Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) at 19:52, 10 December 2014 (→IBAN Revisited: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, Medeis: Admiral Akbar comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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

Repeated reverting without discussing

The following is copied from the archives

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

User:Roscelese has today repeatedly reverted, while keeping a little shy of the 3RR rule, to her own version of Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism from texts by User:Bromley86, User:Padresfan94, and me (twice):

1. at 17:40 on 26 November 2014
2. at 05:41 on 27 November 2014
3. at 07:15 on 27 November 2014
4. at 18:20 on 27 November 2014

She has ignored appeals made to her both in edit summaries and on the article's talk page to discuss rather than edit-war. See in particular:

1. Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#Anti-consensus deletion of disliked but sourced information
2. Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#Edit-warring without discussion

Please advise. Esoglou (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The page has been fully-protected and I've offered to help clear things up on the talk page. m.o.p 19:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Roscelese still will not discuss her claim that the statement, "circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable" means "homosexual sexual activity is not always compulsive, any culpability that pertains to it is not therefore mitigated by natural orientation".
2. She also ignores the agreement by all participants, except herself, in this discussion and, as soon as the article was unblocked, has inserted her own unsupported text.

As long as Roscelese will not "discuss with the other party" and makes further edits without support from anyone else, the other party has no choice but to undo her undiscussed edits, while continuing to appeal to her to discuss them. Esoglou (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• It's less "Roscelese will not discuss" and more "the discussion has gone stale". Master of Puppets, would you like to give this another try? One of the content disputes seems to have been adequately resolved through mediation, at least. Ivanvector (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm still here, though I can't do much about a stale discussion except remind the parties that edit warring is not going to get us anywhere. For what it's worth, the page has been protected again. m.o.p 20:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you not get the parties to discuss? The discussion has got "stale" only in the sense that Roscelese refuses to take part. You surely have noticed my appeals to her to discuss. I have now made yet another appeal. But Roscelese says: "I have no interest in what Esoglou has to say", and on the grounds of her lack of interest refuses to discuss. You may remember that I pointed out (in the last part of that long edit) that this is the basic difficulty; and that User:Elizium23 then commented: "Esoglou has hit on the crux of this matter." Esoglou (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

To put it another way, is it acceptable to edit Misplaced Pages and insist on the inalterability of the edits while refusing to discuss on the talk page the difficulties raised against the edits? Esoglou (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Since "this page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Misplaced Pages that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors", I thought some administrator or experienced editor would say whether or not it is acceptable. Esoglou (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Esoglou: Sorry for the delay, I've been quite busy. I'll continue this discussion on your talk page. m.o.p 02:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Long-term disruptive user Cydevil38

Cydevil38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a long-term disruptive user whose main activity is nationalist POV-pushing and edit-warring. He has been brought to ANI and other forums at least six times by five different editors before, an astonishing record for someone with only about 1000 article edits, but somehow has always managed to evade sanction because of admin inaction:

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive46#User:Cydevil38 reported by User:Komdori (Result:), May 2007
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive252#User:Cydevil38 disruption, reported by Assault11, May 2007
• WP:Articles for deletion/Hwando (fortress) (creating a POV fork), reported by Jiejunkong, August 2007
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive722#Slow edit-warring and refusal to follow WP:BRD, reported by Benlisquare, October 2011, with evidence of virulently racist off-wiki comments
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#Inappropriate WP:CANVASSing by User:Cydevil38, not the first time, reported by Benlisquare, December 2012, with support from several other editors
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive264#User:Cydevil38 reported by User:Cold Season (Result: ), November 2014

In addition, there are many other incidents not reported to ANI, including:

• Long term edit-warring (at least 30 reverts) against multiple users on Template:History of Korea, pushing the nationalistic fringe theory that Dangun is historical and Gojoseon was founded in 2333 BC, even after overwhelming evidence of academic consensus to the contrary was provided on the talk page. , and many more
• Removal of sourced content on Mid-Autumn Festival , , , the last revert by an obvious IP sock
• Inappropriate canvassing (not included in Benlisquare's complaint above)

Most recently, Cold Season filed a complaint on the 3RR noticeboard after Cydevil38 repeatedly deleted content from Gojoseon, claiming it was "North Korean fringe view" even though it was sourced to a book by a well-known University of London professor. His disruptive behaviour was verified by myself, as well as the uninvolved user Legacypac . (I also posted much of the above evidence to Cold Season's 3RR complaint and requested a topic ban, but was told 3RR was the wrong venue.)

Despite the overwhelming evidence and confirmation from multiple users, Cold Season's complaint, like many others before his, was not acted upon by administrators and became archived on December 3. Unsurprisingly, Cydevil38 almost immediately resumed his edit warring , and using an obvious IP sock 121.161.79.35 , after Cold Season warned him of 3RR again. The IP is closely related to 121.161.79.120 used earlier to revert RGloucester on Mid-Autumn Festival.

At the end of Benlisquare's ANI complaint two years ago, another user presciently remarked: "if this ANI thread dies without any activity - he'll continue his disruptive behavior of nationalist edit-warring, blanking, and defacement of articles." And that is exactly what is happening. Cydevil38's disruptive behaviour has gone on for way too long, and I request, yet again, that this user be topic-banned from Korea-related topics. -Zanhe (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I concur that as an uninvolved editor I looked at the situation when I saw the most recent 3RR complaint and found that Cydevil38's behavior was edit warring and completely unjustified by the presented sources. I have no idea what his point is continually reverting 2000 year old history. Legacypac (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban (INVOLVED). That was the first time that I've substantially came in contact with said user but I've seen it before, I found that the user was very Korea-centric/nationalistic in his or her views and it reflects the user's editorial behavioral to such an extend that is disruptive and impossible to work with. The user is certainly stretching what's acceptable behavior: The user will seek every unjustifiable mechanism to impose said user's own will, including edit war until reported to switch over to some other method and blatantly use ducks (unilateral edits and suddenly an IP pops up doing the same edit, right after a second 3RR warning, and a very close timestamp to Cydevil38 ) to further his views at the Gojoseon article. The user was also canvassing at Wikiproject Korea (See: Talk:Gojoseon#RFC on founding legends), while the user should know by now that this is unacceptable (especially considering the user was taken to ANI over it in the past... as shown above), which is an indication of the unchangeable nature of this unacceptable behavior. The user Cydevil38 is a disruptive presence to editors that dare touch Korea-related articles that does not meet his or her own views, even ignoring secondary sources or consensus. --Cold Season (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• First and foremost, I'm very appalled and angered at what Zanhe calls "evidence of virulently racist off-wiki comments". I have clarified in that ANI that I have nothing to do with those comments. I never visited the website, and never made any comments there. It was obviously the work of some other person trying to framing me of being a racist bigot. Also, Zanhe's derogation of my contributions to Misplaced Pages, that I have only "1000" mainspace edits(plus 126 in templates), where as I have more than 650 edits in talks(224 in template talks), only attests to my efforts to dispute resolution. I have dedicated myself to articles on Korean prehistory, history and culture, which often brings me into conflict with Chinese editors, who have conflicting POV with Korean editors, and often so against NPOV. Reflecting this, most of the ANI notices come from topics of controversy between Korea and China, such as Goguryeo. Most articles concerning the ANI notices were eventually resolved through dispute resolution protocols, with two of accusers eventually being decided by consensus for being disruptive editors by WP:RFCU for anti-consensus editing, racist behavior and personal attacks. Zanhe's "prescient editor" who "warned that my disruptive behavior would continue" is himself a very POV editor who attempted to rename Goguryeo's capital, Pyongyang, into "Piarna", a Japopnic-language reconstruction that is rejected by most scholars in the field. I'd also like to refer to to this page, where he and one of my previous ANI accusers were deeply involved in an anti-Korea article that compared Koreans to the Nazis and prompted much anger and made even discussing it repulsive. I strongly suggest that administrators and editors take a look at the ANI, the articles in question and the contentions before making comments to avoid Zanhe's fervent accusations of my disruptive eidting. Zanhe's accusation that I "edit-warred" in Template:History of Korea with multiple users actually involved a sock-puppeteer using four accounts and Zanhe. I've actually made some concessions there in my efforts to resolve the dispute, but Zanhe continued to edit-war until I presented firm evidence of scholarly consensus, based on "official handbook" sources that reflect scholarly consensus. The accusations of WP:CANVASSING comes from alerting WP:Korea in articles that are about Korea. I'd like to also point out that either Zanhe or Cold Season added WP:China project to Gojoseon simply to alert the project page there. My issue with Mid-Autumn Festival was that concerning a hard-earned consensus that has been standing for quite a while, and which of which the arguments made there I believe stands.

As with the recent dispute over Gojoseon, I'd like to mention that this is yet another contention topic between Korea and China, particularly concerning the Gija theory. I've already presented evidence that Cold Season's one and only source, which Zanhe calls "a book by a well-known University of London professor", was heavily distorted by Cold Season. Please also consider the rest of the article, which already addresses Gija, making Cold Season's edit simply repetitive and ignoring the stable structure of the article that was already in place. With regards to the Gija theory, the book basically says that most scholars either evaluate it as "a Chinese fabrication that has nothing to with Gojoseon" or simply just ignores Gija regarding the foudning of Gojoseon. I have cordially asked Legacypac here to reconsidered the detailed evidence I have given, but dishearteningly he simply chose to ignore it and comment here that I was reverting "2000 year history". Also, Zanhe's accusation of my subsequent reverts after ANI:3RR are actually myself adding the NPOV tag to the concerned section, which Cold Season and Zanhe accused of being a continuation of edit-warring. The exception is one edit which I made on the basis of WP:Consensus, that "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." I made the revert concerning WP:Consensus AFTER they reverted my NPOV tag edits, which again, Zanhe distorts the evidence by showing as if I made the WP:Consensus edit first. I'd also like to state that my previous reverts were also based WP:Consensus, in response to Cold Season's very bold edit. The "IP socks" are edits that I made when I forgot to log-in. These are honest mistakes.

This ANI comes at a time when a dispute resolution process is in place. I consider this ANI a disruptive attempt to ignore dispute resolution and attempt to "topic ban" a user that goes against their POV. What I believe is that Cold Season seriously distorted the source at question, and I don't think the "uninvolved" editor Legacypac here haven't gone thoroughly with the source before he made his comment, which is made apparent in his comment that my view is "completely unjustified by the presented sources" when only one source was presented. I again point out that Legacypac ignored my request to consider my detailed presentation of what the source actually says, which he didn't address and ignored and went on to accuse me of disruptive behavior. What this Gojoseon article needs right now is more attention from other editors, not only neutral editors, but also editors with in-depth knowledge of the topic at hand, which is why I alerted WP:Korea. Cydevil38 (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

(1) Regarding the misrepresentation of sources by me, this is untruthful because I literally wrote in the format: ". stated that " (and the book is freely on Google Books to check). Three people are in agreement that it is correct, but only you unilaterally oppose it as it does not meet your view. (2) Regarding your ducking, you had all the time to disclose that but you did not. It also happens that it occurred after a 3RR warning, which is really a coincidence. (3) Your claim that the article Gojoseon was stable is false, because most of the article's talk page comprises of discussions about how the former "Founding legend" sub-section was a misrepresentation. Do not confuse stability with inaction. (4) You adding a NPOV is another mechanism to edit war and make it harder for those that edit thing which is not in your POV (even though it meets sources). Just like how ducking is another mechanism. Also, your partly revert is also applicable to 3RR (strangely enough after an IP from the same region as the one you used to duck with) (5) Wikiproject China applies to to the article Gojoseon, since it covers territory that's within modern China and the most-contemporaneous primary sources are derived from Chinese historiography. If you can't recognize that and are against opinions from said wikiproject, than I have no words. Also, Wikiproject China had been part of the article before you began canvassing and since 2008 (as explained on the RFC on the article talkpage). You also did not notify all the other wikiprojects while canvassing on wikiproject Korea. (6) Regarding you ending statement... I find this statement most worrying. No, all the articles ALWAYS NEEDS NEUTRAL EDITORS. You were taken to ANI for canvassing in the past; you did it again rather than improve on this editorial behavior. You were well aware that this was an issue. --Cold Season (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have provided thorough evidence that Cold Season distorted the literature here. The general structure of Gojoseon was formed in 2005, and eventually State-formation, Gija and its controversy, Wiman Joseon and its fall were divided into subsections, along with the addition of archaeological basis of Gojoseon. Again, your interpretation of the source is distorted, and it is repetitive given that they are all covered in the previous stable version as different periods in Gojoseon's history. Also, I don't think adding a NPOV tag, which alerts readers that the section you wrote is currently under dispute, is a continuation of edit warring. And as for WP:China, Goguryeo, another contentious topic between Korea and China, is not under the purview of WP:China. Both are firmly within Korean historiography, and not considered Chinese by the virtue of present-day borders. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the issues at the article Gojoseon... (1) Your "thorough evidence" has been rejected by three people. I request the admin who will take this case to carefully view the article version diff (the relevant section is under "Founding legend") and source as stated in the opening message of the Gojoseon RFC; this will show Cydevil38's POV. I find it pointless to argue this further against a POV pusher. (2) The general article structure stated "Founding legend" as the sub-header (this can be seen in the article history), the Jizi/Kijia/Qijia myth, Weiman/Wiman myth, and the Tangun/Dangun myth are all founding legends. In fact and ironically, you just changed that structure to give precedence to the Tangun/Dangun myth in your Korea-centric views. (3) Regarding your statement about the Wikiprojects... I know you would say something like that to exemplify how tremendous your Korea-centric POV is. What matters is the scholarly view as reflected in sources; not Korea-centric nor China. Yet, you keep on hammering your Korea-centric POV. You canvassed at Wikiproject Korea, while there are four other Wikiprojects that you didn't notify. And I note... four... not only Wikiproject China, which seems to be your sole opposing focus for some reason in this issue of you canvassing. (4) Also, you are trying to erase/downplay all the other myths, while trying to prop up the Dangun/Tangun myth. In fact, you even removed the cited info stating that there were three founding myths while falsely claiming that you were just "merging" the info. (5) I see that you also decided to go ahead and insert your Korea-centric views, disregarding the ongoing RFC. (6) I find it quite astounding how you call Jizi/Kijia/Qijia myth as a fabrication, but you seem to be unwilling to apply the same to the Dangun/Tangun myth (which tells that Dangun was the offspring of a bear and a deity), even falsely and Korean-centrically calling it "widely accepted" . Actually, even I wrote that the Jizi/Kijia/Qijia myth had been rejected into the article, so what are you arguing about? Probably the fact that scholars also rejects the Dangun/Tangun myth , but you don't like that as you view it as "widely accepted". Scholarly sources state that the Jizi/Kijia/Qijia myth and Dangun/Tangun myth are historically invalid; they are legends. You refuse to grasp that with this Korea-centric tunnel vision. --Cold Season (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• An important piece of evidence: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Collision787/Archive. This shows that Cydevil38 editorial opponents have included a number of sock puppets, so any reports of Cydevil38 reverting against consensus may be overstated. I think this conflict may need deeper investigation that what's going to be possible here on WP:AN/I. Already the evidence, encompassing 7 years of editing, is longer than the attention span of the average editor here. If you wish to pursue this dispute, please try Requests for arbitration, or else limit your complaints to specific instances of edit warring, and use WP:AN/3RR. I'll leave this discussion open in case somebody wants to make a precise (short!) case for some sort of administrative action. Jehochman 16:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• It's unfortunate that there were sockpuppets muddying the water, but none of the evidence I presented above involve any sockpuppet (except the IP socks of Cydevil38). Besides, the sockpuppets were only active on Template:History of Korea, not on other pages such as Gojoseon, where Cydevil38 is edit warring against the judgment of three experienced users as well as academic sources.
• If seven years of evidence is too much to digest, let's only look at the most recent incidents. The December 2012 ANI was filed by Benlisquare, a long-time editor with 40,000+ edits, and confirmed by Shrigley and the administrator Heimstern. And the recent 3RR complaint was filed by Cold Season, and confirmed by myself and previously uninvolved Legacypac, all long-term editors in good standing. Arbitration is for cases which the community cannot solve, but this case is about a single user who habitually ignores consensus and refuses to stop edit warring.
• I'm perplexed by your suggestion to use WP:AN/3RR, while retroactively closing Cold Season's archived 3RR complaint, citing this ANI thread. I filed this complaint AFTER the 3RR report was archived without administrator attention. This sounds like a Catch-22 to me, or are you suggesting that a new 3RR complaint be filed?

-Zanhe (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This ANI was about an attempt to blank and remove Northeast Project, an article split from Goguryeo covering the Chinese government project that laid claims on ancient Korean kingdoms such as Gojoseon, Goguryeo, Balhae were part of the Chinese empire. There was another split from Northeast Project, Goguryeo controversies. After some time, editors at Goguryeo Controversies attempted to remove Northeast Project. As for the editors involved in that ANI, Benlisquare and Shrigley, please consult this page], where they adamantly supported KEEP of a page that compared Koreans to Nazis, and of course, prompted emotional outbursts of anger and simply made making edits to the article repulsive for other editors. Also please consider this this edit] at Goguryeo, attesting to extremely biased editing. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Update - after reading some old threads, I found out that Cydevil38 was previously known as Cydevil, who was blocked by the administrator Nlu for edit warring in 2007. He then claimed that he lost his password and created the Cydevil38 account. See block log. Cydevil38 was subsequently reported to ANI and other forums three times in 2007 alone. -Zanhe (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Atifabbasi8 creation of many titles duplicating other articles

Atifabbasi8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A review of this user's talk page and contribution history suggests a lack of understanding how Misplaced Pages works. They keep starting short articles on topics already covered elsewhere. Can they be blocked from creating articles for a time? Legacypac (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not possible to block someone from creating articles, other than simply by blocking them from editing altogether. Let me look at the edit history and come back with an opinion on whether a block is needed. Nyttend (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac, I checked Atifabbasi's existing mainspace page creations for the last three months and don't see a reason for sanctions. Unless I'm missing something, the worst thing that this user's done (aside from one copyvio, which by itself isn't reason for sanctions) is creating pages under alternate titles, and that's easily rectified by redirecting them. What's more, much of the deleted content shouldn't have been deleted. ISIL presence in Tripoli doesn't duplicate the main article (as far as I can see, it doesn't mention Tripoli at all), and List of ISIL Wilayahs was deleted under G2 (a test? This was obviously intended to be the list that it was), under A7 (this list definitely wasn't "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event"), and A11 — this is a serious violation of WP:WIAPA "Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons", since this criterion could only apply if Atifabbasi is high-up in ISIL. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeking a broad block or ban, just wanted to flag the activity for a fresh set of eyes. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the link to this report after independently coming to Atifabbasi8's page to give notification on this disruptive edit. Content has been discussed and agreed on the talk page. The type field is there to mention what the group is. The group fails in definition as being a state as it lacks international any level of international recognition. It claims to be a Caliphate are extensively dealt with elsewhere in the article and as the authority or the claim is disputed, it cannot be declared in Misplaced Pages's voice. gregkaye ✍♪ 12:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As an issue has been already been raised here would this be a good place to leave comment on 1RR infringement and persistent edit warring on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or should this be done at the 3RR page. Please also see Atifabbasi8 for history of infringement. gregkaye ✍♪ 13:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Nick Griffin and User:John

User:John has removed content critical of Nick Griffin and protected that article because he believes that said content infringes WP:BLPSOURCES. I disagree with his actions. In an attempt to fix this disagreement I started this conversation on the BLP Noticeboard. Practically everyone in that conversation agrees that there is nothing objectionable about the content John removed, but he does not agree and will not unprotect the article or restore the content. He apparently is "waiting" for more comments. Personally, I believe he is delaying the inevitable.

Since I do not have the ability to restore it myself, I ask that someone who can, does. And I also ask that someone with experience writing controversial BLPs remind John that removing content critical of a such figures is not a good way to achieve any kind of neutrality. Parrot of Doom 19:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

John, did you really intend to lock the article indefinitely?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course not, just while a consensus is reached about whether it is acceptable to state on a BLP: The Sun columnist Kelvin MacKenzie said "He emerged as the lying piece of work you always suspected." As the log entry says. --John (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Despite being one of the many to comment at BLPN, I wasn't aware that John is not only strongly advocating his lonely position here, but he's also used his admin powers to lock the article in the middle of a content dispute he's involved in. Didn't we used to have a policy against exactly that? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

References

1. Lorraine, Veronica (23 October 2009), "Sun panel gives its verdict on BNP leader", The Sun, retrieved 25 October 2009

• Comment - Yeah, that's about as inflammatory of an editorial comment as its gets. As long as there is "follow through", this seems like a logical action by John. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• John, what did you mean to do, if not to lock it indefinitely? "Until a consensus is reached" is indefinite, since we can't assume that consensus will be reached at a certain date. If you're ready to unprotect it when that happens, or if you don't mind someone else unprotecting as soon as that happens, there's nothing wrong with indefinite protection. Indefinite \= infinite. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, the more important issue is whether John should be the sole arbiter of what's acceptable per policy. John's distaste of certain tabloids is fairly well documented, and although I understand that technically he has a right to insist and rely on WP:BLP policy, there's the obvious question of John's interpretation of that policy. Frankly, much as I respect John, this has a distinct odor of WP:INVOLVED.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Why is the printing format relevant in the least? According to the links in the intro of its article, The Sun is a tabloid in the Tabloid (newspaper format) sense, not in the supermarket tabloid sense. I'm not familiar with John or with the subject of this article (I've heard of BNP before, but not Griffin), so I can't comment on the details. All I can say is that there's nothing per se wrong with including the statement in question; nobody, even Griffin and his strongest supporters, will disagree with the idea that the Sun columnist said this. We need to decide based on whether it's relevant and on whether it creates a generally non-neutral section and/or article, but "Person X said Y", sourced to something where X indeed says Y, isn't inherently problematic. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• I never use the word "tabloid" in the format sense. My understanding is that both papers at issue here are tabloids in the gossipy, garbagy sense, and I believe that's the way John is interpreting them. Did you look at the image in The Sun-Herald? Really.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• As has already been raised in the BLP thread, "tabloid" is hardly a complimentary term in the UK but it's still a long way from a US tabloid. Are you aware that this is the UK paper, not the Australian? Why would you post such a link here otherwise? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• My error, you're right, it's The Sun (United Kingdom). However, they look fungible to me. I realize that UK tabloids are not as bad as, for example, The Enquirer, but that simply means that instead of being complete crap, they're just moderate crap, and they don't tend to go into things like UFOs and the like, which, as everyone well knows, we have only in the U.S. anyway. In any event, I'm not necessarily agreeing with John. Just trying to characterize the sources properly, although, admittedly, one could argue about how bad they are. If I recall, most editors take a more nuanced approach and say they're reliable for some things but not for others. But I don't think that reliability is the issue here, anyway; it's whether we should quote their columnists, no matter what they say, as long as we attribute it to them.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Well I hate to throw this in but I don't see the consistency here. The Question Time British National Party controversy article including the Guardian saying Griffin "looked just plain shifty" which isn't too much better than the Hastings piece. I believe there's a daily mail cite there too but not to the op-ed sections. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

There's an argument over whether a tabloid (and often unreliable) source is nonetheless a valid reference for the statement that a columnist in that source wrote certain words. Also whether including those columnists views gives them undue weight. But that's an argument for BLPN - this board is more about the appropriateness of John protecting the page while also vigorously participating in the BLPN debate. And the answer, reasonably, is no.

However, it seems overly bureaucratic to remove the protection and then restore it via RFPP. There is also no hurry re these comments being included or removed from the article. Suggest we leave the protection in place until the BLPN discussion concludes, and act on any consensus there. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Could someone please define "conclude" in a practical, straightforward way? The on-going WP:CONSENSUS -- not unanimity, but consensus -- has been to cite briefly the columnists in the article. However, John -- who is acting as an admin and an involved contributor simultaneously -- insists on dragging this out. I strongly suspect the reason is because he's hoping the WP:CONSENSUS will change in his favor at some distant point. His behavior doesn't strike me as reasonable. A ruling on John's conflict of interest and a time-frame to implement WP:CONSENSUS seems warranted, I would think. Oddexit (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

While making no comment on John's behaviour as an admin, I would like to endorse his views on the suitability of the publications known as "The Sun" and "The Daily Mail" - in that they are about as reliable as used bog paper. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Whilst agreeing with that valuation of the two papers - both have been known to simply make stories up - I'm unsure that their unreliability precludes us from stating that a notable columnist actually said those words in the paper itself; after all it's pretty clear that they did. Having said that, I'd trust Kelvin McKenzie or Max Hastings to be factually accurate about as much as I'd trust Nick Griffin (i.e. not at all). I'm sure we could find some more reliable commentary in better sources. Black Kite (talk) 12:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The relevant difference between UK and US tabloids here is that UK tabloids, or at least their floating readers, control election results. In the US, we might be interested in what Fox News (about as trustworthy as the Mail) says in commentary about a racist politician, but here in the UK we care a lot about how racists are reported in the Mail and the Sun, simply because many of Griffin's supporters, or at least his middle class fellow travellers, will be reading either the Sun or the Mail. The Grauniad being dismissive of Griffin would be a "dog bites man" story with nothing to it. When even the Sun castigates him though, that's an attack from his own side. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

One's personal or political (dis)like of Kelvin McKenzie or Max Hastings really has no bearing on Misplaced Pages's concept of "reliability" regarding op-ed pieces. The only question regarding reliability that needs to be asked for an op-ed is if the publication has third-party editorial oversight per WP:BIASED. Both publications do. Unless the Misplaced Pages Community specifically votes to ban The Daily Mail and The Sun op-eds (they haven't), or specifically Kelvin McKenzie and Max Hastings from being EVER cited for their op-ed opinions (they clearly haven't done that, either), I don't see how it's possible to exclude citing their published political opinions. However, that's a discussion for the BLPN not for the AN/I. I'll repeat the relevant question for the AN/I that needs to be asked here: Could someone please define "conclude" in a practical, straightforward way? The on-going WP:CONSENSUS -- not unanimity, but consensus -- has been to cite briefly the columnists in the article. I would think that if WP:CONSENSUS holds for the next few days, it's reasonable to respect it. Oddexit (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think the sun shines out of Nick Griffin’s ass. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel echoes of Talk:Brad Pitt and Talk:John Barrowman here ..... it would have been helpful if diffs could have been provided up front, but a quick look at Nick Griffin shows an slow-burning edit-war by John, PoD and Emeraude (talk · contribs) (, , , , , , , , ). I don't really have a strong view whether the content should stay or go. On the one hand, "The Sun's 'x' said 'y'" is one of the rare instances I would accept a citation to The Sun (and a quick persual of my userpage should make it very obvious what my opinion on the paper is, and it isn't positive); on the other, why is Kelvin McKenzie's specific opinion important for the reader's understanding of the topic? I think the result of full-protecting the article with the contentious content removed is probably the lesser of all evils in terms of action to take, but I also think John was WP:INVOLVED here as WP:NOT3RR states "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial." Since the edit war was slow, it would not have harmed the project to ask for another admin's view on this and wait on that. Anyway, we are where we are, I recommend consensus is reached on WP:BLPN, the article unprotected, and everyone takes a deep breath and moves on ie: no administrator action (aside from unprotection) required for now. Ritchie333 16:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

A deep breath seems to be a good idea since we'll all die of oxygen starvation before John accepts he's wrong. Parrot of Doom 00:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Not so much an edit war as a question of an admin throwing his weight around and making gratuitous threats to established and experienced editors. Emeraude (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A consensus now appears to be forming on WP:BLPN so hopefully that article will move forward soon. It's probably not in my best interests to criticise a longstanding editor and admin who has recently been incredibly helpful with a FAC I'm struggling with. Nevertheless I think it would be beneficial to the community and to his own standing for John to realise that what he did was contentious and debatable enough to be considered a use of administrator tools while in a content dispute, and hence a violation of WP:INVOLVED. I don't see anyone upthread challenging that notion. Ritchie333 12:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi

User:Winkelvi — who follows me around Misplaced Pages, has cursed at me, has made repeated harassing posts on my talk page after I asked him to stop, and has made numerous snide comments to me at at BLP Noticeaboard discussion — has now written a long personal attack on me on his user page. . Not mentioning my username is not a defense when numerous editors who have been involved in the discussion can identify that he's referring to me. And in any case, what is the purpose of that screed, other than to personally attack another editor? His comment "continually and obsessively updating their edit count and editor ranking position" — basic housekeeping; why should that bother him? — shows he goes to check out contributions and keeps and eye on where and what I edit!

I've edited on Misplaced Pages for 9 1/2 years with a virtually impeccable record and much goodwill. I've mentored many editors and could call on a dozen fellow editors, including a couple of admins, to vouch for my good works. As can happen in 9 1/2 years, I was involved in a dispute in June in which the other user repeatedly cursed me with the f-word after my very polite posts on his talk page , . He did so again and again , , and was verbally abusive even when Misplaced Pages rules required my notifying him of things like 3RR warnings and ANI .

The whole incident left me so frustrated I remained away from Misplaced Pages until November. Within days of my returning Winkelvi was back on my talk page to bait me. When I responded on his talk page he first bragged about how he told me "fuck off" in June, and then began cursing me again freshly: . And then even after being asked to stay off my talk page, he came at me again, with more false charges .

Within an hour of my posting on a noticeboard, he's there . Fine: Even if it's not advisable to comment on a noticeboard to an editor you've antagonized and cursed at, it's not disallowed. But then he follows me around to other editors' pages where I do not mention him . And I'm not even listing all the diffs on the noticeboard where he makes uncivil comments and tells me has every right to curse me out since "Misplaced Pages is not censored and cursing is allowed," , even though that guideline refers to quotes within articles — it's not blanket permission to curse out other editors. The "chew on that awhile" comment he added to that edit was gratuitous, not to mention needlessly mean-spirited.

Is he going to be allowed to keep the personal attack on me on his user page? And is there any way to stop this cursing, uncivil editor from following me around, going to my talk page and harassing me? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just chiming in to note how Winkilevel has treated @Lithistman: I recall an exchange from October where Lihistman removed a non-constructive comment from his page to have Wink slap an automated message on the talk page . This was after he two users had been engaged in a contentious discussion at BLPN.
• More recently, he engaged in a pretty petty edit war on Breaking Bad (see history) and showed nothing but hostility on the article's talk page (see thread).
• Given this and evidence above, I think this may be a textbook case of WP:NOTHERE. -- Calidum 20:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• With respect to your first bullet, it was an automated but personalized message, and I believe he was referring to the edit summary (trolling). As for your second bullet, you were involved in the edit war and in the discussion (I'm not going to read all of it). From this report and these two "incidents", you conclude that WV is WP:NOTHERE? That's a bit much.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• Whatever else is going on (perhaps an IBAN is indicated here?), I disagree on your NOTHERE assessment. §FreeRangeFrog 22:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I do think an IBAN between Winkelvi and Tenebrae should be made official before things get further out of hand. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I support a two-way interaction ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

While may not be entirely NOTHERE, this is a pretty serious bullying case that looks like it has been way beyond this specific instance. Chunk5Darth (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of full-disclosure, Bbb23 is not an uninvolved editor/admin. He hid some of my and Winkelvi comments from a current discussion yet allowed Winkelvi to retain his taunt that I was "getting panties in a wad." . There is no excuse for that kind of favoritism or for an admin to even countenance that kind of consciously vulgar, deliberately uncivil language from one editor to another. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As has unfortunately often been the case in this back-and-forth between Tenebrae and WV, Tenebrae is wrong on many points. Although there was obviously baggage between the two users before I got sucked into it, it started for me because I reverted Tenebrae over WP:DOB. After we went round and round on my talk page, I suggested he take it to BLPN. He did, and last I checked (not lately), not a single editor agreed with Tenebrae. I stayed out of the policy discussion and hatted two times when WV and Tenebrae were bickering about each other as opposed to about the policy. Admittedly, WV's language is blunt, forceful, colorful, abrasive, and, as Tenebrae rightly says, often uncivil, but Tenebrae wasn't helping. He can't seem to accept that Misplaced Pages is, for better or for worse, full of editors like WV, and you either ignore them or put up with it. The second hatting is the one he complained about, and I explained to him on my talk page (where he complained some more) why I left the "panties in a wad" comment unhatted, but Tenebrae was having none of it. In any event, even without knowing all the history of the two users, I could see that the best result would be an interaction ban. But apparently Tenebrae wants more. He wants everything he deems objectionable to be cleaned up or removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have a very similar opinion to Winkelvi's about this slavish addition of celebrity minutiae that has absolutely no encyclopedic value. I mean seriously, what significance does say Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's child have in, well, anything? As for a personal attack, how is it exactly a personal attack? Is Winkelvi's opinion, indirectly or directly, on how you spend your time really relevant to you personally? It shouldn't be. Should you take so grievously? Only if you're a bit too sensitive to other people's opinion. I could see that, from WV's perspective, your posts were not polite so much as patronising. Whether they should be taken them as such is debatable, similar to whether you should consider their "screed" as a personal attack. There's obviously a lot of ruffled feathers now, so a two way interaction ban is the only obvious course. Blackmane (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

My intention for the moment is to respond only in part as I am quite busy in real life away from Misplaced Pages and probably won't have time to get evidence, diffs, and the like together in short order. I don't want anyone to get the impression I am uninterested in this filing and have nothing to say in the way of a "defense" of myself and answering these accusations as well as addressing concerns of others commenting.

I have to admit, I'm pretty surprised Tenebrae brought things here. Surprised, because his accusations of harassment, following him, and uncivil behavior are all pretty hollow claims when you look at his history and participation in this "baggage" (as Bbb23 rightly called it).

Above, Tenebrae talked quite a bit about how terrific he is and how long he's been here, about how he was wronged in June, how he stayed away until November out of fear and discouragement, etc., etc. In so doing, however, he has painted a very skewed and one-sided picture that leaves out his uncivil behavior and language when communicating with me, his uncivil behavior and language when referring to me in discussions where I'm not present and completely uninvolved, repeated visits to noticeboards and administrator talk pages to complain about me and practically beg for some kind of sanction to be placed on me. He leaves out how he has followed me to articles and talk pages. He left out how -- after I had told him I wanted him to stay off my talk page six months ago -- he still posted there just recently. He has made situations about what happened between us six months ago when what happened six months ago didn't even need to be mentioned or didn't apply at all. He has manipulated the truth, he has outright lied about me, he has tried to turn other editors and administrators against me. He even accused me of making a legal threat (which I did not, and he was told by an administrator that I did not). He has been working very hard to see me punished because of what happened six months ago. He has been told to drop that stick, but he insists on continually picking it up. Only he knows why.

I do agree with Bbb23 that Tenebrae will not be happy no matter what is decided here because what he wants is beyond what is reasonable or even truly actionable.

Do I think myself blameless? No. I am certain there are things I can do better and differently. I learned from this "baggage" and from this report that I should re-evaluate some of the ways I do things in Misplaced Pages. I understand that from looking at what Tenebrae has presented here that I probably look like a complete jerk. But I know I'm not a complete jerk. I am a good content and copy editor and have a history of doing good here just as Tenebrae does. Further, I come nowhere near WP:NOTHERE as another editor has weirdly suggested. More importantly, I know I've not been the person/editor Tenebrae has painted me to be and I also know that I can avoid interacting with Tenebrae without a formal/official interaction ban. I don't know if he can do the same, I would hope the adult he poses himself to be (a professional biographer with education and academic credentials) would have that kind of self-restraint.

That's all I have time for right now. I will be back either within a few hours or sometime tomorrow to produce diffs and the like to support the things I stated above that are likely to be challenged. I ask for the community's patience in giving me some time to do that. My schedule in real life is quite packed right now. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Well, that's a fine bunch of namecalling all around, and it's amusing (for ANI regulars) to see HiLo and LHM thrown into the mix, in an early response to this thread (shout out!). I agree that Winkelvi has a tendency to come out way too strong (and I don't say that just because they told me to fuck off too, a while ago), but NOTHERE is a silly overreaction. Maybe a two-way interaction ban is helpful; at any rate, I thank Bbb23 for their hatting on that BLPN discussion (it's still open! any takers?), and I hope that admins will more frequently nip such unhelpful conversations in the bud, not just by hatting but also by deleting.

  Anyway, Tenebrae also is colorful enough; referencing the BLPN discussion, they refer to those who want to get rid of the celeb's children's DOBs as "extremists", who "hide" information--I don't want to make too much of it, but that's a serious lack of AGF. If "getting your panties in a wad" is a blockable or bannable choice of words we're going to run out of editors real soon. In short, Winkelvi is a decent editor who, I believe, is working on their general interaction skills and I see no reason for any official, formal action. If anything, though I admit Winkelvi's tone probably doesn't invite it, I urge other editors/admins to point out to them when they're going too far--informally, with a note on their talk page. I'm sure that's all that's necessary. The AGF I extend to Winkelvi extends to Tenebrae as well, with whom I remember good interactions, but I can't help but sense a bit of frustration here. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Can we at least agree that Winkelvi's latest addition to his userpage, which reads in part "there are those who view it (Misplaced Pages) as a repository for information on celebrities - including every bit of ridiculous and unencyclopedic fan-garbage and trivia that can be found and replicated here. There are editors who have made Misplaced Pages their reason for being, continually and obsessively updating their edit count and editor ranking position while racking up tens-of-thousands of edits that in reality mean nothing because...(wait for it)...someone will come along and change what you just added or deleted. I think this qualifies for the pop-culture definition for insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over again while, each time, expecting a different result," is problematic as a violation of WP:POLEMIC? -- Calidum 05:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree, unfortunately. I have reverted that edit. Sorry Winkelvi, but POLEMIC indeed covers this kind of material. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

And I thank you for that. As for Bbb23: no, you reverted another editor at Tom Hanks, and I very politely questioned your reasoning. Bbb23 told both of us that WP:DOB prohibited something and I pointed out that, in fact — as one or two other editors noted at the BLPN discussion — it does not say what he claomed it did. So: Because I disagreed with him, he now he brings up extraneous commentary about BLP issues that have nothing whatsoever do with Winkelvi's

• repeated f-bombing me , . , .
• following me around Misplaced Pages, . .
• coming to my talk page when I've asked him not to,
• posting an attack screed on his user page, and
• using what Bbb23 concedes can be "abusive" and "uncivil". Bbb23's smoke-screening deliberately obfuscates the fact that we have a verbally abusive, harassing and extremely volatile person in Winkelvi. I'm sorry and confused to see an admin feel the need to defend such a person. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• Administrators should take note of the history of, shall we say "gruffness" that has been a cornerstone of Winkelvi's talkpage banter for some time. A quick examination] of exchanges he had with numerous editors on the 2014 Oso mudslide including myself were bad enough that even though I had created that article, I took it off my watchlist so I didn't end up going into F-U territory.--MONGO 16:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

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

• Two-way indefinite interaction ban between Winkelvi and Tenebrae. Additionally, neither user should edit a page right after the other does. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Blackmane (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Avono (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I am looking at the above thread, and am skipping over all the aspersions that aren't supported by diffs. One diff is most prominent: This form of discourse is unacceptable on Misplaced Pages, and should have resulted in a block, but it's stale by now so I will just warn Winkelvi not to repeat that sort of thing. An IBAN is cheap and easy, but it isn't supported by any evidence. I don't see diffs showing problematic edits by Tenebrae. As a result I am closing this thread now, before it comes to an unjust result. If you want to make a case to IBAN Tenebrea, please post diffs showing why such is needed. Waving your hands and saying "we all know what's going on" isn't sufficient. If it's that obvious you should have no problem providing a few exemplary diffs. For the moment, I am to advise both editors not to needle the other. Should there be further needling, come to my talk page and I will deal with it directly. If that won't make you happy, come to AN/I and take your chances on both getting sanctioned. Finally, I remind all participants in this discussion not to say bad things about any editor without providing evidence in the form of diffs or links, lest your comment be characterized as a personal attack. You may refactor your remarks to include diffs or to strike assertions that aren't supported by the evidence presented. Jehochman 15:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support two-way indefinite interaction ban between Winkelvi and Tenebrae as suggested above. While IBANs are not blocks, "preventative rather than punitive" is still a good idea; the idea is not to punish either Winkelvi or Tenebrae, but to prevent further disruption of normal, productive editing. Both Winkelvi and Tenebrae are capable of being good editors, and the fights between them are distracting them both; indeed, at this point, they're also distracting other Wikipedians. This ANI thread, and the previous one, are ample proof of that.
  Maybe a one-way IBAN would be sufficient; maybe not. A mutual IBAN is simpler, leaves less questions for later and seems to have plenty of supporters here. I'm not going to sort through all of Tenebrae's recent edits to find evidence of "problematic edits"; the idea of the mutual IBAN is not to punish him, but to end all this drama so he and others here can concentrate on improving the encyclopedia. Sideways713 (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a stigma associated with any sort of ban. If you want your opinion to carry weight, please find some diffs showing that Tenebrae needs such a sanction. I have spoken with both editors already and counseled them to avoid each other, and they seem to have agreed. I am hoping to avoid the stigma of sanctioning either one, but if the community feels otherwise, I will enact a sanction if there is evidence to support the votes. Jehochman 18:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I know Tenebrae quite well and Winkelvi not really at all so I will get this out of the way: I have always found Tenebrae to be amiable and constructive, but that's not to say Winkelvi is not; I simply have had very little interaction with him. On that basis I am not a complete neutral although I have not been involved in their disputes.

I am not really convinced there is harrassment going on. There is clearly a lot of bad blood, but I not convinced either editor is stalking or baiting the other. Here are some interaction diffs which cut through to the heart of the debate: , , , , . There seems to be a fundamental disagreement about how to apply several BLP policies. I can't find much evidence of harrassment. I do think there is a civility issue though. Here are some responses by Winkelvi to editors besides Tenebrae: , , , . Those are just edit summaries where Winkelvi tells people to "f*** off". This may be explained by Winkelvi's Aspergers condition.

It seems there are two issues: one is how Tenebrae and Winkelvi go about resolving this particular BLP dispute (DR is an obvious avenue here if it hasn't been attempted yet), and the other is Winkelvi's combative nature when editors approach him on his talk page. I don't really have any good suggestions for the latter but perhaps if Winkelvi agreed to stop swearing at people then it would be a step forward. Betty Logan (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

EChastain SPI and ad hominems

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

Not much to report, no rush on this needed, but could another sysop please look at this SPI. I, and a few others, have listed some evidence that EChastain is the return of another user. Whether they have done that within policy or not is up for discussion but there is some evidence of a failed clean start, from my perspective. EChastain has taken to making some personal attacks such as that I am incivil or WP:Involved. The remarks have continued on the SPI where I am accused of having an agenda. When I pressed a reason why EChastain would think I am involved or have an agenda, and that they supply diffs, they replied that they have no idea how their allegations are true, but they made them nontheless. Despite that, they are unwilling to strike the accusations. Would appreciate if someone could ask EChastain to either substantiate the accusations against me, or to quit bothering me and focus on disputing the diffs and evidence I have presented against them.--v/r - TP 01:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think they misunderstand what is being attempted. I think it would be best for the evidence to be evaluated as soon as possible as it has lasted longer then it should. I think the striking accusations part is something that User:TParis should ignore. Two things are here, 1 Tparis is right in which case it's WP:RBI or TParis is wrong and this is normal anxiety of an innocent editor. Either problem is solved with a positive or negative finding. I think a discussion would be a good thing though, I have encouraged it from the start of the conversation on this SPI. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally care either way, but they keep blasting up my talk page.--v/r - TP 02:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It all boils down to this (for those who may be interested) Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell. Multiple editors have told EChastain to just drop it but based on her edit history: she has done nothing but post there recently. I do not think it is Sue but TParis is right with his returning editor comment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd also say that Echastain has, like many editors, a fundamental misunderstanding as to the use of WP:INVOLVED in the wiki-context. They should definitely strike the allegations unless diffs are forthcoming, saying something along the lines of "You've got it in for me, I don't know how to prove it so you need to show me the evidence of this" is ridiculous. Blackmane (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have just reverted a clear personal attack by EChastain on that SPI. TParis, you've kept your cool--please continue to do so. There's a slight aroma of humanity in your "thank you for clarifying" comment: an admin should not betray frustration. EChastain, I am not going to post a template on your talk page since this ping should suffice: no more personal attacks, please, since you're in blockable territory. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• As notifications are user configurable, pinging is not a reliable means of communicating a message to another editor. "Old school" (user talk page) is still best for that. NE Ent 10:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

EChastain has been accused by Misplaced Pages of being a liar. That's about as ad hominem as you can get. Some of the evidence presented is evidence that they are not a new user, a fact they had already stipulated on their talk page prior to the filing. . That accusation was made seven days ago, and remains hanging, unresolved. So who's not "dropping the stick?" Now I understand WMFs Wikimedia:Privacy policy puts us in a very difficult position, in that two logical consequences of it are: a). We will have socks, always, and b). we have very limited resources in which to identify such. "Behavioral evidence" is essentially a fancy word for "we're forced to make our best guess." Obviously, while flawed -- does anyone really doubt we're going to have both false positives and false negatives? -- it's an unfortunate necessity as we can't allow people to vote twice in our "consensus is not voting" discussions. I also get that, as a volunteer staffed activity, SPI will sometimes backlog. So could we please, possibly treat EChastain with some empathy and compassion? NE Ent 10:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think she is a bad editor, I just wish that she would stay away from the SPI. EChastain is clearly is not Sue so why she is wasting her time there is beyond me. I had been encouraging her to edit some articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion, Knowledgekid87, but your welcome to your opinion. @NE Ent, per WP:NPA, I have substantiated the claims. ECHastain has not. It's a simple matter of enforcing policy. My comments above are that she must "either substantiate the accusations against me, or to quit bothering me". I don't believe that is an unreasonable request, do you? Does your compassion allow others to retaliate without any evidence to support their accusations?--v/r - TP 16:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Well what is there to gain by socking here? Sue isn't currently blocked. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• TP, I looked and while there is some evidence to support your thesis, I didn't think there was enough to justify a block under the circumstances. If EC causes future trouble, feel free to ask me to have another look. EC would be wise to avoid further conflicts. The arbitration case has closed. I think it would be smart for all who got into heated conversations about those matters would give a general amnesty to everybody else, and move on. Jehochman 19:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, Jehochman. EChastain and I don't overlap (that I am aware of) so likelihood is that I'll never see them again.--v/r - TP 19:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• EChastain has left Misplaced Pages. or in her words "driven off". Nothing more to see here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Alexander Prokhanov article: tagging/untagging

Please check the article's recent history. The 'neutrality' tag is being removed by the contributors who on the talk page try to accuse me of things I have nothing to do with. The reasons why I find the article biased are all there too. -- Evermore2 (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Things have calmed down, a more constructive dialogue is taking shape, so this topic might be safely closed. I'm going to start expanding the article soon and foresee some complications, but hopefully we'll be able there to keep the bloodshed to a minimum :) -- Evermore2 (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Neer87 and Qnet

User:Neer87 is attempting to remove unflattering material from the article Qnet.--KTo288 (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have left a warning on their talk page and notified them of this discussion. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I put the notification on the wrong page.--KTo288 (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• I suspect a COI and will put the appropriate template on their page. It certainly seems like their only interest is whitewashing; I suggest further such edits be met with a block and given that this is an SPA, that can be an indefinite NOTHERE block. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man again violating IBan

• Just a quick couple of notes, before this is archived, to prevent this from being revisited in a day/week/month etc:

  Clarification needed: just need to take the advice of others here, and ignore TRM's harassment henceforth - no such acknowledgement exists, no such "harassment" has been acknowledged by any single person other than the complainant.

  Clarification needed: That's not necessary. I will simply ignore TRM's harassment henceforth - no such "harassment" has been acknowledged by any party other than the complainant.

  Clarification requested: I have been putting up with this stuff all year - what "stuff"? "all year"? What? Diffs?

• It's apparent that some folks are really keen to chat about me, even though they shouldn't and the IBAN prevents them from doing so. But one of the complainants has started this thread, got to the point where enough opposition has occurred, and then closed it when it became a bit difficult because so many people objected to current approach. I'd prefer to keep this open and explore the best way to stop this happening again. We've had one suggestion, to prevent this ongoing harassment and baseless accusation to be met with a topic ban. I'm only exploring this avenue because I know that I'm being threatened with further trips to ANI in a month or so from one or more of the complainants. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the IBan is unfortunate and not very practical when it comes to WP:ITN/C as both you and medeis comment, discuss, and vote on many items there, inevitably leading to an artificial situation when you're discussing the same aspect of an argument.

With regards to the reference desk, I have often seen you lodge a strongly generalized complaint of its weaker moments, but when other editors reply that they (and yet others) do try to stay on topic and add serious and referenced factual replies, your answer is sometimes (paraphrased) : "I don't mean you personally, I mean generic you." As I don't recall seeing you addressing any editors by name, I get the impression that you mean medeis and Baseball Bugs. (Else you should give examples/diffs, beyond linking to an entire thread with all sorts of replies, including factual and referenced ones). Is IBan stopping you from straight talk? If so, I do think it would be better for you to refrain from that kind of criticism unless you give concrete examples that don't involve medeis an Baseball Bugs. Unfortunately you just come across as a wet blanket when dropping your diffuse downers at the desks.

Actually my suggestion is to lift this IBan, for the three of you to realize how silly this is, and find a way to co-exist and even interact without personalized conflict, but also without being kept on a leash. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

None of that actually addresses the points I've raised, but thanks for your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As long as the users in question are welcome at the RD and the IBAN is in effect, this issue is likely to arise again, and again. To effectively edit there almost guarantees the users will have to interact, in some manner. Moreover, the desk, and what goes on there, seems to be a point of contention among these users - and unlike an article, the desk will never stabilize to a more "finished" version, so it is unlikely the situation will resolve itself with time. To that end, I suggest, since all three should be given equal consideration, that each be topic banned from the desk or that the IBAN be removed. While a strong step, in either direction, it appears the same disruption will continue till one of those steps is taken.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It won't arise with me, because after this section is closed, I will be ignoring him in future. I believe my efforts at the ref desk have improved in the last year, and that I can no longer be complained about in the way that TRM still does. Evidence is that no one else has griped at me for many months now. That in itself is a good sign. I also don't see any reason to ban either of the other two parties from the ref desk. Medeis is a wealth of knowledge on many subjects. And when TRM is not grousing, he makes good contributions to the ref desks. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I, to an extent, agree and am not necessarily pushing for a ban. However, I do believe that if the IBAN cannot be successfully lifted and if all involved cannot interact in a more civil manner, then the only reasonable step is a ban, of all involved, from the desk. Elsewise, there will always be room for some insinuation the IBAN has been violated; or you all, haphazardly, in your own way, play out what is, effectively, the same end anyway (though, that is just as likely to cause more disruption). Thus, we should either drop any formal restrictions or push them to their logical conclusion, lest we stay in an uncomfortable and tedious middle.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I concur that the IBAN should be nullified. It was imposed sometime in January past, and was to be formally revisited no sooner than a year later. So come the anniversary, editors on ANI could decide whether to lift the ban or not. (It was not an ArbCom ban.) If it can't be, then everyone subjected to it should simply try to do better. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree and think that would be the best direction to go in:-) Are we able to handle that here or do is a new section needed to proceed with reconsidering, and hopefully removing, the IBAN?Phoenixia1177 (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It originated from ANI, as I recall. I'm not sure the minimum of one year is cast in stone, as "consensus can change". You could formally pose the idea here and see if it flies. I suspect the three involved parties would all be in favor of either dropping or altering the IBAN, but they should speak for themselves. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I will open the matter tonight when I am in front of an actual computer again, and notify all three involved.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, Baseball Bugs has indicated that he wants the IBAN dropped in order to stage yet another assault on me, i.e. so that he has carte blanche to dig up as much dubious dirt as he possibly can, including any dubious references to him (and/or the other person involved in the IBAN), just as we have seen, what, eight times here at ANI? Personally, I would like the IBAN to remain firmly and indefinitely in place. That said, it's worth noting that both of the other parties just open an ANI thread whenever they feel desperate to talk about me. I have done no such thing, despite noting the tag-teaming and email vendettas. Status quo should stay. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Secondly, the point of me continuing this thread was to ensure that the claims made by Baseball Bugs just before he closed the thread were completely untrue and based in no way in fact. This is important because when the next thread which he starts in a week or month or so, this will no doubt be used as "evidence", yet there is nothing that substantiates any of his claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, no matter whether the IBAN is retained or dropped, I will never again file a complaint against TRM. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing/potential spamming by a user

Please see this contribution left on my talk page which was left on m talk page and evidence here that the user has left the same message on other users talk pages. Sport and politics (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure this is what is meant by canvassing, since the user actually asks for help improving the encyclopedia instead of support for any position in any discussion. Kleuske (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) P.S. It's customary, nay, required to notify the editor in question. Moreover, it is usually helpful to talk to that editor first. WP:ANI is a last resort, not a first. Kleuske (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Well it's still a proposal but I'm not seeing where the notices are problematic. Neither of the prior discussions (if you can call them that) had much input at all. I'd suggest that the user do it as a proper RfC which notices many different places. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the reason that I posted notices on Sport and politics' and some other Wikipedians' talkpages is that the Community Portal's helpout section needs more blocks to better reflect English Misplaced Pages's current problems and there were only one Wikipedian replied to my post, meaning that most Wikipedians do not know or neglect this issue, not because I want to spam.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC) 09:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC) fix

Please revert edit to protected template

Pigsonthewing recently edited the protected Template:Infobox university‎. I appreciate his boldness but I object to the edit. I also appreciate him opening a discussion in Talk but it seems contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages, particularly WP:BRD, for an editor with elevated privileges to make a controversial edit to a protected article and for us to retain that edit over the objections of other editors without the necessary editing privileges. Can an administrator please revert this edit until we can come to a consensus in Talk? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

He has already self-reverted. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations by User:Doraemon25

Doraemon25 has been warned in the past about copyright violations (here, here and here) and was given a final warning here. Nevertheless, he/she continues to add copyright material to articles: this from here, this from here. There's been no talk page response to any of the various warnings. I suggest that a stronger message is now needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Thank you for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Scalhotrod|Scalhotrod refuses to accept reference that refutes his point of view and makes unreasonable demands

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

Scalhotrod refuses to accept reference that refutes his point of view and makes unreasonable demands. User:Scalhotrod is apparently on a crusade to eliminate U.S. War Department publication "Tactical and Technical Trends No. 57, April 1945, Machine Carbine Promoted" from http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html because it completly refutes his point of view. The lonesentry.com site is a well establish internet resource proving digital copies of government documents. A simple Google search reveals that it is widely used as source material in many articles, books and other publications (with approximately 80,000 hits). I then composed a list of the first 25 books that popped-up using lonesentry.com material as sources. Scalhotrod rejected the list, denounced the writers stating that "Authors want to make money too" and demanded that I produce additional evidence. I now believe that Scalhotrod is toying with me and that no evidence will satisfy him. Below is a copy of the relevant conversation on the StG 44 talk page.--RAF910 (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone give a clear explanation as to why this is anything other than a content dispute, and thus not an appropriate topic for WP:ANI? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer if it went to the Reliable Source Noticeboard, but I agree with Andy's assessment. RAF910 is misreading the situation. I'm simply asking why a personal website that claims to post reprints of government documents, but does not reference scans or photostats of the original material and that posts a warning that its content may not be accurate, is considered reliable. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone give a clear explanation as to why this is anything other than a content dispute, and thus not an appropriate topic for WP:ANI? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=StG_44&diff=636928610&oldid=636899868 shows that User:Scalhotrod removed a significant amount of referenced information from the Stg 44 page. And is edit warring with the following edits https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=StG_44&diff=635791855&oldid=632697804 & https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=StG_44&diff=next&oldid=636955686--RAF910 (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that Scalhotrod had only made 4 edits to the article in question, and has not reverted your restoration of the disputed material, I think it would be difficult to support a claim of edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk)

It's 5 now , I'm trying to improve the sentence structure and wording of the first sentence in the Lead. The use of the phrase "assault rifle" 3 times in a row in the same sentence seemed a bit much. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I second the content-dispute characterization. Glrx (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Large group of socks/meatpuppets adding slavery content

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

This morning I can across a large number of SPA accounts adding nearly identical text to a large number of articles. Is anyone familiar with this issue? Some of the behavior suggests the user(s) are familiar with editing Misplaced Pages, so I am wondering if there's a known sockmaster out there where these should be added. Here are the ones found thus far today - and new socks continue to be created every few minutes and taking up the activity:

• Nounteeth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Knjiga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Brocklake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Platonion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Sumonelse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Sarahgeorgewa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Atorfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Avillamarink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• M6k2c5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Shabbababbajabba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Franca1962 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• MikriFilos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Yavannie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Ryan baillargeon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

My main concern here is with the sock behavior and the disruption caused by it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Note, six more throw-away SPA socks have been used since the initial report, less than ten minutes ago. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Could this be perhaps some sort of unregistered (but good faith) school project to edit Misplaced Pages? Just an idea. --Jayron32 19:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• What Jayron32 says was my first thought as well--but as I'm looking at the text I have this deja vu sensation, that I removed something like this (and possibly blocked a editor) a couple of weeks ago. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Googling the last user name on that list (Ryan baillargeon) suggests this is not some school project but an advocacy campaign. The individual's LinkedIn profile is pretty conclusive. CIreland (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm suspecting some off-site solicitation of an advocacy campaign as well. I was just contacted on my talk page by 3rdWorldkid (talk · contribs), who has also made one of these edits. They indicated that they had "undertook the edit on behalf of the Walk Free campaign".

I asked for clarification and pointed the user towards this discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

3world Kid (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC) If you take a look at the reference to the entry, the Walk Free Foundation is mentioned and linked with the basis of the research shown. There was never any attempt to spam Misplaced Pages but rather to create awareness on the sites of a large number of countries that there is still slavery existing within its borders. If I had had any idea that this was against the rules, I should not have done it. The studies made are quite authoritative and the citation is clear.

I would like to echo what 3rdworldkid has said, and repeat, that even though this seams as slightly spamy with hundreds of similar edits, the study cited, and source are authoritative, and this is a real issue.Rhinorulz (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

3world Kid (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC) I have sent an email to the organisers informing them of this discussion and that they should have taken up contact with monitors before and not caught you all by surprise. I am hoping that they are not too busy coordinating their campaign to reply. On the other hand, this is a really serious issue and, despite the inconvenience it causes you, there are many countries where such a notice would definitely be warranted.

And in most country articles this content would be undue weight. Please use article talk pages to discuss this addition before making it. --NeilN 20:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It seems like 3rdWorldkid (talk · contribs) and Rhinorulz (talk · contribs) are part of that same sock farm. — kikichugirl 20:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue is certainly serious (along with many others) - but that is no reason to ignore Misplaced Pages policies, and nor is a legitimate reason to copy-paste the same content into multiple articles in a manner that messes up the formatting (see for example here, where a 'modern slavery' header is added in the middle of a section, leading to the new section apparently including sections on 'Hydrocarbons', 'Labour market' 'Tourism' etc). Such careless and inconsiderate behaviour isn't going to result in anything other than reverts and blocks. I suggest that you inform whoever is behind this coordinated campaign that they need to stop now, before we have to resort to blacklisting their website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to not need to blacklist the website; but if the sockpuppetry and spamming continues, it may be necessary. Legitimate use of the url could still get approval via the WP:SWL on a case-by-case basis. It's an extra hastle, but the shear number of socks is rapidly making blacklisting look like the most viable option. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

With this diff here, another suspected sock - Neagle2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) — kikichugirl 20:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

3world Kid (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC) I think the remark of kikichugirl is highly inflamatory and uncalled-for. I regularly sign petitions with a number of sites working towards social and environmental change. There seemed no reason not to support an action like this, although I did not realise it had been so badly prepared. I can only apologise for the inconvenience caused and hope that relationships can be patched up.

• This is a concerted effort by (I think) the organization to which this is being sourced. A good samaritan forwarded a recruitment email to OTRS as a heads up about a week ago. I saw it but didn't handle it, and I can't get into OTRS right now, so someone might want to look it up. So it's likely these are all or mostly meatpuppets, not socks. I think this is a well-intentioned effort, but as usual they tend to run afoul of guidelines and policies, not to mention MOS issues and whatnot. I would say since they all have a COI (in a sense), they should be creating an edit request instead of doing it themselves. In some cases the information could be merited, but it depends on the context and the manner in which the information is added. §FreeRangeFrog 20:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Most of this information is more appropriate on the various Human Rights in Country articles, such as Human rights in Iran. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Now knowing of these other means, such as the edit request, I agree that this is spamy, I in my edit only noticed the improperly wrapped text, after submitting the first edit, and was in progress of re editing to fix the improperly wrapped section. I apologize at least for my part, and hope to be able still post legitimate edits. While I doubt they will listen to me, I'll send walk free a message.Rhinorulz (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

FreeRangeFrog made a good point, especially about the COI bit. I do think they shouldn't continue until something is worked out though. — kikichugirl 21:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• None of these accounts appear have been notified yet that anything is amiss (red linked talk pages). Under the circumstances, perhaps it would be appropriate to warn them all first as we are supposed with to with ANI reports (but not, incidentally, with SPI), give them 48 hours, and if there is no reaction, file a SPI with CU request. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

sockpuppet

There on the link I noticed one. How do I report it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingslove2013 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

What link? WP:SPI would be where you'd fill out a report, but you can go on and name the users and what evidence. Note that just reverting your edits is not considered enough to accuse someone of sockpuppetry (and can even be interpreted as a a personal attack). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kingslove2013: Yes, if multiple people revert your edits, it may mean that you're going against consensus. In that case, you should stop edit warring and engage them in discussion. If a disruptive user edit wars against consensus, gets blocked, and a new editor appears at the same article to resume the edit war (with the same rationales as the blocked editor), then it's reasonable to be suspicious. In this second case, there is behavioral evidence that can be cited at SPI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Threatening edit

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

Someone might want to check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Combined_Joint_Task_Force_-_Operation_Inherent_Resolve&oldid=637241382.Casprings (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Done.--v/r - TP 01:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

That seems like it should be reported to someone. Will it be?Casprings (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It's just some idiot with an internet connection and a poor grasp of spelling, those are a dime a dozen. I can't imagine needing to report it to anyone. Although @TParis:, you just blocked an IP indef as a VAO. I noticed because I made the same mistake a few days ago. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hoodie Allen vandalism

. . . is getting a bit out of hand. There seems to be at one SPA vandal that has earned a block, plus an edit summary attacking an editor that needs to be suppressed as offensive and defamatory. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit summary removed and Itmaddog blocked for vandalism. Hopefully resolved for the moment. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Lots of possible socks at Talk:Cultural Marxism#Re-proposal

I am seeing a-lot of accounts with few edits made outside of the topic area as well as new accounts. Now these could be innocent new editors but given the sensitive content I feel it is worth a look. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering the huge off-Misplaced Pages canvasing campaigns that have been going on for a month, this isn't hardly surprising. There is anything to be done. RGloucester — ☎ 03:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Persistent spammer

For about a year or so, a lot of turkish IPs have been spamming this article. Might be a good idea to semi-protect it. Eik Corell (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a month; let's see if they forget about it by this time in January. If not, we can always reprotect it. In general, this kind of request ought to go to WP:RFPP, by the way. Nyttend (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Tag-team / organized abuse by User:Elaqueate and User:Guerillero to WP:OWN Vani Hari

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

See Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AGuerillero&diff=637259199&oldid=637185720

Both Guerillero and Elaqueate are members of www.facebook.com/groups/foodbabearmy on which an off-wiki campaign to "retake Vani Hari's wikipedia page" has been organized.

Both are involved in an organized campaign to WP:OWN the page through abuse of Guerillero's admin buttons.

They even tag their discussion as "science socks", as if "science" were something to be opposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.63 (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not privy to the Facebook group discussion, but it's fairly obvious to me that "science sock" is shorthand for a specific person's sockpuppet. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Commentary in those discussions, including the user stating that they are "an admin on wikipedia" who "will handle the page", instructs their users that "shills of science babe" are supposedly coming to "change the article." It's pretty obvious that they mean that, when they say "science sock." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.63 (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

If it is true that Guerillero is organizing with an off-wiki group to use their admin account to influence the content an article or the direction of talk page discussion for that article, then they should be restricted by the community from using admin powers in any way related to the article. Deli nk (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I should add that the person they're talking about seems to be User:DavidPatrick70, who was blocked in February after a checkuser. Incidentally, it's considered good form to notify the people you're reporting on ANI. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

After reviewing the user's edits it looks like the same sort of situation. Elaqueate calls someone a "sockpuppet" (wikipedia for "shill" per Food Baby Army practice) to have them removed instead of simply pursuing normal, collegial discussions and dispute resolution procedures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.63 (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A cursory look at Elaqueate's edits show that when he's filed requests for sockpuppet investigations, it's been with good evidence. In one case, the user he was reporting had admitted to having edited Misplaced Pages under another account! So, I'm willing to assume good faith that when Elaqueate has made accusations of sockpuppetry, it's with cause and not just to stifle debate.

WP:Sock puppetry is the policy that covers use of multiple accounts. It's not inherently bad to use multiple accounts; however, a user cannot just create a new account to get around a block or other sanctions levied against an old account. That's abuse of multiple accounts, and the standard policy there is to block the new account if the old one was blocked. (Typically, the new account is blocked indefinitely, and if the old account is blocked for a defined period of time, the block is extended.) The policy covers misuse of multiple accounts by a single person acting alone or by a person conspiring to get a group of people to edit an article. Thus, any organized campaign to edit the article, as you alleged on the article's talk page, could be dealt with per the sock puppetry policy. —C.Fred (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I note that a user "Jytdog" on that talk page has just incivilly threatened me for bringing this up there as you suggested and repeatedly has tried to remove discussion of Elaqueate and Guerillero's coordinated disruption efforts from the talk page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.63 (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::::Additionally, if you're talking about a claim that someone was "blocked in february", any so-called checkuser evidence is necessarily stale. I can find no "disruption" in the edits of the user involved, which is why I believe (per the editing patterns of Elaqueate's past repeated use of "appeals to Guerillero" as a proxy to have targeted users blocked) that the conduct is a violation of wikipedia policy. Guerillero also maintains a sockpuppet account "In Actu" to avoid scrutiny of his actions when WP:INVOLVED in conflicts such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.63 (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of sockpuppets, IP, would you like to explain your relationship to Let's Have Some Science? You and he seem to have a rather overwhelming amount in common, including editing schedules, single topic of interest, and the people you think are awful. Please note that evading a block via IP editing isn't allowed. Even more so when you're banned under an earlier account and the account that's blocked was blocked for evading that ban. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Abortion - subject to sanctions- editing by MarieWarren

I am not a regular editor of abortion-related matters, and nor am I familiar with the workings of the various versions of sanctions applying to this subject area. That said ...

University and College Union is on my watchlist, so I noticed this edit by MarieWarren (talk · contribs) which added a new subsection "Sex-selective abortion" and the text "Through their affiliation with Abortion Rights, they support the position that abortion based on sex selection should be legalised." (no links, no sources). Looking into it I discovered the existence of the organisation Abortion Rights (I've created a redirect to one of the two groups which merged to form it), and that it campaigns "to defend and extend women's rights and access to safe, legal abortion", lists support from the TUC and many trade unions, and yes, in a pdf "Statement on sex-selective abortion", it opposes the criminalisation of sex-selective abortion, in the context of opposing any restriction on a woman's right to choose. I edited the section to change the title to "Abortion" and the text to

"UCU supports Abortion Rights which campaigns "to defend and extend women's rights and access to safe, legal abortion"; among its statements it opposes the criminalisaton of sex-selective abortion.

1. "Who we are". Abortion Rights. Retrieved 9 December 2014. We are delighted to have the support of ... UCU
2. "Statement on sex-selective abortion". Abortion Rights. 18 September 2014. Retrieved 9 December 2014.

which I thought was a neutral, sourced, statement (though possibly still giving undue weight to one single policy of Abortion Rights).

I discovered that the same editor had made her first 5 edits today (I'm using "her" because her username includes "Marie"), adding similar text to Trades Union Congress and 4 unions. Another editor had reverted her on Unite the Union; I could find no mention of National Union of Teachers on the Abortion Rights site so removed that information; I edited the Trade Union Congress (here)and UNISON (here) articles on the same lines as the UCU article.

Coming back to editing just now I find that she has edited the TUC article to change "opposes the legalisation of" (wording used in AR's leaflet) to "wishes to legalise".

I now see she has also added similar POV text to articles on several other unions (eg "The union campaigns for abortion on demand and the legalisation of sex-selective abortion ..." in this edit). She is adding a valid (though bare URL) reference to a TUC leaflet about abortion which includes the logos of 14 unions as well as the TUC and supports the Abortion Rights campaign.

I think that her singling out one policy among Abortion Rights' many statements, and misrepresenting it, is ... poor editing, at the least, but I'm stepping back at this point wary of the sanctions in this area. This editor's editing, in this delicate and sanctionable area, seems potentially problematic. PamD 17:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the user indefinitely under WP:ARBAB. Their edits have been entirely about political advocacy and not adhering to Misplaced Pages's sourcing and neutral point of view policies.--v/r - TP 19:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Scratch that. I've unblocked them. The new rules for discretionary sanctions require that she first receive an alert so I left one on her talk page.--v/r - TP 19:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Rolled back the remaining three edits. §FreeRangeFrog 19:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like 81.102.24.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) might be the same editor undoing the reverts. §FreeRangeFrog 22:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Might? I've warned, uh, them both. Bishonen | talk 23:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC).

Thank you PamD for those useful edits and inserting the referencing. I am still learning the referencing style and I don't always get it right. I do try to provide references for all of the information that I add.

Apologies to all for the reverts that may have been carried out by a friend that I was talking to. I have now explained to them how to set up a proper account.

Thank you EdJohnston. My statements on union campaigns were posted in order to demonstrate the range of topics that they aim to support. All statements of affiliation of unions can be supported by documentation. I do not, at any time, give a POV on whether the unions' campaigns should be supported or not. I do not give a POV on sex selection abortion. I merely state that they have these campaigns. I hope that you will allow knowledge of what the unions campaign for remain as edits to their wiki pages. Please don't ban me without further discussion on ways forward. MarieWarren (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Marie. The problem is that whoever edited from the IP reverted another user so as to reinstate your edits exactly, which does not look good, especially when it happens identically at two different articles. Please be aware of the rule against offsite recruitment to edit Misplaced Pages, and tell your friend about it: "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Misplaced Pages and supporting your side of a debate." If your friend does create an account, the same principle will still hold. Incidentally, may I ask if you're a new user, or have you edited Misplaced Pages under another account? You seem highly competent with Misplaced Pages markup right from your very first edit, which was yesterday. Bishonen | talk 14:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for the compliment about using markup. I am just copying the style I see. It takes me quite a while of looking at previews to get it right and I still make mistakes - particularly in terms of referencing. I have used other wikis before: http://tardis.wikia.com/ . There are so many rules about wikipedia. I had no idea about that one about recruitment. I had assumed that it would be best to get as many people as involved as possible. Obviously, I see now that isn't the case. I am taking some time now to study all the rules. It took me a while to find them. MarieWarren (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Long-term vandalism from Jeffco Public Schools

I recommend blocking IP edits between the range of 199.96.186.2 and 199.96.186.255. This IP range belongs to the Jeffco Public Schools system according to whois. While the school system owns 199.96.184.* - 199.96.191.*, the bulk of the vandalism seems to come from 199.96.186.* addresses (which I presume is probably allocated to one particular school in the district). While I have not examined all of the 500+ edits found in this X!'s tools report, less than 5% of ~100 or so edits I looked at were not obvious vandalism (or self-undoing of vandalism). Nearly all the non-obvious vandalism I found came from 199.96.186.1, which I image may be controlled by a school administrator.

Though this is pure conjecture, I strongly suspect that vandalism become "the thing to do" for kids at one particular school. This is evidenced by the fact that the flow of disruptive edits abruptly slow to a trickle at the beginning of June and resume in full force at end of August, which coincide with the start/end of a school year. While most of the disruptive edits are obvious quickly reverted by bots or self, there were also many edits which were subtle changes in dates and trivial details that have lingered for many months before being corrected. I have not even completely ruled out that the "school administrator" edits are not vandalism because I'm not familiar enough with the geography of Honnavar‎.

Because there has been sustained vandalism over the course of several months that resumed even after the kids lost access during their summer vacation, I recommend a long-duration block of at least 300 days (10 months), which would be roughly a month after the start of the next school year. Note that IP range, which has been controlled by the Jeffco district since 1998, does not appear to have edited Misplaced Pages prior to April 2014, meaning that we're unlikely to block a significant number of real contribution even if we extend the block to multiple years. —CodeHydro 19:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the range 199.96.186.0/24 for 7 months (212 days) to take us through to the end of the school year. I will follow up in the fall when school resumes to see if the activity resumes at that point. Thanks for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible issues in Shooting of Michael Brown

There is currently a discussion at ANI regarding continued hostility. Thank you. —Roches (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Cwobeel has been very active on Shooting of Michael Brown, and has made some comments that are rather uncivil. Some comments regard deletion of content; this was done in the process of updating an article and adjusting the length of the section to fit better with the 'big picture' at this point in time. Some comments regard the policies on primary and secondary sources. (I don't think a neutral point of view is best served by requiring multiple secondary sources interpret a straightforward primary source, and I don't think it's appropriate to quote arbitrarily selected opinion pieces.)

I've tried to work on the article, and I did make some bold and entirely good-faith edits. Apparently this is being interpreted as a lack of understanding of the rules and a desire on my part to deliberately remove content. That's just not the case.

Sections involved:

Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#Shooting scene diagram

Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#Grand jury hearing section

Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#Wholesale deletion of relevant material

Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#Collaborating, OR, and inline attributions

There was also a comment on Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Source_bombing, which seems to be representative of the issues. Roches (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to attempt changing Misplaced Pages policies by engaging in a discussion such as this one. But you are not welcome to start editing articles in which you dismiss Misplaced Pages core policies and do whatever you want in contradiction with key policies. You are deleting well sourced material. You are also deleting key reporting, just because you believe journalists got it wrong. This is totally unacceptable and disruptive. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

None of the quotes are disputes I'm involved in Really? As for your arguments about using primary sources instead of secondary sources, it is exactly the opposite of what we do here in Misplaced Pages. You have a lot to learn. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No matter what I say on the talk page, I keep getting replies that are worded as if I'm completely ignorant of all of the policies.

Roches (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Roches, at least twice you have said something very ambiguous and then became insulted because multiple editors misinterpreted your ambiguous words. You also implied that we were idiots because we failed to read your mind. I'll admit to being a bit "short"—far from "hostile"—but I'll also maintain that that's a natural human reaction to the circumstances. I certainly wouldn't be caught wasting admin time with something like this, a petty squabble. I know from experience with this article and this group of people that we will work with you, but you should expect to lose some battles. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You keep getting responses that are worded as if you are ignorant of the policies, because the things you say completely contradict very well known policies. There are editors all over the spectrum of POV on this article. Cwobeel and I in particular I think come at most topics from a completely different angle. When everyone agrees that you are not following policy, thats a good sign that you are in fact not following policy. You HAVE deleted well sourced consensus-built material multiple times, you HAVE made repeated OR with statements such as "Objective facts from a primary source are not original research, and synthesis of objective facts when only one conclusion is possible is not speculation" when clearly there is quite a significant amount of analysis going on and there are easily identifiable "other conclusions". You continue to compound these errors with your most recent justification for WP:PRIMARY WP:OR being "An example would be the autopsy report, which is the work of a medical professional and makes all of the appropriate conclusions (and none of the inappropriate ones), as opposed to an article about the autopsy" which clearly indicates your analysis disagrees with secondary analysis which is completely prohibited by policy. You are very close to needing to be sanctioned either under WP:CIR or WP:TROLL, I can't tell for sure which one applies. Remember, when the WP:BOOMERANG hits you, you chose to bring this to ANI, not us. We were trying to work with you on the article talk page. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm definitely concerned about the article in general, not sure about the dispute. Most if not all of the pro-Wilson arguments are heavily disputed in text. Much of this article presents Pro-Brown arguments without counter point despite many arguments about inconsistencies existing: . There is some serious POV pushing going on in this article. The lead is especially troubling in which it gives a single line saying that the grand jury cleared Wilson and then three sentences critical of the ruling. In what world does a grand jury hold such little weight? In every part of the article, attempts are made to discredit Wilson and the grand jury and present a pro-Brown point of view uncontested. I'm sorry, but there is some serious misbehavior at this article.--v/r - TP 22:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of the grand jury, and, in particular, the prosecutor's actions, has been all over mainstream media. In contrast, far less in his defense. If someone adds something from a reliable source in his defense that we've missed, we don't remove it (subject to WP:DUE of course). Neutrality doesn't mean a 50-50 split, it means proportional to the sources. If anyone feels the balance is wrong, they are more than welcome to help improve that in a collaborative, not combative, manner. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

50-50 is one thing. The witness statements currently stand at 100-0. I just showed you five sources from the front page of a Google search about witness inconsistencies. Right now, you're not showing any attempt at balance, let along balance of the sources. Go through each witness statement, do you see any criticism of their consistency at all? Sorry, but your answer is far less than impressive and is the standard "my sources don't say any of that" mantra of a POV pusher. Not saying you are one, only saying that your reply is the kind of "I'm going to quote a policy instead of substantiate why the policy applies". I've substantiated. Sources exist, the witness section is completely barren of any criticism of the pro-Brown witnesses. I am referring to the exact same line of policy you are. I've demonstrated why I think it's being violated. Time for you or someone else to demonstrate why it's not. That's how discussion works. I don't need policies that I'm well aware of mindlessly quoted at me.

As it stands right now, the only combative attitude is the one quoting a policy at me without substantiating their argument based in that policy. And then calling me combative. Either dispute my claim or don't. But we're referring to the same exact line of policy and I'm arguing it's being violated.--v/r - TP 23:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you see the Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Accounts section which the entire intro section is about those inconsistencies? Gaijin42 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Despite that, there is still a paragraph and a sentence in Wilson's section critical of his comments.--v/r - TP 23:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop. I did not call you combative, any more than you called me a POV pusher. As I said, you or anyone else is welcome to help improve the article, and that is not done at ANI. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"I don't need policies I'm well aware of quoted at me" expresses my sentiments perfectly.

Generally, after having a policy quoted at me, I saw how something I said "clearly" shows that I don't understand the most basic points of policy. As was mentioned, as a scientist I'm used to working with primary sources, and I think I could use that experience to use primary sources in an article in a way that is consistent with policy. That could suggest a total and complete lack of understanding of basic policy. Rather than make that assumption on the talk page, it would have been better, I think, to let me try to do it in the article and then assess the results.

Another example is when I suggested the article was 'over-referenced.' That could be interpreted as if I'm saying I don't feel like including a bibliography in a term paper, or it could be interpreted as if I'm aware of when references are and are not required. It's sloppy and amateurish (yes, I'll say that) to cite seven sources for a sentence that says nothing more than "there were contradictions in witness testimony."

TParis, the "Wholesale deletion" section arose after I edited one of the witness accounts, "Construction worker". The account is wrong about the number of police officers that chased Brown, but I revised the section carefully trying to avoid stating the obvious fact that none of it really happened. The revision wasn't perfect, the response on the talk page was that I had disrespectfully destroyed the efforts of others. Rather than following BRD, what I got was a warning to follow BRD myself.

I do hope this isn't seen as a waste of time, because this is (or was) a high-traffic article, and it simply could have been much better done. Especially with respect to neutrality. The secondary sources in this case were extraordinarily biased on both sides. There was a chance for the Misplaced Pages article to present the facts objectively, but not if someone insists on making the article into a collection of quotations from various extremely biased sources. I was told at one point that "our job was to report what sources say" (possibly paraphrased). I don't see "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of quotations from mainstream journalists" or "Misplaced Pages is not a game about quoting and following the policies of Misplaced Pages" anywhere in policy, but my interpretation of and WP:5P seems to suggest that what it is is an objective and neutral source of information about everything. And also that the intent is to have people read and understand the results.

Again, I hope this isn't wasting time; that last paragraph especially seems soapbox-like, but I think it pertains to this article, especially if, as someone hinted, some of these editors work on news-related articles regularly. I was told in one of the replies that I have a lot to learn, which is true, but that is true of everyone. Roches (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

oops, can someone redact my edit summary ?

I did not phrase the edit summary appropriately here and would appreciated it if someone could redact it. While that is in fact what the allegations of ethical lapses have been, those allegations have been shown to be false from the very beginning and should not be presented otherwise. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

revdel'd. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User:4TheWynne keeps removing valid sources and is protecting a deceptive article

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

Note: I'm moving this discussion for the user to here from the archive page where they originally added it at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive855 --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I was told to find sources that clarify (against) the claims that "Rise against was formed as Transistor Revolt", Transistor Revolt was Formed as "Transistor revolt" and put out one release as "Transistor Revolt". "Rise Against" was formed as "Rise Against". So I did , they keep being reverted to say "rise Against was formed as Transistor Revolt" (they also incurred personnel changes) and now I am being wiki hounded. this person is following me around the web changing much of what I do . Funny thing for like 6 years Ive only experienced this behavior twice. . Rise Against didn't form as Transistor revolt , Transistor revolt formed as Transistor revolt . I added a valid source and the code was messed up and this person deleted it instead of fixing it . The Article is being written to seem as if a Band who formed in 2001 really formed years Earlier in 1999. though the band name and release was /is Transistor revolt . 73.193.195.69 (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

here is one page http://en.wikipedia.org/Rise_Against

this has been going on for a little while now 73.193.195.69 (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

here too they are calling it "disruptive editing" since when is whats valid and accurate "disruptive" 73.193.195.69 (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tim_McIlrath&action=history

User:4TheWynne keeps asking for editors to "protect" the False claims 73.193.195.69 (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Barek#Protecting_Rise_Against

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rise_Against&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Apokryltaros said it "contradicted claims" which it did Not

""Independent years (1999–2003) Rise Against was formed under the name Transistor Revolt in 1999<------

by former members of the bands 88 Fingers Louie and Baxter. The first lineup consisted of Tim McIlrath (vocals), Joe Principe (bass and vocals), Toni Tintari (drums), and Mr. Precision (guitar and vocals). Though the band never performed live with this lineup, it released a self-produced demo EP entitled Transistor Revolt in 2000, a year before signing with Fat Wreck Chords. Tintari left shortly after recording the EP, and was replaced by Brandon Barnes, after a short time with Dan Lumley of Screeching Weasel and Squirtgun as the drummer.

The band changed its name to "Rise Against" in 2001<--------

and released their first album, Unraveling (produced by veteran punk producer Mass Giorgini) on Fat Wreck Chords that same year. Mr. Precision left the band in 2001, and was replaced by Todd Mohney of The Killing Tree.

After touring in support of The Unraveling, the band returned to the studio in December 2002 to work on their second full-length, Revolutions per Minute (produced by Bill Stevenson and Jason Livermore at The Blasting Room), which was released in 2003. The band toured extensively in support of its first two records, opening for Sick of It All, NOFX, Agnostic Front, No Use for a Name, AFI, and Strung Out. In addition, Rise Against participated in the 2003 Warped Tour."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.193.195.69 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Esth270

Hello all, would an uninvolved administrator please review the dispute over the blocking policy as it is being applied to User:Esth270 by admin User:Doc_James. To prevent forking, please join in to the existing discussion on the other noticeboard here: Misplaced Pages:Education_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocking_students. Thank you, — xaosflux 03:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Outing attempt?

I think this is an WP:OUTING attempt? I've never dealt with anything like this before but it appears this is an attempt at harassment. Not sure of the next steps but would appreciate assistance. Champaign Supernova (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• It kind of looks like it and I've left a somewhat lengthy warning about why this is not kosher and what the appropriate measure would be if they think that you have a conflict of interest. Posting your potential real name and an insult is not the correct way to address COI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I responded on my Talk page. There was no COI accusation or implication made, no insult made, and no outing made. You are of course free to imagine whatever you like. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    • You called the user by a given name. What's your source for that given name? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
      • That's not an accurate report by 71.23.178.214. How is this , in reference to this not a COI implication? That's exactly what an implication is. And how is calling me "totally delusional" not an insult? As I've said before, if you want to accuse me of COI, please do so formally on the appropriate noticeboard. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
      • FYI, more odd accusations/comments from 71.23.178.214. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

IBAN Revisited: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, Medeis

I have very little experience here, so I apologize for any faults in my presentation. This thread is a continuation and extension of an earlier thread, here . Currently, there is a ban preventing TRM from interacting with BBB and Medeis, and vice versa. As mentioned in the original thread, there is concern that this ban has caused disruption, through arguments that it was being violated, as well as by limiting the effectiveness of these users in certain areas of shared interest; the last conjunct is what brings me to raise this issue, specifically the Reference Desk. All three editors are frequent participants at the RD, and since the RD is in an always on going state, there is always a high potential that they will cross paths. Moreover, given that the RD is currently looking into restructuring and reevaluating how it operates, as in , it is highly limiting that each of these users not be able to have a voice, since they are regulars there; and there many other instances on the talk page where it is overly limiting to not allow each user a voice in what is being discussed.

Given the above, I would argue that one of the following two courses be taken: the IBAN is lifted or all three editors are banned from the RD. The utility of the former follows from the above, in that the ban is unduly limiting given their involvement with the desks. As for the latter course: it appears very easy to construe actions and discussions on the desk as "interacting", and this has led to other threads here already, thus, as long as all three are welcome, problems are likely to continue. Moreover, it is awkward, and problematic, when it comes to any discussion on the RD's talk page since the involvement of one editor silences the others; and it makes having an open discussion very difficult as what constitutes "interaction" seems hard to brightly identify.

I do not have the authority to do so, but would hope that all involved are able to discuss, freely, in this thread (I'm not sure if that is already the case, could someone who does know clarify?). My own position would be that the ban be lifted, but that if disruption occurs from that removal, then some (or all) parties be banned from the RD (and other such mutual areas) as a next step.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep IBAN and instigate RD topic ban if consensus for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep IBAN - I doubt all parties will be removed from the Reference Desk, but TRM - would you willingly walk away to defuse the situation? Cutting your ties from that problematic area would probably be the best. Same for the other parties involved, but I don't want to lose good editors over this matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment 1 - Do what you want with the IBAN, but don't ban anyone from the ref desks. I will never file another complaint about TRM, nor will I interact with him anywhere, be it the ref desk or otherwise, once this discussion ends. It's worth pointing out that one of TRM's complaints about the IBAN was that it would prevent him from constructing an RFC/U against Medeis and/or myself. With IBAN lifted, he would be free to do so, if he still thinks it's necessary. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment 2 - As a compromise, you could consider a temporary ban from the ref desk talk page, which is where most of the problems seem to arise. Maybe 3 to 6 months, or whatever you all decide. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep IBAN and support TBAN. While this was not my original intent, if all parties do not want the ban removed, then I believe this is the correct one (change my vote to the original if all three do decide they want the ban lifted after all). While it does "solve" the issue for one party to walk away, that seems exceptionally unfair since the IBAN is not directed, each party is equally culpable - in short, I do not feel I can suggest that; and there is no reason that those walking away can't change their mind in a month, raising the same issues all over again.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Banning all 3 of us would be no skin off TRM's back, while it would be unfair to Medeis and me. As you well know, Medeis and I are frequent ref desk contributors, while TRM hardly ever goes there except to complain about certain unnamed users. In short, getting us banned from the ref desk is exactly what he wants done. I don't see how that's a fair solution. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    • That may, or may not, be the case - only TRM can say and I won't speculate. But, whatever the case, as it stands, I cannot advocate that any party be removed and the other retained since the IBAN sees all parties equally culpable, I cannot ask for a topic ban to operate differently. Moreover, as long as the IBAN is in place, the only logical conclusion I see is a topic ban: while I applaud your suggestions and willingness to cooperate, they, unfortunately, are not viable: promising to never file again is, effectively, lifting the IBAN, except the IBAN is not an agreement between you all, but the community (in short, you cannot make that agreement if the community doesn't reach that consensus); while a talk page ban seems reasonable, it makes it impossible for any of you to defend or discuss your actions on the desk (what if you hat something or have to remove something, how would you discuss the matter?), if you can't use the talk page, you really can't use the desk.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm becoming truly sick and tired of the baseless accusations being levelled at me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• I think it's pretty clear that the underlying problem that prompted the IBAN has not gone away. Therefore, Keep IBAN. It also seems to me unlikely that a TBAN from the RD would help; it's far from the only place these three cross paths (especially TRM and Medeis, both frequent contributors to ITN among others). So Oppose TBAN. While there have been a bit of a string of ANI threads about this IBAN of late, it seems to me that this at least contains the disruption on ANI and keeps disruption on the rest of the encyclopaedia to a minimum. So I think the status quo is not that bad. GoldenRing (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Interaction bans are stupid, pointless, ineffective, and an only-on-Misplaced Pages dysfunctional attempt to solve a problem that our administrators are otherwise unable to deal with. The premise, that two people are simply unable to deal with each other, without assigning blame to either, is flawed. The real life equivalent, restraining orders, are issued only under extreme circumstances. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Interaction bans work as long as the involved parties are in agreement with the IBAN. I was fine with it. I think Medeis was also, but their parallel participation at ITN created potential for trouble. TRM never liked the IBAN, because it prevented him filing an RFC/U against Medeis and/or myself. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• I'm confused. Has there been any new conduct since the last time ANI closed a thread about this? I really don't like Rambling Man's policy complaints, but that's not a reason to sanction him. And the other two... I haven't noticed them up to mischief on the Refdesks anytime recently; please cite diffs if there's something of note. Wnt (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not a matter of "sanctioning" them for poor behaviour on the RD. The problem is that they can't effectively discuss things on the RD, and that there does not seem to be a clear line on what constitutes "interacting". In other words, as long as there is an IBAN, it's not shocking that something will end up construed as violating that ban and end up here again - it also makes policy changes, and other such, impossible to discuss with the involved parties, and all three of them have caused debates over their actions there, at one point or another. In other words, the issue isn't TRM's policy complaints, but that TRM can't actually discuss those complaints in depth, which just confuses the whole process (for one example).Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• • They're not "policy complaints", they're behavioural issues that I have highlighted which, it now seems apparent, several other editors are (in some cases) complete agreement with. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep IBan Oppose any topic ban as being a solution in search of a problem. And noting this has been the result several times here in the past - while "consensus can change", it is quite unlikely to at this juncture since there is no evidence that BB and M have mal-used the RefDesk. Collect (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The problem is wider than RD behaviour, so TBAN won't help. What would help would be if everyone could stop picking at this scab for a while and give it a chance to heal. --Dweller (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You're right. I think it's also worth pointing out that after TRM had endured a mountain of criticism at Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk for his constant negativity, the group there is slowly clawing their way to ideas on how to improve the ref desk. A topic ban would not aid in that process. Cooperation will. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Status Quo TRM is in general a very good editor, I'll point out that when he was blocked above I suggested to BB that we personally, as parties to the complaint, request his unblocking. I went to sleep (we don't none of us sleep together) and by the time I saw the issue at lunch, BB had already requested the unblocking and it had been granted. There's no current disruption, and if there were there are already normal mechanisms in place to handle them. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• The three editors should go work out their differences, come back and request the IBAN be lifted. Learn to get along. This IBAN is an ongoing source of wasteful discussion. There should be a page exempted where they can go talk it over. Here, use this one User talk:Jehochman/Arena. Jehochman 19:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  Intriguing. Is that page definitively outside the remit of the existing IBAN or this just a splendid trap? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User Dino nam

User:Dino nam is making a series of disruptive edits on Battle of Cua Viet and Battle of Thường Ðức providing non RS and adopting a very argumentative tone when I have pointed out that changes need to be in line with RS and so I am requesting an Admin warning or temporary block. Mztourist (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48

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

HiLo48 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has been making personal and abusive comments to other users, including Macosal (talk · contribs), Skyring (talk · contribs) (Pete) and myself sroc (talk · contribs), despite repeated requests to desist and despite having been having been banned several times for personal attacks in the past. In particular:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia):
  • "There is an existing consensus, from only eight months ago. ALL the back and forth, edit warring, vandalism and incivility has been by soccer fans refusing to accept that consensus. And you're part of it. Are you proud of that?" 10:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "I will continue to highlight disruptive editing, especially when it's packaged in an expression of concern about the disruption. "Are you proud of that?" was a way of doing so." 17:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "You have misrepresented me again. Piss off." 04:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "NOW FUCK OFF, AND GROW UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" 06:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• User talk:HiLo48:
  • "Piss off." 02:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In removing comments from talk page: "Remove bullshit" 03:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Fuck off from my Talk page, please" 08:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from myself and others on both of these pages show repeated requests for HiLo48 to be civil, to avoid personal comments, and to stick to the issues. HiLo48 has not shown any remorse – on the contrary, has defended the comments and sought to deflect criticism – and has no only continued to make personal comments but escalated them (snarky comments → "piss off" → "bullshit" → "FUCK OFF!"). —sroc 💬 09:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that HiLo48 removed this section himself with a rude edit summary, so I have restored it. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Stalker observation. I sympathise with HiLo. He's just had a months ban dished out, and this gives all the appearance of a lynching. Very unsporting behaviour from Football/Soccer supporters. No FIFA Fair Play award to you guys. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Block/revdel needed urgently

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

Can an admin deal with this (being reposted repeatedly) please. I've asked via IRC, with no response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Serial vandalism and distortion of statistics at Aliyah?

• Aliyah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Most of the last 1000 edits on Aliyah, dating back more than a year, have been by a series of IPs (evidently the same person) amending contemporary and historical statistics. In some cases, they have maintained the original sources, in other cases they have added new sources. Most of these sources are either broken links, in another language, or to Google books; every time that I have been able to find the source cited, it has not confirmed the edit. Since the editor refuses to communicate in any way, it is impossible to determine whether they are using more accurate information, or are simply vandalising. Because this has continued for so long, with so many edits, it means that the integrity of the whole article is seriously challenged, and a major clean-up by an expert is urgently required.

I raised this over a month ago at Talk:Aliyah, with no response, and at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Israel, where a brief discussion failed to address or resolve this apparent problem. The article was briefly semi-protected, which put a temporary stop to this disruptive behaviour; but the IP editor has now returned and continues the same pattern.

It is, of course, possible that my concern is misplaced, and that the edits are correct and valid. But the obscure sourcing, and the editor's complete failure to communicate, suggest that this is unlikely. How could this issue best be addressed? RolandR (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not even POV-pushing. It looks to be a long-term campaign of random vandalism to numerical values, usually undertaken from 70.* IPs hosted by Bell Canada. For instance 70.24.68.152 (talk · contribs) and 70.29.119.33 (talk · contribs). The IPs never participate on talk except to remove messages left for them. I've applied six months of semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Ed. But meanwhile, how do we deal with the several hundred edits since September 2013? Since these are interspersed with a few good edits (by IPs as well as accounts) and were made by multiple IPs, I don't know if a script could do this. RolandR (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:205.155.71.58

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

Despite being banned in Nov 2008, this user continues to vandalize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draughtmanus (talk • contribs) 15:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a dynamic IP at California State University - it's highly unlikely to be the same person still using it six years later. Squinge (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards