremely important here that WP:BLP should be seen to be applied without distinction or preference. My opinion is that unsupported allegations against any living individual should not be added to any article here. Given the public interest, however limited that might be, or become, I agree with at least semi-protection pending further cogent information. Meanwhile, this thread seems to have served its purpose, and does not require Admin intervention. Rodhullandemu 01:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

ROBERT TAGGART

ROBERT TAGGART (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked repeatedly for various bits of disruptive editing and is also a sockpuppeteer (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ROBERT TAGGART/Archive). He seems to have stopped using his named account, though the latest block has expired, and instead uses a series of IP addresses from Vodaphone to make his almost daily "contributions" to Misplaced Pages. A typical example are the latest edits made by 212.183.140.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): a) restoring an old modification to Wythenshawe, which has previously been reverted by several editor; b) partial blanking of talk pages for his other IP addresses; c) choice bits of vandalism to some editor's talk page (usually mine), using his favorite expletive, "dweeb". Regarding item b on the list, I know that users are allowed to blank their talk pages, but in this case he blanks those belonging (technically) to other IPs and he removes shared IP templates, which is against WP:BLANKING. For the record, he has been made aware of this rule here, and lost no time replying thusly.

The various IP addresses have been temporarily blocked as they make themselves known, but playing Whac-A-Mole with this guy is a bit tiresome, so I request assistance from the administrators. Favonian (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

He was blocked but edited his talkpage, it begs the question, with the rise in dynamic wi fi address and such like it seems wikipedia has no way to deal with disruption from such determined people. Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What a depressing thought. Springtime is not improving his temper, as shown by this token of gratitude on Mazca's user page, presumably for blocking the earlier IP sock. Favonian (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to attract his attention as he seems to have forgotten about me. Why not just block his whole region for six months? Off2riorob (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, you too had the pleasure of his attention for a while. Maybe we should create a new member of Category:Misplaced Pages fauna, WikiDweeb. All we need is clever little icon to put on top of our user pages ;) Favonian (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Our "friend" has sent this message to us, though for some reason best known to himself edited by the daily sock. Should we at least oblige him by indef blocking the named account? Seems like he has earned it. As for the IPs, I'm all in favor of Off2riorob's suggestion, but I can imagine that there might be some opposition to it. Any alternative suggestions? Favonian (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Abusing multiple accounts, being generally obnoxious, personal attacks, claims of multiple-use of the account... and not indef'd on the main account. Till now. And with talk page locked (see previous sentence). ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 10:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And, lo, did Mr Taggart drop back to 212.183.140.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and resume the attacks. Lovely. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 10:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Me thinks he craves attention. Thanks for blocking 212.183.140.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well! Favonian (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he has transferred his attention to you. Favonian (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Lest we forget: today's first appearance is 212.183.140.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Suggestions? Favonian (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Already gone. SGGH 10:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked a new one: 212.183.140.34 (talk · contribs). Elockid 17:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

ANd another: 212.183.140.98 (talk · contribs). Could a checkuser look into the 212.183.140.XXX range to see what sort of rangeblock would be appropriate here. This is getting rediculous. --Jayron32 23:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a single prefix; he'll run out eventually. HalfShadow 23:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

There was just another 212.183.140.17 (talk · contribs) block this one.--Curtis23's Usalions 23:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

After consulting with checkusers, I have enacted a rangeblock on 212.183.140.0/26 . This would seem to be an adequate range to catch him, but minimize collateral damage. I have enacted it as an anon-only rangeblock, to minimize problems for registerred editors who may edit from that range. --Jayron32 00:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, since his range seems to extend to higher than the .64, I have added http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Block&action=success&ip=212.183.140.64%2F26 to catch .64-.128 If he starts editing in a new range, we can try something else. --Jayron32 00:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Greg L

Greg L made several comments at the reliable sources noticeboard that I viewed as defamatory statements about John Sugg, a journalist and living person whose article was being discussed as a source. The relevant quotes from Greg L are:

• "Sugg… has no standing being used as a Misplaced Pages citation any more than other flakes with wild conspiracy notions..."
• "...Sugg’s galactic-grade unreliability (fantasy fiction)..."
• "I’ve struck and corrected my post, which still shows that Sugg is an idiot."

I asked the editor to strike or refactor their comments, both on the noticeboard itself, as well as on the user's talk page. The user replied with a lengthy essay about why they felt justified in their comments. Rather than derail that discussion, I thought I'd bring up the issue here. I'm not seeking any sort of punitive action against Greg L, but I believe calling someone "an idiot" is a violation of WP:BLP—even when done at RSN. Greg L suggested I contact an uninvolved administrator if I wanted his comments modified, which is why I'm here. ← George 21:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If an administrator does decide to refactor Greg L's comments, please also correct the spelling of Sugg as Slugg. ← George 21:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the expression of opinion ventured across the BLP expressable line; the opinion, however, seems reasonable. Expression bad, opinion ok, requested refactor. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• As I pointed out to George the nom, and he acknowledged elsewhere, his post here failed to reflect this P.S. that Greg L had left at the RSN. Greg L's post squarely addressed the nom's issue, 51 minutes prior to this AN/I being opened. This AN/I is needless wikidrama -- as to Greg L (though not as to the remaining three of us).

It also strikes me as odd that such great sensitivity and concern is being directed at of all things this particular alleged crossing of the line. While the nom (and, admittedly, most others at that discussion) have evidenced complete insensitivity to the instances raised much earlier in the very same discussion of BLPs (supported only by a non-RS) stating that individuals have suggested that others be killed, be shot, that they were incited to kill someone by living person X, and that have contained all manner of racism, sexism, and anti-semitism. I encouraged the editors in that discussion to delete those references. Yet George, rather than address those far more serious references by removing them from those BLPs, chose to raise this issue -- first at the RSN, and now here.

Perhaps it is as Bertrand Russell says: "Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth's surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid.".--Epeefleche (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

An offer to correct a post which is never acted upon isn't useful. Ignoring an administrator's request is likewise non-productive. To the best of my knowledge, I never "suggested that others be killed, be shot..." or any of the other things you listed, and I can't really understand what that sentence means, so maybe you could clarify, or leave me out of the group that shows "complete insensitivity" to whatever you're talking about. ← George 08:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• And, since there are especially restrictive requirements on putting posts in user-talk space, I corrected George’s comments and the thread title on my talk page (here) in order to not mention Sugg by name there. Curiously, George elected to not adhere to this counsel and did so again. I am accordingly deleting that thread in its entirety. Please try to ensure that controversial discussions of Sugg are limited to venues such as the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where such material must be strictly limited. I also corrected my “Slugg” spelling, which was entirely unintentional. Sorry for that. Greg L (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP violations: Epeefleche, John Z, and Annoynmous

The underlying problem here is Epeefleche's original post, which manages to seriously defame both Emerson and Sugg. Epeefleche said, and Greg L repeated that Sugg claimed "1. That Emerson was involved in an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India."

Neither Sugg nor Emerson said nor did anything so dangerous or crazy. This is not at all what Sugg says in his FAIR article. What Sugg said was that Emerson helped push a phony Pakistani defector's made-up story that "Pakistan was planning nuclear first strike on India." Very, very different.John Z (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If that is true, then I would say “the proper response to bad speech is better speech.” I just repeated there what Epee wrote. If that point-of-fact is not true—or has been stretched beyond all comprehension so it isn’t a fair characterization of the facts, then please state as much there. What I wrote there was what I believed to be the truth of the matter at that time. If what is clearly my opinion there at Reliable Sources Noticeboard *truly* meets Misplaced Pages’s criteria for “defamation”, then I should think that in order to protect Sugg’s fine, fine reputation, there would exist a clear imperative to expediently remove the defamatory opinion. Accordingly, I hereby give my permission to any uninvolved Admin who finds my posts to be defamatory (and clearly not a simple matter of opinion that has an unfortunate tone) to delete any and all of my offending statements by deleting the offending post in its entirety. I wholeheartedly agree that Misplaced Pages can not have “clearly defamatory” information on its pages, even on RSN; I’m just not clearly seeing it yet and so will yield to wiser uninvolved admins. Greg L (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd note that the offending phrase goes back at least to Annoynmous's first edit here, and earlier, as he says he was restoring material, and that I and other editors pressed save in the Emerson article when it contained this phrase.John Z (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

@JohnZ:

1. I am a living person.
2. Next time you disparage me with a contentious and untrue "fact", if it is in a conversation that I am not party to, I would appreciate you letting me know. You failed to do so here.
3. Your above statement as to me is not only contentious, as you well know (if you've read the sentence in full, that you quoted somehow only in part) it is completely untrue.
4. You untruthfully state that my post seriously defames both (your shocked emphasis) Emerson and Sugg.
5. You untruthfully state that I said that Sugg claimed "1. That Emerson was involved in an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India...."
6. As you know, if you've read the sentence in question in full, what my sentence really says is that (quoting just a few more words from the sentence):

"Specific "facts" asserted by Sugg, according to those 5 paras [those being the 5 paras that Annoynmous had inserted, and which I was seeking to delete, are: 1. That Emerson was involved in an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India."

To borrow your characterization: "Very, very different."

7. I'm more than a little miffed at your easy-to-catch error, at your defaming me, and at your doing it without even tendering me the slight courtesy of a note that you were doing it. Is everyone looking for a bona fide BLP violation? Ladies and Gentlemen: We have a winner.

8. Given that you are a NPOV editor, and your comments here were made in good faith, I look forward to you making this same accusation at the AN/I that is open with regard to the disruptive editing of your colleague Annoynmous. Accusing him, as passionately as you accused me, of the same defamation.

9. Of course, if you were a POV editor, I imagine we would not see you making the same passionate charge against your colleague at his AN/I. I assume good faith, however, and look forward to our seeing your post there.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. I screwed up badly. There were so many he said, she saids involved that again, I screwed up badly in saying who was saying who had said what.John Z (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking again at this interminable thread, I note that you did, as far as I can see, accidentally, and in good faith, like everyone else here, indicate that you believed Sugg had definitely said #1. Not just that the 5 paras said Sugg said #1. Later on in the thread: "Sugg didn't state those above-listed items as his opinion. He said they were "facts" (not, "in my opinion E said x"). " Has anyone kept things entirely straight in their head and in their posts here? ;-) John Z (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The context makes absolutely clear that what I was writing was "as presented in the 5 paras". It follows that in the string. One doesn't repeat every caveat, etc in these strings -- just as one doesn't write out the name of FAIR each time.

And, as you know, you were quoting the very sentence where I made it clear that I was referring to those 5 paras. Not some later sentence you're now trying to make a silk purse out of.

It doesn't explain your failure to notify me. It doesn't explain you quoting a misleading, limited portion of the sentence. It doesn't explain you defaming me.

And it doesn't explain why I haven't yet seen your damning post at your colleague's AN/I. Which I hope to see shortly. I'm quite annoyed -- I thought, whatever our different points of view at times, that you were above all this. It's not cricket.

I'm frankly disgusted by the duplicity here -- crying that these people you've not dealt with are being defamed --- while actually you are defaming me, with whom you are dealing -- you fail to notify me == and you still haven't stepped up to level the same charge, with the same passion, against your colleague, at the AN/I where his similar misconduct is being considered.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche, I have apologized above. It is quite clear that in the later post you referred to the "5 paras" but you then quite explicitly made the same mistake many others did: You said Sugg said: #1 Emerson was involved in a plot... No, one does absolutely always repeat necessary caveats, because if one doesn't one makes improper accusations. In this matter of 'He said she said X said Y said', if one omits one of the saids one gets an entirely different meaning. Before you responded, I accused Annoynmous (see below) and myself of making the same error in article space. What else should I criticize Annoynmous for? I explained my own actions above and on your talk page: I screwed up badly. I'll say it again: I screwed up badly.John Z (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sense I've been brought into this discussion, I would like know when I ever defamed anyone. I think I once called Emerson an Idiot, which I acknowledge was wrong. I used that phrase because I was frankly very upset at Greg L's insulting tone and in the heat of the moment I used language I shouldn't have. I will say for my part that depsite my profound disagreement with epeefleche on many things, I don't remeber him ever using POV language of the kind Greg L is accused of. However, I think he's overeacting here somewhat. John Z said he was sorry, except it and let's move on. annoynmous 05:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Annoynmous: Oops again: I cited your edit here, which is a bit ambiguous, but the problem phrase really was in the next edit by yet another editor here, and that phrasing remained in many subsequent edits. I don't think anyone acted in bad faith, just a broken telephone resulted in article edits desired by no one, that defamed both Emerson and Sugg, which people then took on faith and used as the basis of unfortunate statements. What a mess!John Z (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

@Annon: The defamation that you engaged in (by inserting the language into the BLP Emerson article; repeatedly) was the precise defamation that John Z mistakenly accused me of above.

I imagine that the following statements that you made constitute BLP violations as well -- your saying at the RSN that it seems a fellow editor “has proved once again that he knows nothing about nothing", and “apparently operates under the rationale of "I don't like you, your not allowing my bias to reign on wikipedia, how can I get you banned" (when nobody mentioned a ban, or that they dislike you), that a fellow editor thinks he owns Misplaced Pages, that a fellow editor hasn’t “contributed anything worthwhile to this discussion", and that a fellow editor has “whined”. I note that you followed all that with the statement: “I believe in civility”.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I never inserted POV language into the article. All I did was add Suggs criticism of Emerson and his opinion of him. The quotes about TWA and the first WTC attack are not denied by Emerson. He merely says that many others made the same mistake. I agree that the pakistani thing shouldn't be in until a more reliable source is found, but I don't see what's wrong with the rest of it.

Greg L never threatened to ban me? So I supposed I was just dreaming comments like this:

If such editors won’t get with the game plan, they can simply be given a time out in the corner

Your telling me that's not a threat of a ban?

My language above was born out of frustration with Greg L's attitude. I'm sorry if I speak the truth, but the fact is he didn't contribute anything to the article and spent most of his time on the page insulting me. There's no rule that says I have to sit back take abuse. annoynmous 08:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

@Epee et al: Epeefleche, we all did end up making these defamatory statements, you and Greg L were probably the last in the broken telephone. I again apologize for saying that your RSN post started it, which is quite untrue. Annoynmous wrote something confusing, another editor was confused and reworded it badly to say something quite unintended, you tried to eliminate it and many other things, and other people, including Annoynmous and me, not seeing that precise problem, reverted to the clearly BLP violating, original to Misplaced Pages, wording. This wording was eventually taken as fact, as what Sugg said Emerson said, by everyone at RSN, and this thread got started when Greg noticed how crazy the statement attributed to Sugg was but took it as factual, and derided Sugg. Again, a mess. I hope this might explain a little, to each other, Annoynmous, Greg's, mine, etc less than perfectly thoughtful statements. Good night to all.John Z (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice, thoughtful summary. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am once again reminded of the extreme importance of going to the source to see about what is and is not “factual.” So I read Sugg’s “Steven Emerson's Crusade” article in FAIR. Clever guy. He hides his accusations behind the apron strings of questions: Did self-styled anti-terrorism expert Steven Emerson help push the world toward nuclear war? Indeed, inquiring minds want to know. The FAIR article in question is an op-ed piece by an author whose, uhm… *suggestions* are, uhm… *novel* and have dubious uhm… *truthiness* in my opinion. Whereas Sugg might be an exceedingly fine author, and might have some exceedingly good works out there, in my oh-so exceedingly humble opinion, “Steven Emerson's Crusade” isn’t one of his better works. It was arguably a defamatory, POV-pushing piece, his writings on Emerson were the subject of a defamation lawsuit, and the article has absolutely no business being used in citations in Misplaced Pages’s BLPs—IMOSEHO.

  I could not possibly agree more with Jimbo when he wrote (∆ here): "No defamation was ever proved" is so very very far from what I consider to be a valid argument in support of considering something a WP:RS that I'm shocked to even see it written in a discussion in Misplaced Pages. That is an argument with absolutely no merit whatsoever. Whether there do exist or could exist some valid reason to think that Sugg's trashing of Emerson is noteworthy, I do not know. But given the provenance and the lawsuit, I'd treat it very very carefully. I would suggest that everything claimed will need to have an independent reliable source, and if we can find those, then there's not really any reason to mention Sugg's piece at all. The first five words in Jimbo’s post—the quoted part—was in reference to a post from Annoynmous (∆ here). Yeah, I’d say Jimbo’s common-sense assessment of the matter is something I entirely agree with; we need to go with other reliable sources and not mention Sugg’s piece at all. This is all a big do-da about reliable sources. Sugg’s op-ed piece, while having a message point some find welcome and refreshing, has no business being used as a citation on Misplaced Pages—IMOSEHO. Greg L (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to state that I've accepted the fact that the Sugg article won't be in the article. Enough Independent sources have been found to confirm most of the things in Suggs article. I think Sugg does a wonderful job of bringing together various statements by Emerson and showing how wrong he was on a great many issues. Contrary to Greg L's assertion, I feel Sugg hides his argument behind nothing but facts.

I feel that some time in the future that it should be put back in, because whatever you may think of Sugg, you have to admit that the lawsuit was a significant episode in Emersons life. He spent nearly 4 years on it only to suddenly drop it in 2003. If you ask Sugg he say's Emerson dropped it because the Judge told him he didn't have any evidence to prove he was defamed whereas Emerson say's he felt that in the post 9-11 environment that the lawsuit was no longer important.

It should be stated exactly what the lawsuit was about, Emerson was actually sueing two people. One was an AP reporter who accused him trying to pass off a paper he wrote as an FBI report. The suit against Sugg was based on an article Sugg wrote in 98 accusing Emerson of making up the death threat against him. As I've said before, it's significant that Emerson dropped both suits. No defamtion against him was ever proved. annoynmous 12:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• As Jimbo rightly pointed out (greeen, {xt} text, above), the argument that “No defamtion against him was ever proved” is rather shocking and has no merit whatsoever when evaluating whether that particular article from Sugg is a Misplaced Pages-style WP:Reliable source. Repeating the point does not help much. I am, however, pleased to see that you’ve “accepted the fact that the Sugg article won't be in the article.” Doesn’t that mean we’re done here? Greg L (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and as I pointed out it did have merit as an argument because Jimbo was referencing the fact of the lawsuit for it not being an RS and I was pointing out the simple fact that the suit was dropped. However, I've given up for know because I've decided I need a break from this nonsense. I may return to this article sometime in the future to make the case that it should be included. I feel many people are falsely claiming that Jimbo gave the final word on this when in fact his words were fairly ambiguous. For know I need a wikibreak and will return when I have the strength and spirit to argue. annoynmous 11:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper deleting relevant materials despite other editors' objections

Haldraper kept deleting relevant materials from the Criticisms of Media Coverage section of Catholic sex abuse cases:
a. despite objections from other editors (including yours truly)
b. despite attempts by other editors to discuss reasons
c. proceeding with deletion again and again after stating reasons in a cryptic manner but without waiting for others to respond.

See article discussion here and here.

Here are some of the diffs:
1. Removing section on Context (quote by Applewhite) and Jenkins' quote from the Inaccuracies section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360036257&oldid=360018666

2. Removing Shakeshaft's statistics from Weigel's quote again
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357586234&oldid=357584584

3. Removing Shakeshaft's statistics which were reported in Weigel's criticism of media coverage
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357378714&oldid=357369452

4. Removing quote by Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children + info on insurance companies premiums not different for all denominations + Shakeshaft's statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357240469&oldid=357237190

5. Removing i) comment by Christian Science Monitor on their survey results, ii) comment by Newsweek on no significant difference, iii) Shakeshaft's criticism of media over-focus on the Catholic Church and her statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=356979570&oldid=356961967 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joo (talk • contribs) 10:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a simple content dispute. Did you think of trying Misplaced Pages:Third opinion, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Catholicism to get outside views? Fences&Windows 16:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Afraid I don't see this as a simple content dispute because the problem is very one-sided. One party just kept deleting material and refusing to discuss. joo (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

6. He placed an OR tag in the Context section which says: "This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references...". After I have spent lots of time searching and adding the relevant references, he has just removed all the additional references for the Context section (again without discussion) writing in the Edit Summary: "no need for sources to support a direct quote: the quote is the source itself, adding more is just overcitation". joo (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360243257&oldid=360171493

See current discussion here joo (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• This person keeps accusing everyone for breaking Misplaced Pages rules whenever (s)he disagrees with the accused.--71.163.232.225 (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that 71.163.232.225 has been nominated by multiple editors to be blocked/banned for his numerous disruptive and soapbox actions. See Incidence Report at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#71.163.232.225_using_discussion_page_as_a_forum_for_unrelated_arguments joo (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Joo's assessment. what is happening on the talk page is that some are refusing to discuss and come to an agreement. what happens is either that we edit war with them, or we sit indefinitely on the talk page waiting for them to start discussing with us when they have no intention of doing so in the first place. So ultimately if we try to abide by the rules, their version of the article stays indefinitely, which is obviously not kosher. And please ignore IP 71. If you think Haldraper is bad (I don't really know. Not commenting on your opinion there), then 71 is ten times worse. I am actually a little confuses as to why the IP is as of yet not blocked. I have never seen one person get warned so many times before.Farsight001 (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable, right? Some people just don't want the truth to get out there. joo (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

7. He reverted (removed all the further references that I added), claiming "RV to non-OR/SYN version". Yet why did he put the OR-section tag there in the first place before the further references were given? And why does he still leave the OR-section there? joo (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360285649&oldid=360254763

8. John Nagel reverted Haldraper's deletions. Haldraper removed Applewhite's quote and the Context section (again and again) and put an abbreviated version (and without the references) in the Inaccuracies section (although on the talk page, he has written that her quote doesn't concern inaccuracies). He removed Jenkins' quote again. joo (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360478889&oldid=360478667

Request Meatpuppet block.

A few days ago I opened a sock puppetry cae on three editors. User:Rogueslade, User:Mandoman89 User:Biohazard388. In the end they weren't proved to be socks and myself and a few other editors expressed concern that these were meatpuppets and got dragged through a bullshit ani. Well I still think they are meatpuppets and I take comments olike this to be proof ]. That message was posted on all the mentioned accounts. Can we please block the perpatrators? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Tempting. However, the comment from the sockpuppet User:Teenage Martyr just shows that Dalejenkins likes deleting Star Wars and Lady GaGa articles, not that those three accounts are connected to each other or to Dalejenkins. Being an SPA at a single AfD is not in itself a blockable action, is it? If they proceed to vote stack on other AfDs or discussions or tag-team on edit articles I will happily wield the banhammer. Fences&Windows 16:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As I just mentioned on my talk page, User:Teenage Martyr is GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk · contribs), who has been jerking us around again especially over at SPI the last week or so. Let's keep it over there so as not to feed the trolls. –MuZemike 16:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

{ec}And you find it merely coincidental that this happened this way? I don't, not even close, you have a known sosck tauinting the community with his new additions. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

My concerns about the above three editors were not resolved, but I guess that's not shocking since at least one invited us to "check my IP" almost immediately. All three brand new editors knew exactly how things work on wikipedia, and Boba Phat was a marginal and weak article to mount a deletion vendetta against. I've leave it to others to determine whether any block is appropriate.--Milowent (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This report is nothing but a lot of bad faith with no evidence to support that assumption. Just because a sock of Dalejenkins congratulated them doesn't mean that the the accounts are socks or that they are meatpuppets. There is no evidence what's so ever to connect the four together. The SPI turned up negative and I believe we owe it to Rogueslade, Mandoman89, and Biohazard388 that they are who they say they are. —Farix (t | c) 20:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not buying it either. Just because a CheckUser result showed different IP addresses to be in use does not mean that the accounts aren't sockpuppets or even meatpuppets. Without going into the specifics for reasons of WP:BEANS, it is absolutely trivial for someone to defeat CU if they understand how it works. It would also make sense that he could swap IPs at will (and swap back) due to how many broadband ISPs today implement sticky dynamic IP addresses. Let's also not forget the power of the almighty cantenna... Moreover, given the third comment in this edit "Check IP Addresses if proof is needed." it is obvious that this individual set out from the beginning to beat CU. This isn't the type of behaviour exhibited by a new editor or someone who just registered an account.
Usually accounts such as these would have already been blocked per WP:DUCK as being sockpuppets based solely on behavioural characteristics. The behaviour of all 3 accounts is identical and matches the behaviour of Dalejenkins.
The account creation dates are also quite telling. Biohazard388 was created on 9 June 2006 and never used until 26 April 2010 when it initiated the AfD in question. This date closely matches the account creation dates for Dalejenkins (11 May 2006) and Bravedog (4 August 2006). Rogueslade was created on 22:53, 26 April 2010 followed by Mandoman89 on 21:34, 27 April 2010 during the AfD which follows similar patterns of confirmed Dalejenkins sockpuppets. The wording in the first comment in this edit "I fail to see how this being my first action as a member can be used to call the move's validity into question." appears to have also been carefully chosen instead of saying something along the lines of "I'm a brand new editor and just signed up". --Tothwolf (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, this is becoming ridiculous. This is extreme bad-faith towards myself and the other users being accused. As I Have Stated Before in this previous ANI report, I have been involved in other Wikimedia projects in the past, and am currently an administrator on a privately operated wiki platform. Also, the policies, guidelines, and templates are FREELY available to any Misplaced Pages user. Is it hard to believe that I, a person fluent in Wiki coding, can sit down for an hour and read through Misplaced Pages's rules and policies, and review the templates for an action and then implement them? That is, after all, what they are there for: to help users understand and use the tools that are built into Misplaced Pages's framework, both as a software tool, and as a community through it's policies? Is it also hard to believe that I know that the Wiki software logs IP addresses, and that I can simply say "review my IP address" to have myself vindicated? I can understand a preliminary case based on my account being inactive for a good long time, but to go so far as to nearly derail an AfD and create two ANI postings on the topic... it is starting to seem like a few select users are being overly suspicious of a newbie to the community who happens to know what they're doing, and how to read, and it's starting to disappointment greatly that these select users in this open community cannot just hang up the towel when the proof they were looking for doesn't exist. I am not a sockpuppet, and I'm not a meatpuppet. I've never heard of DaleJenkins before this, and these users that are accusing me of this are only giving Misplaced Pages a bad name in my book. I saw an article I didn't agree with. I signed into an account which I've had created for a while and have never used. I read the "how to" articles and start an AfD, and these few select users attack me relentlessly, along with other users who I can only presume are innocent, too. Today I started to contribute more to the community, as I'm trying to move up in the Misplaced Pages community a bit, but this newest accusation is really making me feel as if this community is just a bunch of paranoid biggots that have nothing better to do than bash a newbie. I call bad-faith. Actually, let me make that "Extremely Bad-Faith". I suggest these users review the WP:AGF article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biohazard388 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Guys, Biohazard388 is likely telling the truth, so stop assuming bad faith. Biohazard388, please list your usernames on other Wikis or consider a unified login to help put this drama to rest, as there is no way to be completely sure that what you are saying is fact. In the end people, stop attacking others just because they just happen to pop up at an AFD. Coincidence is always a possibility on this site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• I seem to be guilty of the same things as Biohazard; having basic intelligence. Of course my response to such an accusation would be to say go ahead and check my IP address. I assume that your checkuser software gives a general physical location of the IP address, state at least, perhaps city as well? If this is the case, I'm content to let the administrators in charge of those checks to indicate what state I'm in, based on my IP, and I'm willing to bet that the other accused individuals would allow the same thing. After all, given the widespread use of Misplaced Pages, I assume that the odds of the other accused parties being in the same state are low. Furthermore, after seeing the provided 'evidence' I chose to run through the history of my talk page. This Teenage Martyr and VaginicaWestwood strike me as deliberate attempts to frame me, and I would assume the other users as well. Knowing that the entire site is monitored by the admins, not to mention assuming that my detractors would be likely to 'watch' my talkpage, both comments were clearly an attempt to throw further suspicion onto me. These ongoing accusations are insulting, to say the least. Hopefully, as time wears on and both myself and the other editors make disparate additions, this ridiculous defamation will stop. That's assuming I even bother to make further contributions, as these assaults are starting to make me rethink whether it's even worth the effort. Rogueslade (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
• I don't see any blockable actions here. That you were able to find evidence of them discussing matters right on Misplaced Pages actually weakens the case for meatpuppetry. If they were conspiring in the "real world" it would likely be invisible on-wiki to hide this fact. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

....Or an attempt to taunt the community..... Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we lay off the bad faith accusation now or does an admin need to start handing out block to Bucket and co.? —Farix (t | c) 21:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes this is clearly a bad faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia....Get real Farix. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Another fan in my club

Over the years, I've managed to attract the ire of individuals who don't like my cleaning up thier vandalism on military-related articles, especially those editing from the Navy/Marine Corps Intranet. For the most part, they get blocked and move on, and I've had yet another one step forward to harass me. Today, the SPA Pops1775 (talk · contribs) started with some name calling on my talk page, and reverted me when I reverted it. I know exactly how this will play out (warnings, more insults, and a block), and I was hoping to draw some administrator attention to it so that it might be resolved more quickly than normal. bahamut0013_deeds 19:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, though I don't know what makes you think they're editing from the Navy/Marine Corps Intranet. –xeno 19:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The "1775" is part of Culture of the United States Marine Corps. Conjecture on my part, but I offer you thanks regardless. bahamut0013_deeds 19:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahh... I see now. Cheers, –xeno 19:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh... did you see his unblock request? LOL bahamut0013_deeds 19:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea...doesn't he know the difference between a salmon and a trout? Kids today, I tell you. –xeno 19:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Salmons are bigger. They hurt more. Duh. HalfShadow 19:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth - one of the users scooped up in the net on this, User:Bunns 1775, emailed unblock-en-l from an address that confirms his real-world identity, and has been unblocked.

Casting the sockpuppets net as wide as "any account with 1775 in it and which ever edits through the Marine Corps web proxy" is undoubtedly unreasonably wide. Being aware of a pattern does not mean that every person matching the pattern is in fact an abuser. It means that abusive users matching the pattern should be responded to appropriately more promptly. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Netsnipe should not have blocked as a sockpuppet simply based on the autoblock. If this really had been Pops1775, would he have been so stupid to request an unblock-auto from an autoblock that he trigged? Sheesh. –xeno 19:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock of 24.109.207.40

The IP User:24.109.207.40 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was blocked last November for a year, the fifth in an escalating series of blocks relating to repeated vandalism and sockpuppetry from that account.

Earlier today, I reviewed and declined an unblock request. The requestor said the location from which she edits was, at the time of the previous block, a UPS store that had a public computer, hence the abuse, but that folded and it is now her business, with the computer inaccessible to members of the public. I said that I could not unblock since we had no way to verify that. My comment was solicited after a second unblock request, in which I said that I was open to another admin deciding to unblock on AGF grounds. So, per her request I am posting here for another admin to take a look. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandals are a dime a dozen, reblocks are cheap. This person says they want to contribute; and if s/he's telling the truth, that is golden. Unblocked. –xeno 20:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's worth unblocking if there's a chance of a getting a good contributor. However note that the IP was previously used by a banned puppet master, so we should keep an eye on it to make sure this isn't a repeat effort. Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Swamilive.   Will Beback  talk  20:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No doubt. Any problematic behaviour should result in a swift reblock. –xeno 20:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

So right after recidivist sockmaster User:Swamilive was denied an unblocking of their main account because of recent vandalism, this IP asks to be unblocked? And they are familiar with the unblock templates and AN/I? Odd... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose unblocking the IP, given that the IP was involved with Swamilive. AGF is one thing, but this is blatantly obvious.—Kww(talk) 20:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Then it should be similarly blatantly obvious if they resume under Swamilive's m.o. –xeno 20:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. He was denied an unblock as Swamilive, comes back as an anon and requests the unblock, gets it granted despite the previous denial, and the solution is that we should watch for future disruption? How about you just say "oops, I didn't realise that Swamilive had just been denied an unblock a few weeks ago", and reinstate the block?—Kww(talk) 21:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Petitioned them for further proof of their identity. –xeno 21:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not sure if I should be writing on AN/I or if this is normally reserved for admins only, but I figure most of the discussion regarding this issue is going to be occurring here. Anyway, this is Jean Currie (the lady requesting the unblock of this IP). I'm writing from home now and the first thing I did was check here for the discussion. I'm a bit shocked that Swamilive was the one to get the static IP at my office blocked. For what it's worth, at home I use TBayTel as my Internet provider but at work I'm on Shaw Communications. I'm running a simple set-up at home and have no need for a static IP here, so my IP changes a lot between 216.211.x.x and 216.26.x.x. As such, I can't really point to any particular edit I've made that's constructive. My style of editing is to hit the Random Article button and if the article is large enough I run a spellcheck on it and correct any spelling errors. I rarely even pay attantion to the title of the article I'm on. However, as I actually took over this building from Swamilive and this is a static IP we're talking about, I can guarantee that unblocking it will NOT result in anymore vandalism. Again, I know this man personally and there's no way he can use this IP again.
-Jean Currie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.54.209 (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there some professional email address that you could email me from to verify your identity (to xenowiki at gmail dot com)? As you may have noticed, I was willing to unblock on faith, but others are a little more cautious. And since you're on the same range as Swamilive I'm sure they'll be even more suspect. –xeno 23:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to say we should unblock- it's not difficult to reblock if disruption resumes and if there's a chance of getting a good editor out of it, at best, it's a net positive, at worst, it takes, what, thirty seconds to block and stick a template on the talk page. I'd be a lot more inclined to unblock if this lady can verify her identity though as Xeno suggests. You can use if you wish. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, I noticed that part of what I wrote was deleted by you. If it constituted an attack, I apologize. I was simply trying to state my case and inform that I know who Swamilive is. As for a professional e-mail address, I don't have one set up yet. For personal e-mails I use gmail, but my business is BRAND new. I've been open for only 3 days now and haven't set up e-mail yet. I can send you an e-mail from my personal account if that would help verify who I am. -Jean Currie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.54.209 (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It was too much information, but we got rid of it. Kww makes a good suggestion below; there are many benefits to contributing whilst logged in. –xeno 02:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdenting)I'm still cautious, but won't have a hissy fit if everyone else feels unblocking is justified. I'd feel much more comfortable if a checkuser would agree to watch over this range, but I'm not sure if the previous reports would be sufficient justification under our privacy policies. Why wouldn't granting one account with IP block exemptions suffice? That way we could at least be certain that a sock-farm isn't being created.—Kww(talk) 23:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to suggest to Jean Currie that he/she simply create another account, elsewhere -- anyone who is sufficiently sophisticated to understand IP ranges is sufficiently sophisticated to find another place to create an account; nobody knows and nobody cares if _good_ edits are being made from a logged in account on an anonblocked IP or range. That's the whole point of anonblocks. We'll surely recognize the bad behavior that characterized Swamilive should the problem arise again. As far as watching over the range, it's easier just to look for the bad behavior in question. (We're talking two /16s here; that's a lot of range.) --jpgordon 17:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Rédacteur Tibet2

Someone has created a user account named "Rédacteur Tibet2", with the same name as my account Rédacteur Tibet. This name is french, and rather unlikely to happen twice. The most recent contributions of this user has been undid, and therefore look like vandalism. In order to avoid confusion between his/her contributions and mine, I would suggest Rédacteur Tibet2 either to change its name, or its account to be blocked. Many thanks.--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

‎* UNC added. Or are you out-socking yourself? :P SGGH 12:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not know who is behind Rédacteur Tibet2, but it is not me, so, I am not out-socking myself. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I know, I was kidding :) user has been indef'd. SGGH 15:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Rédacteur Tibet2 is currently listed as a suspected sockpuppet of Polylepsis. SPI is at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Polylepsis. Elockid 15:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

CalendarWatcher

Resolved – User warned – nothing more that can be done at this stage, really. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 14:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Re-opened as discussion still under way --Ckatz_spy 21:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly avoid bringing civility matters to ANI; however, "Go away, you obnoxious little man", just posted on HWV258's talk page by User talk:CalendarWatcher, is over the top. I feel sickened.

Requested remedy: That the offender be asked to apologise to HWV258 and be given a stern warning about the need to comply with WP:CIVILITY. That HWV258 be advised to avoid posting on CalendarWatcher's page for a cooling-off period. I will certainly be giving it a wide berth.

Background:

• CW appears to attract a lot of negative reaction from editors (I see an unsigned spraying on CW's talk page). In particular, there has been the use of a twinkle pre-fabricated edit-summary accusing reverted users of "vandalism". I believe the account has a problem with displays of anger. Recent examples that are hard to miss are this, admittedly to an editor who himself has a record of outbursts, and .
• There has been friction about the use and identity of the CW account, raised by several editors last year, including HWV258 and me. I must stress that nothing was proved. Since then, until recently, there has been no activity on the account.
• HWV258, I see, chose to raise certain details concerning the account four days ago, earlier today (and again a few minutes ago). Whatever the wisdom of those posts, I believe they do not deserve the nasty response.
• CW made this comment to me the other day, in response to my own query on his talk page: "And I'd suggest that you take your lack of understanding, lack of reading abilities, unsubstantiated and unwarranted paranoia and use them to go stalk someone else, please." I can take that on the chin, and it's not the subject of this complaint, but I am disappointed in the anger displays. Tony (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see HWV258 taking this remark to ANI (which I think is rather tame anyway). They don't seem all that offended to me, so I wonder what made you come over here to complain in their stead. Unless you can convince me we're dealing with 5-year-olds that can't settle their dispute on their own, I don't think much can be done here.--Atlan (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"Obnoxious little man" is tame? I'm sorry, we seem to have a different notion of civility. Have you read WP:CIVIL? Tony (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Tony's measurement of civility depends on who is posting; his own you poor, deluded fool does not seem ever to have been apologized for. This is a cabal of a half-dozen editors who attempt to silence opposition with abuse and factitious complaints - like this one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This issue has nothing to do with "silencing". It has to do with fairness of the processes of WP—something with which I'm sure you are also concerned.  HWV258.  20:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Fairness of the process? Yes, I am concerned with that, and Wikilawyering by these four accounts (who always seem to involve themselves in the same issues) is contrary to fairness. But as long as the fundamental hypocrisy here is visible to the admins, I'm sure it will be reasonably dealt with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

something seems off here, and HWV258 does seem to raise an interesting point. Has anyone asked Arthur Rubin?--Crossmr (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Something certainly does seem off, and the more one looks into it, the stranger it gets. I added a couple of points that should raise eyebrows and questions (search for 151 and 279 for the new points).  HWV258.  04:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've given him a proper warning template (his remark wasn't a big deal, but unacceptable nonetheless). Nothing more that can be done at this stage, really. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 14:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, TT. Tony (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. ~~~~

HalfShadow 18:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't care. If an editor is incivil, they need to be warned. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 21:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment Without condoning CW's post, or making any judgement whatsoever as to the validity of the claims, it is important to note that Tony, HWV and a few other editors have been insinuating that CW is a sockpuppet for quite some time now. This includes recent comments such as:

"OK, Arthur: we know it's you. Please don't get upset, and as an admin you are expected to be a good example of civility." (Tony1)

"Please be honest and let the entire community know what is really going on." (HWV258))

As mentioned to them previously, if they feel their concerns are truly valid, they should pursue the matter through proper channels and allow uninvolved parties to assess the matter. Simply repeating accusations, especially when the other party has denied them, only serves to increase the tension already present in this situation. --Ckatz_spy 17:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I missed the denial. Could you provide the reference please?  HWV258.  20:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

For starters, there was this message which CW left on your talk page last October, when you and Tony were making similar accusations. There's also this note on Tony's talk page and this note on Arthur Rubin's talk page, also from that same incident. You, Tony and I also discussed this matter on his talk page last October, and my point now is the same as it was then. If you truly believe there is a problem, you need to follow proper channels rather than merely repeatedly accusing the user in question. --Ckatz_spy 21:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the investigation that was pursued against CW at that time. However, CKatz, if you want to start a different section on this page about the sock allegations last year, you're welcome. The matter of CalendarWatcher's unspeakable rudeness appears to have been resolved for the moment in this section. Tony (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• The message left on my talk page last October was (in entirety) "Who are you? And why should I be paying the slightest attention to your fishing expedition?". That is not a denial. When read carefully, the messages left on Tony1's page are not denials either (in fact one of the messages supports the presence of a sock). I'm not litigious, and am simply giving CalendarWatcher the opportunity to issue a simple "confirm" or "deny" to the community (in the face of mounting evidence).  HWV258.  00:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Simply giving a chance to confirm or deny? There are historic precedents for such generosity; but this is neither a loyalty hearing nor a revolutionary tribunal. How about taking a chance to mind your own business? Or, if you must, bring formal charges, and take the corresponding risk. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tony, the two events are clearly related - as you are well aware. While CW's post was certainly regrettable, it should be obvious to anyone who reads through the comments you, HWV258, and a few of your mates have posted regarding Calendar Watcher and his supposed sockpuppetry that his post might well never have happened if not for your group's persistent badgering. (Let me be clear - while said badgering can explain CW's comment, it does not excuse it.) As I told you earlier today, and six months ago for that matter, it is time for you and the others to stop playing the baiting game and either present any evidence you have at the appropriate Misplaced Pages forum or let the matter drop. --Ckatz_spy 04:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "belligerent" approach to operating at Misplaced Pages. I guess it's just how I was brought up, but I prefer raising the issue with the person involved and trying to resolve things before going to the "police". The interesting thing about this is that if someone asks me "Hey, HWV258, are you operating any other accounts concurrently at WP?", I have no hesitation in saying "No; and thanks for your enquiry". Problem solved. However, when this is tried in the case of CalendarWatcher, all that comes back is nastiness and evasion. I wonder why?  HWV258.  05:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's more than likely this is an alternate account, the only unanswered question is 'whose?'. Ohconfucius 05:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Has there ever been a CU run and why not at this point?--Crossmr (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's just how I was brought up, but there's a big difference between the oh-so-friendly-sounding "raising the issue with the person involved" and what is actually going on, which is the repeated insisting that your assertion is correct, no matter what CW says. There's certainly nothing wrong with asking first, but if your questions are a) not getting the answer you feel is correct, and b) provoking the party you're asking, then it is time to move on and try another method. Repeatedly hammering home your beliefs rarely if ever works. --Ckatz_spy 06:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"no matter what CW says"—but that's the rub: CW hasn't said anything (well, nothing pertinent).  HWV258.  06:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Bots add wrong iw

At Skåneland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), several humans are reverting several bots adding a wrong interwiki. I have removed the respective interwiki from all other wikipedias and thought that would do, but today another bot added the same iw again. What is the best way to proceed? My guess is that the bots pick up the iw-list of other wikipedias' articles they find in the en.wikipedia's article's iw-list, compare those lists, and add what is "missing" to en.wikipedia. And that while I removed the wrong iw from the other wikipedias, the bots still pick it up because some have flagged revisions and I am not an authorized sighter there, thus the wrong iw will nonetheless stay in place until someone there marks the article sighted, am I right? Skäpperöd (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Would adding it in <!-- --> nor <nowiki></nowiki> work in the mean time? SGGH 14:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I left this in the mean time. SGGH 14:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You could add {{nobots}} for the time being, until the revision(s) get(s) sighted. –xeno 14:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I forgot about that, foolish! SGGH 14:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello all,

I made my bot remove the link to the Serbian wikipedia on all other Skåneland pages. On the Serbian page, I removed all links and replaced them with a single link to the English Scania disambiguation page. Unless some manual changes are made, bots shouldn't add anything anymore now. The problems seem to be that the current version of the pywikipedia bot does not recognize the disambiguation template on the Serbian wikipedia, and considers it an article. Thijs! (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I was just about to ask how I can prevent the bots on the other pedias from re-adding the iw links I removed, but I see you have taken care of it. It appears that the {{nobot}} tag (good to know btw!) is no longer needed then? Thank you again Skäpperöd (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Only one way to find out =) –xeno 12:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

User:UltraBibendum

I believe this is a complex for AIV so I'm bringing it here. UltraBibendum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not a vandalism only account, but appears to be a vandalism mostly account. After leaving a 4im warning on the talk page I went deeper into this users history. We have a mixture of vandalism and personal attacks with some decent edits here ot there. Last september the account was indeffed, but was reduced to a 55 hour block. There have been no further edits since my warning, however I still have concerns.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"vandalism mostly" account is still a "counterproductive mostly" account. What I would suggest is rather than templating them, actually converse with them on talk pages about vandalism, why it isn't allowed, and the fact that they can be blocked if they continue with such edits. Encourage them by pointing out their decent edits and chastise them for their vandalistic edits. Hopefully, they will see what types of contributions are welcome here. Otherwise, they are still a "counterproductive mostly" account and worthy of a decently long block. Ks0stm 14:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing conversations he's had in the past I don't believe I have the tools to reach this editor. If that's the solution I'd ask someone else take the lead.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I made a start at it by asking him if he knew the difference between a vandalistic edit and a constructive edit, and asking him to provide me an example of both. If he responds with a personal attack, I think we can go with blocking, but it may just be a matter of him needing to learn what wikipedia is and what wikipedia isn't and needing to read over WP:Vandalism carefully. Ks0stm 15:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Being 100% honest, I'd be much more comfortable if his response was a condition of an unblock, as opposed to leaving this account free to let this pass without answer, and return to vandalising when we've both moved on to other things. Not my call of course and best of luck to you.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the tools to do the blocking in the first place, so that's up to someone else. Ks0stm 15:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know. That was an attempt politely ask that someone who does have the tools still look at this and not assume the situation is resolved.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The tag I just added should help. Ks0stm 15:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. Occasional legit edits are not a get out of jail free card for someone who's mostly here to goof around. Ks0stm, if you want to spend time with this guy, feel free of course, but were I you I'd find something with a higher chance of success. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Heads up about a new user

Brynne_Edelsten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I wanted to bring this user's contribs to your attention, she caught mine when she added the same silly "info" to Den (Pharaoh) that had been previously added by anonymous IP vandals. I am reposting this here since I got turned away from AIV, and also because it seems like she may be the wife of one of the article subjects whom she edits, but beyond that I know nothing. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User already blocked a couple hours ago. Thanks, GlassCobra 14:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean a couple minutes ago. Ok, no prob then. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Money and death threats

User:Ebenezer Daniels is threatening me and asking me for money on my talk page. He is likely to be a sockpuppet of User:Stephen-Lord-Wiki as he made a sock to have convosations about money or User:GEORGIEGIBBONS as they go to the same school. Please list under the appropriate SPI and block him to next year. Joe Shelton (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny how they showed up on your talk page minutes after your account was created....--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Ebenezer Daniels blocked for trolling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Sarek has a point. A new user with 3 edits who knows all about other socks and whose page gets vandalized? Troll #2. Blocking Joe Shelton now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like quacking to me, matches the same historic time-wasting style of editing as the sockmaster. Unblock request declined, since it doesn't address the reason for the block. --Taelus (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't block with no talk page access. Rectified. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Another death threat

Felipemassa123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just left this message ("STOP DELETING THE NON CHAMPIONCHIP RACES OF Jo bonnier of i will kill you. you son of a bitch I've spent a lot of work so please do not remove it") on his userpage User:Felipemassa123 (it's the first edit on that page and I don't know how to show the diff). I had previously asked his alter-ego 217.123.215.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to stop adding inappropriate content to Joakim Bonnier - he adds non-Formula One data to Formula One results tables. The IP has been blocked before for similar stuff, and it's only now that I realise Felipemassa123 is the same person as the IP. I don't enjoy being told I'm going to be killed, so what's the procedure? Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef, user page deleted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Very decisive, thanks :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No legal threats may be of some interest here. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit war on Plaid Cymru

User:Kittins floating in the sky yay changed the intro of Plaid Cymru from “Plaid Cymru' (Template:IPA-cy Template:Lang-en; often referred to simply as Plaid) is a political party in Wales.” to “Plaid Cymru (Template:IPA-cy Template:Lang-en; often referred to simply as Plaid) is a nationalist political party in Wales. “ yesterday. This was reverted per WP:BRD with a request to “discuss controversial edits on Talk first “. S/he continued to reinstate the WP:POV edit with bad faith edit summaries and added a NPOV tag for the entire article here, here and here. No attempt has been made by this editor to engage on the talk page, despite requests. In addition to edit warring, s/he has caused the Misplaced Pages article on one of the main political parties in Britain to have a WP:POV intro and NPOV tag on the eve of a UK general election. FYI the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom were as much use as a chocolate teapot. Please do something. Daicaregos (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Do what, exactly? Plaid are perfectly open about being a Welsh nationalist party: "We support progressive, democratic, civic nationalist, regionalist and independence movements across the world and are committed to preserving Wales’ national identity whilst also furthering our representation in Europe," for example. Not quite Meibion Glyndŵr but the political home of most of the Sons. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Great timing, voting starts within the next twelve hours or so.... What JzG said. Is this really an AN/I issue or just a squabble over interpretation over the definition of what is an inherently nationalist party? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

{ec} That would be a content issue wouldn't it? Exactly what: is to insist the editor engage on the talk page. Desist from making bad faith edit summaries. Define exactly what the issues are to warrant a NPOV tag in order that they may be addressed. Basically, to stop being disruptive. Plaid Cymru are a political party. Calling them a nationalist political party at the beginning of the intro is undue weight. Daicaregos (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

WTF. Is Guy suggesting that Plaid Cymru supporters are terrorists? That's outrageous. Daicaregos (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought it obvious that Plaid Cymru is a nationalist party. MtD (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Again - that would be a content issue. And in my view gives undue weight. No-one has addressed the disruption, bad faith, failure to engage etc. Daicaregos (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of which version is correct - I agree that this is a content dispute; and KFITSY is showing a disturbing tendency to edit war in content disputes. Aside from this article, there's also Celtic Nationalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (where he reverted even after a talk page warning) as well as Scottish nationalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Scottish National Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the last one now being full protected due to the edit dispute). It appears that Fishshaw (talk · contribs) is equally as guilty in these. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I would second that opinion. It's clearly a content dispute. Work it out at the relevant pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• I was pretty sure that we didn't approve of editors forcing through their preferred version of an article using the revert button. Final warning issued. AGK 21:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: I created a case at WP:AN3 over an hour before this ANI was opened, due to the same user reverting on Celtic Nationalism even after receiving a 3RR warning. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• According to Daicaregos I am an "ignorant twat" because I don't accept his interpretation of something. . Someone might want to educate him a little. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Warned. Regardless of whatever the scenario is here, such attitude is not tolerable in discussions, and is not compatible with the goals of the project. --Taelus (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I had not noticed this thread prior to becoming involved, due to a request made by Daicaregos at the WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom but I am attempting to start a discussion at Talk:Plaid Cymru on the main issues involved here. - Galloglass 09:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Bon iccal

Seems we have a blogger taking up residence on Misplaced Pages. Absolutely no content contributions, except to place a link to his own userpage in an article. No response to the warning I gave back in February, just continued personal ramblings on his userpage and a blatant disregard of WP:UP#NOT. Any suggestions on how to proceed here? I recommend deleting the page but stopping short of a block. User was notified of this thread. -- œ 22:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:MfD first and foremost. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 02:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT violation at Featured Article page

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.

Giano has pledged to stop editing the article which led to the problems. No further action is needed here. Deciding between combatting pedants over use of collective adjectives is not one of the enumerated powers of Admins.. --Jayron32 14:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

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

GiacomoReturned (talk · contribs) account is engaging in obvious WP:POINT violation and disruption at a Featured Article, while that article is currently undergoing the WP:FAR process.

1. 21:47, 5 May 2010, with edit summary of reverted stupidity. get an education. -- removes {{cn}} tags that were placed to identify uncited portions of text and asserted facts, for example, wholly uncited/unreferenced dates of birth/death, etc.
2. 22:10, 5 May 2010, edit summary: Restoring John Vanbrugh to amazing condition before lies and rubbish added by wicked Giano and Bishonen. -- reverts the article backwards to a poor quality version of the page.
3. 22:17, 5 May 2010, edit summary: removing as required all the dreadful uncited material added by Bishonen and Giano -- again.

• Giano most recently had his WP:ROLLBACK tool privileges removed for abuse of the tool to further edit-warring and disruption. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive610#Misuse_of_ROLLBACK_tool.

I have been involved with the page John Vanbrugh in (attempting) to identify areas for improvement, and so would appreciate it if another administrator could review and take action with regard to the recent WP:POINT violation by GiacomoReturned (talk · contribs). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

How is that relevant exactly? Rollback is a pretty bauble that's worth spit in any case. Malleus Fatuorum

The rollback tool was abused by Giano (talk · contribs), at this same article where he is engaging in WP:POINT disruption. -- Cirt (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What about your own disruption, here? Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Trying to twist the focus of this report away from Giano ? -- Cirt (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:OUCH. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It has been said by Cirt and the complainant (Erasersomething) that the lead needs citing - that Vanbrugh was a dramatist and architect. If these facts are in dispute then it is better that they go - obviously they are too hard for all those who feel such things need citing to find. I merely restored the page to a happier day, immediatly before Bishonen and I ruined it for you all. There are less facts for you to find cites for therefore less discrepencies. How happy you should all be. You don't want our work, there is no need for you to have it - pish! it is gone. Giano  22:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, has it been that long since a Giano thread has been on ANI? Great. Prediction: 17 pages of drama, no net result. Have fun folks!--Jayron32 22:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm really unimpressed by any claimed committed editor who cannot distinguish between "less" and "fewer". Rodhullandemu 23:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sbagliando s'impara.  Giano  23:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation: ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Is whether Giano can distinguish between less and fewer relevant? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"Learn by mistakes", indeed; a lesson for us all, perhaps. Rodhullandemu 23:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm minded to block Giano for the first edit summary, which is abusive and not calculated to help us keep editors to help build the project. However, not minded to deal with the shitstorm which would follow, which is the usual way Giano gets away with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear here; experienced editors here do do not get a free ride on that basis alone; on a co-operative environment, all are supposedly equal. Verification policy applies equally to all editors, for example. That which we "know" is somewhat worthless here, unless and until it is is reliably sourced. Rodhullandemu 23:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• My instinct is to block them all for not playing nicely. Giano's in-summary insults don't get him any points either. But this really is stupidity. Adding {{fact}} tags to every statement reeks of POINTiness. Will take a look further back before I formulate any firm positions. AGK 00:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The article in question has reliable sources. Please remember it dates from an era when someone wanting to verify content would be expected to read the sources given. I do understand there has been a shift away from general references towards a desire for chapter-and-verse citations, but that is not reason to accuse anyone of breaching the verification policy. As far as the precise issue here goes, WP:CITELEAD asks editors to establish a consensus before requiring citations in the lead. I can understand some editors feeling that Giano was pointy when he made the reversions, but it could be argued that adding {{cn}} tags to the lead (without prior consensus) was a provocation, although clearly unintentional. I'd like to suggest that the time and effort exerted here would be much better spent working on improving the article in question. --RexxS (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• They're playing nice now, and there doesn't seem to be any edit warring going on, so taking no action for now. But leaving a note on the article talk page to inform them all that those who edit war will be placed on the naughty step. AGK 02:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• I wouldn't dream of edit warring over citation needed tags... The only reason I added them was because of the featured article review, and clearly the biggest issue with the article is the lack of sources, I'm sorry if I was a little over-zealous. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Don't worry, I shall not be editing John Vanbrugh again - ever. If people doubt facts that are so very obvious they can be verified in less time than it takes to add a cite tag - then they are not the sort of person with whom I would wish to jointly edit a page. Oh, and to Rodhullandemu (above), I do so appolagise for my dreadful English, I will try hard to emulate him in future.  Giano  06:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Don't. Not allowing less for countable nouns is a relatively recent development, is not universally agreed on, and fewer is actually unidiomatic in some cases. See the article fewer vs. less. It's often not a good idea to follow the usage advice of native speakers of a language, because they tend to be influenced by pedantic prescriptivists who just make things up. Hans Adler 07:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry Hans. I was not using the word, "emulate him", in the conventional sense, I had something quite different in mind:-), but my poor little English vocabulary is too limited.  Giano  08:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark Aldred

For simplicity's sake, I'll refer to this user as Mark Aldred, considering he's used that name more than others. I first became aware of his edits to Misplaced Pages on the Resident Evil Gaiden page. Mark Aldred is obsessed with his theory that Capcom maintains a Resident Evil canon and has removed Gaiden from that canon, and has engaged in nearly incessant edit warring to promote his belief in the article since at least August 2009. After the article came to my attention, I submitted a request for comment on 25 April 2010 and filed an incident report on 30 April which led to the temporary protection of the article. After it expired, I edited it into a version that reflects the consensus reached on its talk page, and Mark Aldred wasted little time in stepping-up his edit warring and personal attacks.

As I've investigated, I've found that Gaiden is just the tip of the iceberg. This user has been responsible for an enormous amount of bad behavior on Misplaced Pages. Some typical Mark Aldred-isms are...

• Edit wars on many other articles, particularly those of the Resident Evil, Splinter Cell, or other Tom Clancy series.
• Harasses and swears at other users, making multiple personal attacks. Favored insults are "fuck you" and calling the other party British. (?)
• Makes mistakes during his edits and edits multiple times in a row.
• Uses many sockpuppets, for which he's been the subject of two prior investigations and blocked after each one.

• NewsBot01 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - First name of this user I was aware of on Misplaced Pages. Made Gaiden canon edits and personal attacks on Gaiden's talk page. Blocked for username policy violation.

• MarkAldred45 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - NewsBot01 stated on the Resident Evil wiki that he also uses the name "Mark Aldred." Made Gaiden canon edits. Investigated and blocked for "harassment, disruption, and sock puppetry."

• Sknmak (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - Sockpuppet of Markaldred45. Temporarily blocked for "harassment," later blocked as part of the MarkAldred45 investigation.

• MarkAldred (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - NewsBot01 stated on the Resident Evil wiki that he also uses the name "Mark Aldred." Edited a different Resident Evil article, made personal attacks against Geoff B and Ninjalemming. Blocked as part of the JohnRamirez investigation.

• JohnRamirez (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - Sockpuppeteer account for MarkAldred. Investigated and blocked for "personal attacks, insults, vandalism, edit warring and disruptive editing."

• SyphonFilter1987 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - Sockpuppet of JohnRamirez. Edit warred on other Resident Evil articles, made personal attacks against Geoff B and Daymeeee. Blocked as part of the JohnRamirez investigation.

• PrisonBreakguy (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - Sockpuppet of JohnRamirez. Edit warred on other Resident Evil articles, made personal attacks against Geoff B, Blanchardb, and many other users. Blocked as part of the JohnRamirez investigation.

• DavidCarter1209 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - Sockpuppet of JohnRamirez and blocked as part of the JohnRamirez investigation.

• 70.127.200.182 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Gaiden canon edits, Splinter Cell edit wars, various destructive edits to other articles, personal attacks. Most recent active IP.

• 70.127.202.77 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Gaiden canon edits, Splinter Cell edit wars, various destructive edits to other articles, personal attacks against Pilif12p and Lord of the Pit.

• 70.127.200.198 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Gaiden canon edits, Splinter Cell edit wars, various destructive edits to other articles.

• 70.127.203.197 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Gaiden canon edits, Splinter Cell edit wars, various destructive edits to other articles, personal attacks.

• 70.126.139.90 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Gaiden canon edits, various destructive edits to other articles, personal attacks.

• 70.126.138.182 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Splinter Cell edit wars, various destructive edits to other articles, personal attacks. Implicated in the MarkAldred45 investigation. Blocked for repeated abuse.

• 72.186.99.191 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Gaiden canon edits, various destructive edits to other articles, personal attacks.

• 72.186.96.252 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Gaiden canon edits, various destructive edits to other articles.

• 97.106.48.128 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Various destructive edits to other articles, personal attacks. Implicated in the JohnRamirez investigation.

• 97.106.43.95 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Gaiden canon edits, various destructive edits to other articles, personal attacks. Implicated in the JohnRamirez investigation. Blocked for abuse.

• 97.106.45.159 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Gaiden canon edits, personal attacks. Implicated in the JohnRamirez investigation.

• 97.106.44.244 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Gaiden canon edits, various destructive edits to other articles, personal attacks. Implicated in the JohnRamirez investigation.

• 97.106.45.44 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Various destructive edits to other articles, personal attacks. Implicated in the JohnRamirez investigation. Blocked for abuse.

The above IPs all originated from the Tampa, Florida area.

• 95.211.27.5 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Implicated in the MarkAldred45 investigation, but geolocates elsewhere.

Mark Aldred also engaged in edit warring on the Gaiden page of the Resident Evil wiki, leading to it being reverted and locked. His IP address made a string of "go fuck yourself" edits to the Splinter Cell wiki , reverted by its admin. Geoff B has also mentioned that Mark Aldred has made threatening e-mails.

There have probably been worse people in Misplaced Pages's history, but Mark Aldred is the most psychotic one I've come across. His malicious behavior spans so many categories that I'm not even sure where it should be reported anymore... should I make post to the sockpuppetry investigation board as well, or the 3RR board, or any of the half-dozen other noticeboards he's committed violations of? In any event, the Resident Evil Gaiden page needs to be protected, his IP range needs to be blocked, he should be added to the long-term abuse list, and he should be reported to his ISP. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have rangeblocked 70.127.200.0/22 for 2 weeks; the other IP ranges remain unblocked as none of them have made any significant edits in a good while. If a CheckUser is around, can we see about a possible hardblock on that range? –MuZemike 00:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I would open an SPI with CheckUser in order to find more of these sockpuppets. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you're obsessed with me but the feeling is NOT mutual. For the record, I NEVER threatened anybody. I simply told those two admins that they were ugly. Ask them if you don't believe me. You call me psychotic, I call you an pathetic annoying loser for spending an hour tracking my edit history. I'm not psychotic. Psychotic people kill other people, molest children and kill animals. I obviously have never done that. Hell, I love animals.

By the way, what do you mean by consensus? Geoff and Prime Blue said that if the statement had a source, it can stay. There is a source. All this over a freaking sentence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Resident_Evil_Gaiden&diff=360094151&oldid=360086865

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Resident_Evil_Gaiden&diff=357657977&oldid=357462849

Fine, lets end this once and for all. Do you admins want the statement to stay or not. Answer this and I'll stop reverting the edits. This is fair. Then again, I probably will be blocked forever. Fine, I have no regrets. Have a great life.--70.126.138.115 (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No deal. 70.126.138.0/23 rangeblocked for a fairly long time. –MuZemike 15:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

User keeps adding improperly licensed images

At Tory Burch, Eberlin23 (talk · contribs) keeps re-adding the same images and they keeps getting deleted for licensing reasons. The article was fine with these images.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, until Eberlin23 acknowledges the policy and their behavior and agrees to stop. Any administrator may unblock them on evidence that they have done so, without consulting me further... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This issue is perpetual and tedious. Should image uploading be a special permission like rollback? Users would get it on request once they gave some indication that they knew what they were doing. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Another AIV backlog

What? Double your current pay scale wasn't good enough for you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV has had some vandals sitting there for a little while now with no attention. Admins are given block tools for a reason- please put them to good use. ALI 02:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait. Pay raise? Anything above the zero we get now would be an improvement. —DoRD (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, admins are given the tools for a reason; that they can be trusted not to abuse them. Use of them, and where, is voluntary. Any other simple facts about Misplaced Pages you need to know? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I for one would like to see every administrator on the project taken to disciplinary for gross dereliction of duty. Somebody should also consider suing for a breach of the hallowed contract between Misplaced Pages's sysops and the site users. RfA is, after all, much, much more than just an informal "sure, I'll help out from time to time"! AGK 13:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Get rid of the lot of 'em, I say. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Judaism

We need some help over there; we have some really intense albeit low-speed edit warring happening, and all the admins watching (like me and Avi) are too involved. --jpgordon 03:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That's seriously an article?! All of these "criticism of xxxxx" articles are ridiculous and arent of encyclopedic quality topics. POV forks at the very least and could easily be covered in less detail on relevant real topics. Lets get rid of articles that are simply there for people to voice discrimination or voice their dislike for stupid cultural topics; such as Criticism of Barney & Friends now how is that encyclopedic?!Camelbinky (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

But see, Criticism of Barney & Friends just links to the section in the Barney & Friends, which like you said, is what should be the case for all these other topics. Breein1007 (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with you; the "criticism" articles are basically crap. --jpgordon 04:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh, if there's enough criticism of something (e.g., Scientology) where the criticism would dwarf the article, then WP:SS breakout articles are fine. They should, however, be watched at least as closely, if not moreso, than the main articles. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• These articles are not merged with the parent articles because they are of a considerable length already, not counting the length of the criticism articles. Merging them would create a preponderance of information on criticism within the parent articles. It is for this reason that they are separate. Please refer to WP:SPLIT. Silverseren 07:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well trendsetters, rather than turn ANI into AFD, why not head to the place to discuss? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Threats of outing

Please see the thread I raised at WT:Harassment about an editor who threatened to out someone in an edit summary. Apparently threats are not currently covered at WP:OUTING or specifically mentioned at WP:NPA. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Damien21

There is what appears to be a concerted effort to insert unsourced and probably incorrect references to a probably non-notable person, the Malaysian or possibly Dutch DJ Damien Tan, aka Damien21, in the articles Black Hole Recordings, Virgin Records, Ultra Records and Tiësto. A few days ago, the article Damien21 was created by User:Damient21 and speedily deleted per CSD A7. The article (which is still cached by Google ), includes claims about Damien Tan being a Knight Bachelor (which there are no sources for whatsoever) and that he bought the company Black Hole Records in April 2010. It also mentions a bunch of awards he has supposedly won or been nominated for - for instance DJMag's Top 100 list where he supposedly was no 20 in 2008, but that is very easily shown to be wrong : he's not in that list at all. The only source for the DJ that I have been able to find is his own Myspace page, not exactly a reliable source, and a blog quoting that same Myspace.

Since before the article Damien21 was speedily deleted and User:Damient21 was blocked for having a promotional username, several IPs have added Tan's name with the title "Sir", and the unsourced info about him buying Black Hole Recordings, to the articles mentioned above: , , , , , , . The edits to Black Hole Records have also included some cnfusing information about the company being founded both in 1997 and in 2010. The IPs involved include 60.53.20.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 60.53.22.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 60.54.15.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 60.53.19.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 124.13.165.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Attempts have been made to communicate on the talk pages of some of the IPs, but none of them has replied or commented other than to re-insert the info without any edit summaries or discussion. (I will notify all the IPs mentioned of this discussion as soon as I've posted this.)

According to Wickethewok (whose judgment I trust rather more than that of the anon nonresponding IPs), Damien21 is not on the roster of Ultra Records so should not be mentioned in that article at all. A Knight Who Says Ni made the same observation about Virgin Records. The information about Tan acquiring Black Hole Recording seems very hard to verify, and the source used for this edit does not mention Damien21 at all. It's also pretty unlikely that a 29-year-old Dutch (or Malaysian?) DJ should have been made a Knight Bachelor without any reliable sources mentioning the fact. (To assume good faith, perhaps it's another knight order whose name was translated into English, but it's still odd that it's so hard to find any sources for it in any language. And even his Myspace page doesn't mention his supposed knighthood.)

Because this isn't obvious, clear-cut vandalism I don't want to go on reverting the info and risking to break 3RR, even though very much looks like an attempt to promote the man with misleading information. Page protection seems like overkill, but since the IPs are not responding to warnings or attempts to talk to them, I'm not sure how to proceed from here. --bonadea contributions talk 10:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• IPs notified of discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 10:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Damientan21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has joined Misplaced Pages and created DJ Damien21 which is less promotional but includes all the unverified facts and obviously false claims mentioned above. User has been warned against COI editing. --bonadea contributions talk 11:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Well it's pretty obvious now what's going on since DJ Damien21 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created shortly after Damien21 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was WP:SALTed. I think we are into WP:RBI territory by now. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Nationalist Misplaced Pages administrators protecting pages of their parties on election day, but not others

I have added the fact that the party Plaid Cymru is a nationalist party to their article, and have faced opposition from people who are plainly party supporters with flags pasted all over their userpages, in one case replacing the actual Misplaced Pages logo... One of them is actually an admin! ("Deb")

After these people kept ganging up to remove the "offending" word (the parties ARE nationalist, but the word carries negative connotations in the UK - something which is mostly deserved) I gave up and put a NPOV tag on the page to try make clear to people that the article is under party control. This was then removed by them too despite on the template it saying it should be under no circumstances removed without discussion first, and then them congratulating each other saying "Too right!": Talk:Plaid_Cymru#.27Drive-by.27_tagging

Someone apparently neutral to it then made a space so debate could actually happen, Galloglass, who then gets aggressively told "Discuss the issues, is it? What are the issues?" and threatening to remove the tag again Talk:Plaid_Cymru#Nationalist_party.3F

And now the admin I mentioned before as previously involved (Deb) has now jumped in and protected the page on the day of the UK general election to enforce that the word nationalist not be used to describe the party. This seems to be a pretty clear conflict of interest in use of admin powers, with supporters on the page then congratulating each other on "defending" the article again saying "Good move.": Talk:Plaid_Cymru#Nationalist_party.3F

I really can't believe this kind of behaviour is acceptable? --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• What you are essentially saying here is that you are involved in a content dispute, which you consider you are losing, and it's everybody else who's in the wrong. That is a situation we hardly ever see here. If you expect admins here to leap to your defence then you may well be rather disappointed. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• ec)Try reading the comments on the talk page and engaging with the discussion there. The article clearly states the goals of the party and this is simply a question of style that you are blowing out of all proportion, and more importantly you are making comments on the motivation of other editors rather than addressing the content issues. --Snowded 13:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the fact that supporters are using their admin powers that is making me bring this up here, not the dispute itself - I don't think it's right that they should be able to abuse their powers in this way to keep to the official party line, on election day no less...

I did read the comments and reply (just before yours before their "responses" ignoring me, see), your admin's response was to ignore me and protect it... --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The protection and other actions should be performed only by non-UK uninvolved admins. There is no other way to ensure even-handedness. Tony (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding right? I can't see UK admins being swayed too much by Welsh nationalism, we do have a procedure that selects them. We should trust them to make the right choices. :) SGGH 13:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If everything I read here I take at face value (without double checking the contributions), it probably would have been wiser for the admin to request protection from an uninvolved admin...but again, I haven't dug deep into the context of this situation, I'm just giving a face value interpretation. Ks0stm 13:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Kittins floating in the sky yay has been involved in numerous edit wars in the last couple of days: seeAN3, AN/I,Sinn Féin, Mebyon Kernow, Scottish Nation Party (which had to be page protected from him/her) and his/her talk page. User:Kittins floating in the sky yay has added contentious edits and tags, without engaging on the talk page to discuss the problems resulting in those tags. Page protection at such a sensitive time was an obvious last resort. The bigger question is why has this editor been allowed to continue to edit politically sensitive articles for so long in the run up to a general election. Lets hope we learn a lesson from it for the next election in five years time, because essentially, it's too late for this one. Daicaregos (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a weird content dispute, the main British newspapers and political commentators are all referring to Plaid Cymru as a Welsh nationalist party today, I had no idea there was any objection to that. The Scottish equivalent is called the Scottish National Party its supporters referred to as Scottish nationalists. This is the first I've heard that it's something they object to, maybe they should tell the Times, the Guardian, etc. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why anyone here would want to comment on what they perceive to be a content dispute here, rather than at the article talk page, where it would be appropriate. User:Kittins floating in the sky yay's numerous edits to Scottish Nation Party noting that it is a nationalist party were also reverted (again and again), before the page was protected. It was not reverted because the SNP doesn't have nationalist policies, but because the edit made by User:Kittins floating in the sky yay was inappropriate. The same is true of Plaid Cymru. The sentence following User:Kittins floating in the sky yay's edit adding “nationalist” says “It advocates the establishment of an independent Welsh statewithin the European Union.” Therefore, noting them as a nationalist party is redundant where placed. Further, Welsh nationalism is noted as their ideology in the infobox. These edits are not in the interests of the articles concerned. They have nothing to do with whether or not the parties are nationalist, which they are. Daicaregos (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see it was wrong to place the NPOV tag without starting a discussion alongside it on the articles talkpage and that it was wrong of the admin to protect the page.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Did the admins protect the wrong version? See, by law we have to do that. We're required to figure out which version is the worst, and protect that one. --Jayron32 14:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly :) Daicaregos (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the problematic content. In future, to get administrator attention faster, please utilise the {{editprotected}} template. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This is not the first time I have protected this article because of an ongoing content dispute. I placed a 24-hour protection on the article because of the sensitive timing of the latest edit war - in which I am not involved. The issue on which I commented was not the one under discussion (though I can understand why you may think so). However, any other admin can lift the temporary protection before the result of the UK election is known, if they think it appropriate. Likewise, any article on any other political party can be protected or unprotected on application to any admin, if appropriate. If I noticed a similar dispute going on at any other political party article at this time, I would do the same - it just happens that I don't watch those pages. Deb (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

From what I saw, I think the subject still hasn't reached a consensus, but setting content aside, heated arguments like these should be brought more to the talk page(there was a talk page section, but there were also alot of reversions), there seemed to be too much instability on there, and I think the temporary freeze was a good idea. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards