:You can't issue accusations, refuse to back them up, then act surprised and affronted when the accused party decides to defend himself prior to your own efforts. Moreover, considering you were directly accusing me of being a sock puppet, I rather think that I ''was'' centre stage - wasn't that the point of your accusation? [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 09:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:You can't issue accusations, refuse to back them up, then act surprised and affronted when the accused party decides to defend himself prior to your own efforts. Moreover, considering you were directly accusing me of being a sock puppet, I rather think that I ''was'' centre stage - wasn't that the point of your accusation? [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 09:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:What apology? Removing a few words from an old talk page post isn't an "apology". [[User:Ghmyrtle|Ghmyrtle]] ([[User talk:Ghmyrtle|talk]]) 09:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:What apology? Removing a few words from an old talk page post isn't an "apology". [[User:Ghmyrtle|Ghmyrtle]] ([[User talk:Ghmyrtle|talk]]) 09:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:I think you should apologise to each of the editors personally. You don't seem to realise the distressing effect that suck accusations have for some editors. But I'd not be surprised of you were sacntioned for wasting so much of people's time. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 09:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Qara xan [1] keeps removing sourced information! it is really getting annoying now and i am surprised that no one have seen it yet. In the Malik-Shah I article, he keeps removing the Seljuq statesman Nizam al-Mulk out of mention during the campaign of the Seljuq ruler Alp Arslan in Caucasus in 1064, when the source I added clearly says that he took part in the campaign;
Alp Arslān was quick to resume his military activity. In Rabīʿ I, 456/February-March, 1064, he undertook a campaign in the northwest which resulted in significant gains at the expense of Byzantine Armenia; Neẓām-al-molk and the sultan’s son, Malekšāh, operated separately during part of the campaign, each taking a string of fortresses. They rejoined the sultan to take Sepīd Šahr and Ānī.
And when Qara xan runs out of words, he suddenly keeps accusing me of being uncivil (or ignores me and continues his reverting). I seriously don't know what to do anymore. I have created over 320 articles and expanded even many more, and tried to expand the Malik-Shah I article too, but sadly he is stopping my progress. By the way, I have notified him about this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to the talk page? I have already done that, and as i said, when Qara xan runs out of words, he suddenly keeps accusing me of being uncivil, or ignores me and continues his reverting. So I don't think that would work. A admin told me this would be the best place to fix this problem. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: Actually, a lot of your comments can be taken as uncivil. For example:
if you randomly accuse me of vandalism (you probably don't even know its meaning) — User:HistoryofIran
Take a look on Al-Mu'tadid FOR EXAMPLE (writing it with caps lock so you actually read the word properly). — User:HistoryofIran
Or maybe because you speak a very broken and confusing form of English. — User:HistoryofIran
I don't know the Wikipedia rules well? that is coming from you? don't make me laugh. — User:HistoryofIran
didn't i already tell you that i had to convert it? is your English that bad? if so, then please leave the English Wikipedia, because you are making it hard for everyone here when you simply revert stuff and then don't understand a word of what others say. — User:HistoryofIran
I'm sorry, but how is it uncivil when I tell him his English makes it harder for himself and me to fix the problem? seriously, you should read some of the stuff he writes and how he responds. About the caps lock thing, there are actually many times where he doesn't really want to properly read what I write (which can be quite irritating when I am trying to solve a dispute and he does such things like that, like he didn't even care). Yes, he don't know the meaning of the word "vandalism", or else he wouldn't randomly accuse of me being one in order to avoid discussing with me. About the Wikipedia rules, there are actually many cases where he breaks the rules, yet tells me and other users to learn about them, which is quite irritating and I am not the only person he has done that to. I think the problem is that the way I write can be easily misunderstood. Of course, I never mean to be rude or something like that. If it is really that easily misunderstood-able, I will write in a different way. But even if wrote in a different way I would probably still randomly accused of being uncivil, as it is not the first time Qara xan have done that and I am not the only one he has done that to (here is a example [2]). Anyway, now with that problem hopefully fixed, can we get back to the main subject? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Chaheel Riens (that's me) and Ghmyrtle being accused of both being the same user - sockpuppets.
There was a bit of an editing brouhaha over at Casual (subculture), and an IP editor seems to have now registered under the name of Richie bedfellows.
During the exchange he has accused GhMyrtle and myself of being the same editor twice in different edits.[3][4]
I objected to this each time and gave him the chance to redact - his response is here[5], however, he invites me to not "be waiting around for the weekend to finish, my friend" - so I'm not.
Both involved editors informed.[6][7]Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He's posted provocatively on my talk page again, exactly one minute after doing so on his own page - inviting @Orduin: to message him, whereupon he will reveal his suspicions. I've replied, asking him to post here instead. His reply seems to suggest that he thinks Orduin is watching his talkpage (which may be the case - but also may not). Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking deeper, it seems that Richie and the IP editor are not the same - Richie was just duplicating the errors made by said IP editor, so I've struck that particular comment. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, given the latest posts on your talk page, the editor in question has pretty much confirmed that it is him editing while logged out. This also casts doubt on the previous IP edits to the Casuals page, which are not only similar in tone, but geolocate to the same region. That (somewhat ironically) suggests that Richie is in fact a long time sock puppet himself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either he's stupid enough to do so. Or he did it accidentally. Whatever it is, you cannot know for sure without a CheckUser, so there's no point accusing. They might IPs in the same region but who's to say Richie's related. I'm just giving Richie the benefit of doubt. And tone's is something which only experts in linguistics can comprehend, definitely not us. The accusation was of course a grave offense. I believe his failure in providing evidence and not showing up here is of great concern. --Ankit Maity«T § C»13:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point - I was just drawing attention to the fact that the duck test - if applied - would be more likely to pass Richie and the IP addresses, than GHMyrtle and myself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Thanks for catching the vandalism that I missed on this. It's been hard to keep up with the frequent vandalism to this article today. I have asked for page protection, which I do infrequently, for this page because of the high level of vandalism by several IP users today. Donner60 (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Slight correction on your recent ANI closure. I am pretty sure MyTuppence was only blocked for 1 week. The sock account was indeffed. Thanks for taking care of the close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am currently using this IP address (it's a public computer). I was attempting to figure out how to propose for deletion the article Yonassan Gershom. The reason I was attempting to do so is because this page is written by the person of the article. It's a self-promotion biopic. Being from Minnesota, Mr.Gershom is not WP:Notable either nationally or regionally. In Minnesota, he is a local author and that's about as notable as he is. While the original AFD discussion added some thoughts about links to the Mineapolis Star Tribune - it was known to promote local books. If you asked soneome from Miami who Yonassan Gershom is they wouldn't be able to tell you. Even a simple google search produces limited results that appear to be self-promoted or discuss his books (of which have limited distribution). All respect to Mr. Gershom - he isn't wikipedia article worthy. Blanksamurai (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to update the information on this page and you keep deleting it and putting the old information back up which is not accurate and true. Why do you keep doing it? and can you please stop. Michelle has not modeled since 2005, nor ihas she been with Next Model management then. Montana108 (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This message is intended to celebrate the holiday season, promote WikiCheer, and to hopefully make your day just a little bit better, for Wikiclaus encourages us all to spread smiles, fellowship, and seasonal good cheer by wishing others a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Share the good feelings and the happiest of holiday spirits from Wikiclaus !
Backtracking about what, exactly? You seem to be under some misapprehension here. As much as you would clearly love this to be something else, this has now become nothing more than a slightly inconvenient, mildly amusing sideshow to the real issue for me... Which is unreferenced, personal subjective opinion, purposely undermining long standing appropriately cited contributions. Given the behaviour from both user-pages and the pattern of events, I made the accusation(which i still stand by). I then told you to do your worst after you 'gave' me the weekend to think about it before issuing me with a 'warning'. Unfortunately, you then decided to undermine the whole 'procedure' when hijacking Orduin's talk page with the kind of bizarre, semi-relevant self posturing that only serves to turn the whole thing into an absurdity . Now, obviously seeing as I'm a big believer in 'if a big mouth has something to say, let them speak', I simply ran with it. I have no qualms about 'showing up here' and presenting my evidence. If, as I have stated already, the accusations turn out to be unsubstantiated, then i'll also have no qualms over retracting the accusation before appropriately editing the posts in question. I'll then (if allowed) get back to the real issue. Also, Just for clarification, i may well have responded to Gymrtle over this issue then logged out before noticing the edit, then reverted the page without logging back in. There was no malicious intention.,Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself is a completely different issue that has no bearing to this particular topic. You may edit there to your hearts content, provided said edits meet Wikipedia's standards. The issue here is one of repeated accusations of sock puppetry, and then a refusal to prevent evidence when requested. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't refused to to pre(s)ent anything of the sort. As i have already explained, Orduin gave me the choice of submitting the evidence either here or on on his talk page. You chose to hijack that page and i simply went along for the ride.
This is presented this way because I am no longer able to access the 'highlighted comparison' changes. My suspicions were then felt to be unsubstantiated when Ghmrtle informed me he was now happy with the wording here: I wasn't "arguing a point about someone else not bothering to cite some dubious info". I was removing words which you added that made no sense. You've now come up with a better wording. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Then proceeded to argue Chaheel's subsequent change here: Your wording said, in effect, that something else happened before something that happened at the same time. It didn't make any sense at all. And, you ought to be aware that accusing two editors of being the same person is accusing them of sockpuppetry - which is a serious allegation. You might like to withdraw it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)This seemed strange to me at the time simply because he had now started to argue previous points already covered with Chaeel's exact same points after telling me he was happy with the wording just moments before.
I had no choice here but to highlight the whole conversation with Ghmyrtle simply because of the sheer amount of changes since the exchange and the highlighted changes from Chaheel are no longer obvious in their availability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talk • contribs) 15:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, my comment here that "Your wording said, in effect, that something else happened before something that happened at the same time. It didn't make any sense at all...." was a response to RB's comment here that "They [RB's wording] made sense right from the start." It was not a comment on any of CR's edits. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but neither arguments made sense. Both separate pages were posting at myself simultaneously with both pages paraphrasing each others sentiment, with both of you coming from the exact same miss-informed angle because neither of you could understand the full context of the whole piece. I explained to you about the two separate aspects, which had you understood, would have seen my edit did actually make sense, but you simply refused to acknowledge. You just simply said 'your wording now makes sense', then proceeded to argue CR'S contradictory point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talk • contribs) 08:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was simply that (1) you failed to see that the wording you used was illogical, and (2) two different editors saw the same thing at the same time, and responded to you the same way. You really should have dropped this argument a long time ago, to save yourself embarrassment and stop wasting others' time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "both of you" suggests that the editor now accepts that he has been dealing with two editors, not one editor and a sockpuppet. So can we expect a clear apology to both of the editors who have been falsely accused? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's face it. If someone is going backwards and forwards on talk page 'A', with 'A' generally failing to grasp the context and specifically passing comment about 'pissing off other editors', anyone would begin to have suspicions If suddenly, right on cue talk 'B' intervenes to seemingly 'shore up' the sentiment on what appears to be a new non archived userpage using the exact same one specific, out of context argument as user 'A'. Still, 'good will' obviously would always be shown but those suspicions would always re-surface when 'A' then clams up about 'pissing other editors off' when the irony of a fourth contributor turning up on the talkpage asking 'A' for an explanation fails to be acknowledged, but then resurfaces when B starts expressing the same sentiment about other editors over on his page. Still suspicions would be unsubstantiated, but when i then go across to respond on B's talkpage, only to find 'A' addressing that response back on his own talkpage just moments later, those suspicions would obviously become more and more prominent for anyone. Add to that 'A' seemingly allowing the accusations to then take their course while 'B' spends the next five days purposely disrupting and undermining the very process he claims takes such accusations so seriously...Then as i say, anyone would legitimately have those very same suspicions.
Anyway, and again as previously stated. I'll simply wait for Orduin's decision and take it from there, for now. Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's already been pointed out that "moments later" wasn't in fact moments later, but a good 20 minutes or so. And it's entirely reasonable for two editors - who were watching and actively involved in the page - to find the term "Although the start of the trend beginning in Liverpool is well documented, it was already well under way elsewhere at around the same time" to be a logical fallacy (how can a trend start in location "A", when it's already underway in location "B"?) and take you to task over it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is that such "suspicions" are wholly unreasonable. Many editors will raise similar objections over new additions. That doesn't make them sockpuppets. Editors are under no obligation to space their edits so many minutes or hours apart. Edit conflicts happen all the time. You should face up to the fact you were wrong and apologise unreservedly. I'm really not sure what you are waiting for. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know either. I told that supporting his accusations is his own problem. He has to get, and provide the evidence. Just because Chaheel Riensput 'evidence' on my talk page does not mean it is supportive of the accusations. Richie has to support his case by himself. I can only guide him, not think for him. And trust me, I've shown him to several pages that should help him file an SPI. If there is going to be an SPI, it should have already happened. Either open one soon, or apologise now.--OrduinDiscuss18:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The wording doesn't make sense because there are two separate aspects to the whole article. The first aspect being Liverpool fans were the first to wear designer continental labels, the second aspect being the precursor to that 'look'. It is separately referenced within the article that Liverpool fans were involved in both aspects. Both the designer clothing aspect and the precursor. If someone writes 'it is acknowledged that Liverpool fans started the CONTINENTAL DESIGNER ASPECT but it was already well underway elsewhere',..Then that's misleading. It gives the casual reader the false impression they were involved in one but not the other. Adding 'as well as in Liverpool' redresses that misrepresentation. "Although the start of the trend beginning in Liverpool is well documented, it was already well underway elsewhere at around the same time" is just a better worded variation that was agreed with by 'G', wrongly reverted by 'CR' then strangely argued against by 'G' just '20 minutes' after his initial agreement.
The original suspicions were legitimate as far as I'm concerned, Not just for editors raising similar objection, because sometimes that's to be expected. The overall suspicions being present were simply down to the overall, general pattern of events, sentiment and timings outlined above. That said, it has now become obvious to me that these two contributors are two separate people and not one and the same, as i alleged. For this i have absolutely no qualms in retracting the allegation and issuing an apology as appropriate. Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Orduin, no-one was asking you to think for me, least of all myself. The reason it took so long was because CR found it appropriate to disrupt and undermine the whole process, and you seemingly found it appropriate to let him. For my part, i simply waited until he stopped thinking he was centre stage, performing to a live audience. Just to confirm they will be no SPI submission as an apology has already been issued. Cheers. Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can't issue accusations, refuse to back them up, then act surprised and affronted when the accused party decides to defend himself prior to your own efforts. Moreover, considering you were directly accusing me of being a sock puppet, I rather think that I was centre stage - wasn't that the point of your accusation? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should apologise to each of the editors personally. You don't seem to realise the distressing effect that suck accusations have for some editors. But I'd not be surprised of you were sacntioned for wasting so much of people's time. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User repeatedly violates WP:POINT, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, is stubbornly Wikilawyering, and repeatedly edit wars in the process as he willfully pushes his view without considering other editors' input.
Recent edit warring, & WP:POINT in article editing (in the first diff, he disruptively removes [while I was still improving the section] reviews I'd added from the album ratings box) - chronologically: [12] + my response: [13] + [14]; [15] + [16]; [17] + [18] + [19] + [20]; [21] + [22] + [23] + [24] (←linked to Wikiproject discussion in which he said himself recently it was only a guide)
I'd addressed his behavior in article and talk page with a cordial message on his page, asking him to stop disrupting and start working collaboratively.
I know I have a disadvantage here as Dan56 has promoted many GAs or FAs (reading over ANI, that apparently tends to give you automatic pardon of Wiki guideline violations), but this user has a history of eschewing collaboration, of disruptive and tendentious editing, pushing POV, OWN attitudes, WP:battleground, disrupting editing to make a point, not assuming good faith, genre warring, accusing others of what he is exactly doing or has done, and many editors have called him out on his behavior and editing practices in the past, on various article talk pages (particularly RfCs). Dan56 evidently is not interested in changing his behavior as he feels his promotion of GAs absolves him of any responsibility for his actions and that he's potentially answerable to no one (as his unsanctioned acts would lead him to believe), evidenced, recently, here and here. Most of my encounters with him have been on the band Garbage's articles, at which he arrived about 7 months ago after being canvassed by another editor (who possibly didn't know about the policy then) in a content discussion, and where he willfully employed the same editing tactics and violations he's still willfully and freely employing.
Please see see this relevant RfC here, which is the (recent) source of this dispute, and where much of the aforementioned is evident further.
Dan56 does not appear to want to contribute to a collaborative, disruption-free environment at this band's pages, where he has quarreled with me and engaged in all the aforementioned countless times. My request is a topic ban for this band's articles. What he's contributed (e.g., copy edit of reviews, date formats) (by essentially shutting out others, really) can just as easily be and have been contributed by myself or any of the other editors watching the article. And, as I pointed out in the RfC, If Dan56 had actually bothered to give me a minute or two to copy edit and fix issues and continue improving and augmenting the article, as opposed to just reverting and disrupting constructive edits none of that would occur. Of course, that appears to not be in his nature, particularly for these Garbage articles, for which he, going by all prior indication, has a bias against. --Lapadite (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lapadite77 is personalizing a dispute which stems from my involvement at Talk:Garbage (album)#Album genres and the subsequent RfC for those genres, which didn't go Lapadite's way exactly, partly because I was invited by Andrzejbanas to weigh in and sided with him. Last October ([25]), I began cleaning up and expanding a section at Version 2.0 and have been involved there since. My recent revisions to Lapadite's edits were justified by guidelines I don't feel he can fully grasp at the on-going RfC, where he canvassed two of his recent collaborators at other "Garbage" articles to weigh in. Lapadite argued for his version of the article by drawing comparisons to other stuff in the RfC, so I dont believe he had any intention to drastically trim and properly paraphrase the quote farm he added to the article in question. The section in question is essentially complete, considering the notability of the reviewers and the viewpoints researched, so this is appears to be another attempt at creative control. Dan56 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did I mention Dan56 had a history of accusing people of things, never admitting he has done anything wrong, and creating striking lies and misleading statements which are easily refuted by the actual, readable evidence? In that Garbage album RfC, which one can readily see, toward the end, editors called him out on his intentionally misleading tactics (for which he took 0 responsibility for and ignored the comments, and which he again similarly employed in this recent RfC, which I commented on). I created a new poll, because the other was corrupted by Dan56's tactics and lies and more useful content had also been included in the article, with an updated proposal based on recent article edits, and it went smooth and successfully. Exactly the opposite of what he claims here. This accusation - "this is appears to be another attempt at creative control" - and the hypocrisy is utterly laughable. As you can see, in accordance with my report, Dan56 does not believe he does anything wrong. All of the aforementioned, articles and diffs linked, speaks for itself, regardless of how Dan disregards and reinterprets his actions and assumes of others'. If one were to bring all the editors that have called out Dan56 on his disruptive behavior and editing practices throughout various articles they would all agree with this. I don't link to past talk discussions not directly pertaining to this dispute because it may be tacky and doing so might be interpreted negatively but I have no problem doing so if asked. This is far from a personal dispute or vendetta, which I don't care for. You can see my cordial message on his page, and after that Garbage album content dispute he linked, I had very amicably discussed with him on his page some content matters on another article; unlike him, I don't hold grudges and I'm not here for battlegrounds and disruptive practices, only to improve articles. Dan56's presence at this band's articles has been continually disruptive as his POINTy, POV-pushing, OWN, Wikilawyering, NPOV/Stick to sources-eschewal, genre warring (a significant issue during that album article discussion he linked) and lack of collaboration inhibits progress. For instance, If he hadn't disrupted improvement of that article's section (specifically the start of my constructive edits which, as I said in the RfC [contrary to what he too claims here] were far from finished) that section would've been completed right soon and without the need of all that came after it. Of course he credits the current version (which needs a checking of sources and copyediting for POV, cherry picking, sticking to source) to his mighty self, since, liked I stated above, he shut editors out and steamrolled his edits, and while RfC had just started. Again, this isn't the first time here Dan56 inhibits or significantly slows down progress here, takes ownership of an article and disregards collaboration, in the process perpetuating an environment of only disputes (as I remarked near the end of the current RfC I linked: "Is there an RfC that's not a battleground with you? To which he replied, "that's cute and all".). I strongly believe a topic ban is best. --Lapadite (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need to file a report here. I recommend including only good evidence in the form of diffs. This thread will likely be closed, by someone else, accordingly. Or do you expect an admin to jump in and block the user per this report? Doctalk08:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I expected admins to comment on ANI and consider the irrefutable content in all the links provided. Why do you think I should file a report there instead? That page says it is inactive, and the topic dispute isn't limited to RfC conduct, it also, and primarily, regards editor conduct on this band's articles, hence my request of a topic ban, and not another kind; WP:TBAN →"The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia.". --Lapadite (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote, in another section on the talk page, at 10:08: [27] and 2 minutes later, made the following revert (including restoring of his tendentious, NPOV, undue weight-violating ratings replacement [mentioned in the first "Another tendentious edit" diff above]): [28]. The pre-copyediting version (his) that he restored is in many respects cherry picking, giving undue weight, and not sticking to source.
I sincerely hope what has been provided and continues to be provided (obviously, again Dan56 has no plans to change his habits here) is more than enough to see why I, with reason, request a topic ban for Dan56, due to his considerable, disruptive OWN issues on this band's article, his complete disregard for collaboration, his consistent tendentious editing, knee-jerk reverts of improvements he disagrees with, violations of WP:PRESERVE and all else aforementioned.
Can any admins bother to tend to this thread? All that continues to happen is disruptive and more disruptive editing from Dan56. Lapadite (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging a couple of editors, spotted while skimming ANI, that I believe are admins, to see if maybe this could start getting some attention (sorry if you're not one): Drmies, Stalwart111
I understand what Lapadite is saying, as some of my debates with Dan56 were similar in the past, but unfortunately, I think he's one of those editors that treads the line carefully, where he can come off as rude or abrasive, not its not really bad enough to warrant a block. Unless it starts escalating to personal attacks or hounding, I think a better approach would be to just keep starting discussions or RFC's, to come to a consensus that combats the WP:OWN issues. Sergecross73msg me20:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the disruptive editing guideline mentions some "tread the line" behaviors these kinds of editors may engage in such as: "Their edits often avoid gross breaches of civility, by refraining from personal attacks, while still interfering with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article". Dan56 doesn't do blunt personal attacks, although others may disagree, and this isn't a report on personal attacks nor a proposal to ban him from editing Wikipedia but a request for a topic ban, to rid of his considerable, still ongoing (after 7 months) pattern of disruption at this band's articles, his considerable OWN and WP:POINTy behavior, and considerable disregard for collaboration. He's still doing it, still reverting. And presumably this guy has many editors not wanting to speak against him, perhaps admins. Pretty much every other thread at ANI has several comments. This is just ridiculous. --Lapadite (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Part of Dan56's tendentious edits, is (first mentioned above) the constant replacing of a positive score with a negative score in the album ratings box (which already contains 10 review scores). It has been called out and explained multiple times on the talk page, noted how it's not only tendentious, but violates WP:UNDUE and WP:PRESERVE, but Dan56 keeps restoring it. There's also the persistent claim that reviews that agree on some element of an album are virtually incompatible in that regard in a reception section; summaries of reviews can't include similar opinions, unless of course for something that contradicts positive notions. Any admin's care about this pattern of disruption, OWN and tendentious editing? Seriously, this article would've been completely improved by now if Dan56 hadn't gone (and still continue) on a disruptive, tendentious crusade. --Lapadite (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this thread still open? Dan56 does like to ram a point home when he thinks he's right, the problem with that of course is that sometimes he is right. He's been very helpfully sorting out the "critical response" sections to numerous album articles to the extent that when I start improving one for WP:ALBUMS/500 I look at that and think, "good stuff, Dan's done it". With that in mind I'm just reluctant to come down like a ton of bricks on him. As others have said, he's never crossed the line into personal attacks, so all I can really advise is to just stick to the article and forget about who's saying what. It's the only sane method. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I won't pretend I've read all of this thread, but I'm not at all surprised to see Dan56's behaviour become the subject of another discussion. Just over a year ago, I talked GabeMc out of opening an RFC/U on this user, when Gabe and several others were fed up with him, and, although I could be wrong, I believe this was the near-miss referred to in a subsequent RfC on Dan56, in August 2014. I chose not to have any input into that discussion either, but the references there to Dan56 being so obviously pro-Robert Christgau and overly controlling of article content were all too familiar. My direct contact with Dan56 has been limited mainly to tedious discussions about album genres at Talk:All Things Must Pass and Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#"Heavy metal album"; I've seen numerous, similar discussions going on over the last year or two – for instance, at Talk:Crime of the Century, Talk:Are You Experienced (can't access the archive for that page), Talk:Sgt. Pepper's – but, quite honestly, just the sight of his username is enough to ward me off, unless I consider speaking up really important. Ritchie's correct when he says that "sometimes he is right", but at the same time, Dan56 behaves as if, by divine right, he must be so at all times – there's no element of compromise, nor any awareness that he might be making working on music articles a miserable experience for others. He drives editors away from the encyclopaedia, I'm convinced of it – and I can't help thinking that's fine by him, if he alone is left working on album articles here.
Doc commented above that Lapadite needed to supply specific diffs rather than launching an unsupported attack. I don't doubt that that's the correct way to proceed, but I sympathise with the frustration that Lapadite seems to be expressing. As Sergecross73 says about Dan 56: "unfortunately, I think he's one of those editors that treads the line carefully …" So, by and large, everything appears correct per the letter of the law but (I think) at the same time he's continually falling foul of the spirit of Wikipedia – pillars four and five, as I understand them.
Dan56 is the only editor I've ever felt the need to watch, and for all the wrong reasons. I see him constantly laying down the law with new editors and regularly removing the protests that arrive on his talk page, when those editors are not time-wasters but have a case to present. He initiated the removal of terms such as "favourable", "mixed", "unfavourable" from the album reviewer ratings template without (as far as I can see) posting any notice at all on relevant project pages such as Albums or Rock; if those terms have to go in favour of recognised scores and ratings, then fine, but anyone proposing such far-reaching changes, you'd think, would want as broad a consensus as possible. A select few were similarly invited to a proposal on alphabetising album articles' personnel sections (after which Mudwater and I put the word out to a wider audience). To me, along with the other actions mentioned, these are examples of how this user wants to – and does, unfortunately – dominate album articles on the encyclopedia. I don't have bad feelings towards anyone on Wikipedia but I think admins need to address this behaviour. I said to John around the time of an episode in March 2014, it's not just about looking at diffs and specifics, it's about the entire way this user conducts himself on Wikipedia. That's the problem, that's why a thread like this gets opened, and it's why there'll be another one about him within six months. And as I've mentioned, there are other conflicts concerning Dan56 (the January 2014 episode) that don't even get the attention they deserve. JG66 (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you hit the nail on the head JG66. That is precisely the grand problem. My frustration is exactly because this concerns a longstanding pattern and is far from the first time Dan56 does this on this band’s articles - which I discussed above. Dan56 certainly has had numerous disputes with other editors on other articles regarding this kind of behavior, and he does immediately delete all objections and warnings he gets from his page, sometimes mocking the editor that leaves a message or asserting his ‘status' (e.g., here and when I left him a disruptive editing notice in September of 2014. I’d actually mentioned a few of those past disputes, admittedly inappropriately, out of frustration, in that Garbage album talk page (inside the “off topic” shell) he linked in his post here. If what admins need is more proof of Dan56’s pattern of disruption I personally and perhaps others would have no problem linking several examples there and elsewhere. But like I said before, this is a topic ban proposal for this bands’ articles as my own interactions with Dan56 have mostly been there, and his constant disruption, disregard for collaboration, and POV pushing there is intolerable at this point. The problem is Dan56, as usual, might temporarily stop his overtly tendentious disruption and then start up later after ANI thread is closed, but especially if objecting editors leave the article. Like JG66 said, It will certainly reemerge, again (like it did months after the last album dispute); editors like Dan56 who don’t get sanctioned for their disruptive actions never learn and change; obviously they'd have nothing to learn from since, as they mask POINTy, OWN and tendentious behavior largely through Wikilawyering and 'status', hiding behind it and professing no wrong doing (others are at fault and personalizing), they normally don't see consequences, beyond a ‘don’t do it again’ slap on the wrist. In fact, the lack of consequences only reinforces that behavior. I’ve personally stopped improving this particular article, at least temporarily, as I find it futile; only thing I'm still doing is restoring Dan56's tendentious, POV edits/his inability to stick to source when it doesn't suit his bias. Like JG66 mentioned, Dan56 likes to appropriate an article, shutting out others who object to his editing practices, wanting to be left to his own devices. Other editors in the past have noted how he edits tendentiously on articles of artists he does not like, but he also edits tendentiously on artists he does like (for example, the reception section of this album - an article he wrote, and fixed after much FA dispute [ironically, concerning things of which he has accused others]). You can see this in his comments in both talk pages initially linked here. I don’t know how many more diffs from this particular article are needed; figured I’d linked enough and was already tired of linking as the thread received no comments. The page history is plenty evidence of how much revert/restoring happened there as a result. Much of that has been linked here, as well as the talk page discussion.
In the recent RfC that I'd linked, the three editors that responded clearly want nothing to do with the dispute, understandably. At the start of the RfC you can see that one editor noted the inappropriateness of removing the initial reviews I’d added from the album ratings box ("simply removing everything Lapadite added seems drastic"). I'd be shocked that anyone would agree with Dan56’s egregious behavior unless they’ve agreed with Dan’s POV editing in the past. That he may be “sometimes right” - everyone is at least “sometimes right” at some point - does not remotely null or invalidate his history of disputes and disruption, disruption at this band’s articles, or any he makes in the future there and elsewhere. --Lapadite (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dan56 apparently went on overdrive instead; More again, this being the first of multiple edits largely of the same nature as previous ones and as described above (his edit summary merely repeating what I stated in the previous edit): [33]. Restored by me here, with some fixes and additions on further edits. --Lapadite (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AN/I threads involving Dan26 after his RFC: [34], [35]
This is a complex case that I think is headed to ArbCom if it doesn't get resolved here. I have observed Dan56 in many places (he's difficult to miss if you work on any music articles) but I assert that the primary sources of his conflicts on Wikipedia are: plagiarism, music reviews, and music genres. I will attempt to concisely demonstrate that Dan has continued to exhibit problems with WP:COPYVIO, WP:BITE, and WP:OWN pursuant to these three items since his RFC, and then propose a remedy in an attempt to avoid ArbCom.
You haven't concisely demonstrated anything. If anything, you've barely inspected what flimsy evidence you provided below. Also, the second AN/I thread you cited above was opened by a frustrated, genre-warring IP, since blocked for being the sock I suspected. You're building a flimsy case just to draw more attention to me, simply to have some action done to me. Also, since my RfC, I fixed the close paraphrasing issues at Talk:Of Human Feelings and performed source checks before I reopened its FAC. I haven't exhibited any problems with WP:COPYVIO since then. Dan56 (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarism
I last interacted with Dan56 directly at this FAC where 3 different editors expressed concern about plagiarism and close paraphrasing in his writing. I was surprised by his aggressive and uncivil response to such concerns, and to my own concerns. By the second nomination, I had given up dealing with him and so had anyone else who initially offered constructive criticism. He then asked for it to be withdrawn, saying it was "tainted" because he believed one of the objectors to be a sock. Rather than conceding that Rationalobserver had any legitimate objections to his nomination, he accused her of being a sock with a grudge against him who was only opposing his nomination out of spite. He succeeding in getting Rationalobserver blocked as a sock of Jazzerino (talk·contribs), which was later demonstrated incorrect. However, Dan56 editwarred to maintain a note in the second FAC nomination calling Rationalobserver a sock. I will note that Rationalobserver will not be commenting here because she actually agreed to an interaction ban with Dan56 to demonstrate that she wasn't here just to harass him. I will also add that I thought it was sneaky that Dan56 opened this second nomination and notified several editors, but specifically did not notify the editors who opposed the first one.
The situation at Xx (album) demonstrates that the plagiarism problem has continued despite the RFC, and demonstrates how Dan56 reacts to normal constructive criticism in this realm.
I stand %100 by my suspicions and what I had to say on that matter. You're painting an inaccurate picture of that situation in broad strokes. I find it equally dubious that you pretend to forget I responded to what you claim as finding "sneaky" at that FAC page. Btw, you do realize I have an open FAC for Of Human Feelings where I "reacted to normal constructive criticism"? Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Music reviews
One of the constant sources of conflict for Dan56 is his interminable addition and removal of music album ratings and reviews to suit his personal opinion, many times with a fixation on Robert Christgau. Lapadite77 provided diffs above for recent conflicts involving reviews and ratings at Garbage-related articles. I'm concerned that Dan cherry-picks and promotes/demotes sources to back up his preferred vision for how the reviews and rating should be reflected. Here is a good example of his removing a source he doesn't like under an unclear and disingenuous edit summary. You would think he was simply adding Newsweek and NME, but he is also removing a source he has argued against without clear rationale or consensus. These are clear WP:OWN violations post-RFC.
I'm tired of having to defend myself against this type of nonsense. Being as active and involved as I am means you're going to butt heads with some fancruft and POV-driven editors from time to time, but I'm offended by your accusation that I add or remove ratings or reviews based on my personal opinion--on one hand you say I'm fixated on Robert Christgau, yet support Lapadite77's assertion that I have a negative opinion of an album (article) which Christgau gave a positive review of? I addressed and explained my role in this "Garbage-related" dispute already in my comment above on 3 February. Furthermore, your above example demonstrates what a flimsy case you are making--did you bother to read anything at the article's talk page where the review sources were being discussed?... because that edit was made when I made a case for a source I had originally added be removed in favor of obviously more notable sources per MOS:ALBUM#Critical reception. Either make a close inspection of this dispute--that article's talk page, each editor's edit summaries and arguments--or don't bother slinging vague accusations of ownership at me when the same could and should be said about the other guy (WP:BOOMERANG). The burden is on you to read through Talk:Version 2.0#Revisions to Critical reception and the corresponding revisions made to the article during that discussion, if you're to introduce it here as some kind of evidence of disruptive editing made on my part. Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Music genres
Again for anyone editing music articles, you will see Dan56 all over your watchlist because he reverts anonymous and established editors who attempt to alter the genres on any article he watches, without any rationale or explanation. This is well-documented in his RFC, and he has continued the behavior despite the RFC findings. You needn't go further than the first page of his contributions to find him reverting genre changes calling them vandalism ("rvv"). Most of the time he's changing one unsourced genre to another. This violates WP:BITE (calling people's good-faith contributions vandalism) and WP:OWN (attempting to control the genres on large selections of articles without sources or discussion).
Untrue. Also, the link you provided is my revision restoring the genre sourced in the body of the article. With what I've contributed to Wikipedia, including the improvements I stand by at Version 2.0, I deserve for my accusers to get their facts straight rather than relying on their impression of isolated disputes I've been involved in. Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed solutions
We need some help here. Beeblebrox, since you closed the RFC, perhaps you can be of some assistance in putting this to bed. I don't think any progress has been made since the RFC. Therefore, I propose the following:
Dan56 is required to solicit an independent plagiarism review for any article he's developing before nominating it for either GA or FA status.
Dan56 is prohibited from editing reviews or ratings on music articles unless he is specifically preparing that article for GA or FA status.
Dan56 is prohibited from adding, removing, or changing genres on music articles unless he is specifically preparing that article for GA or FA status. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The genre warring too characteristic of past dispute at the album Garbage article. I support the proposed solutions, especially the second and third. However, Dan56 could just use the 'preparing article' as a pretext, augmenting the OWN and WP:POINT issues. --Lapadite (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:73.11.72.255
User:73.11.72.255 has repeatedly changed sourced information on the pages of Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and Organizational Structure of Jehovah's Witnesses despite reversions by myself, User:Blackcab and User:Jeffro77. Upon being warned by BlackCab and myself on their talk page to discontinue their disruptive editing, User:73.11.72.255 deleted our warnings and put our names on a list of "Known Apostates" they created (since reverted by BlackCab with an additional warning by both myself and him). While I realize this is a quick request for a block, as they have only been editing for a few days, the reversions with no attempt at discussion and in particular the creation of the "Known Apostates" section I believe is warranted of an immediate block.
I did a copyedit after the editor's initial edits on the two articles indicated above. I retained some parts of the editor's initial changes where the changes did not misrepresent the cited sources. Since then, the IP editor restored their other changes and falsely claimed those changes were according to "consensus",[36] but the editor has not made any attempt to discuss any changes. The editor's subsequent personal attacks on BlackCab and Vyselink strongly suggests that the IP editor is unlikely to make any reasonable effort to work collaboratively on articles related to the religious denomination that is the subject of the articles above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A silly dispute about nothing. "User:73.11.72.255 has repeatedly changed sourced information on the pages of Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and Organizational Structure of Jehovah's Witnesses despite reversions by myself, User:Blackcab and User:Jeffro77." It is called editing, and is in the nature of developing articles at Wikipedia. Is the HQ in New York HQ for JW, Governing Body or "the Society"? Could it be both, or even all three? I've followed this topic for several years, and Jeffro77's and BlackCab's oneminded critical view of all aspects of the religion is way undercommunicated. To state the views of former members well known for their highly critical view of the topic, like the IP has done, as "claims" rather than "state[ment]s", is may very fair. Dr. Penton have clearly stated the prosecution of JW during WWII was their own mistake, or at least a result of Rutherford's critic of the Nazi regime, a classic technique used by historical revisionists and right wing extremists about Jews. Further dr. Penton have, in the sourced book, expressed strong sympathy and long time correspondence for/with a mentioned Swedish historical revisionist. JW had disassociated with the revisionist because of his extreme views, while dr. Penton failed to communicate that the Swedish historical revisionist being one, and forgotten to mention the Swede's past as a former convict in Sweden (a modern, democratic country) for his extreme right wing Holocaust denial expressions. To use dr. Penton as a source for statements about JW, represents same quality of source selections as using nazists as a source for statements about the Jews: It is may worth mentioning his view, but as a view rather than a statement. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The IP editor has made no attempt to discuss their changes despite being asked. They are edit warring against a consensus view, which can be dealt with at the appropriate notice board, but it is unacceptable behaviour to label two editors with whom one disagrees as "known apostates". This is mindless hate behaviour and pretty extreme. BlackCab (TALK) 20:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Grrahnbahr's claim that I have a "one minded critical view" of the religion is demonstrated to be false by the many times I have also removed negative information about the religion. Additionally, far from being "undercommunicated", various editors—particularly Grrahnbahr himself—have frequently attempted to malign my motives (and those of BlackCab) when disputes arise about articles related to JWs. In fact, Grrahnbahr has previously reported me for supposed "edit warring"[37] in regard to four words in one sentence[38] that was the subject of discussion at Talk. (In that protracted ordeal, I actually restored the sentence to the same version that Grrahnbahr had restored five days prior,[39] which had been the stable version for many months; yet Grrahnbahr still attempted to impugn me by claiming that I had introduced an 'unsourced claim'. Clearly Grrahnbahr has an axe to grind. The article Talk discussion is at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_59#Biblical_Christianity; the discussion resulting from Grrahnbahr's frivolous accusation is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive236#User:Jeffro77 reported by User:Grrahnbahr (Result: Fully-protected).)
Regarding Grrahnbahr's assessment of the content of the IP editor's changes, this can be discussed at the article's Talk page, and per WP:BRD, the IP editor should have done exactly that after their edits were initially changed (though they were not completely reverted). But the IP editor has made no attempt to discuss anything, despite the editor's false claim of restoring "consensus". Grrahnbahr's description of the IP editor's persistent reversions without any discussion as simply "editing" is quite dishonest. The IP editor's initial edit was "editing", but the subsequent repeated reversions without discussion is "edit-warring". Grrahnbahr is well aware that disputed changes should be discussed at the article Talk page.
In an attempt to distract from various distortions introduced by the IP editor about what the cited sources actually say, Grrahnbahr has attempted to highlight some of the minor semantic changes instead, such as the IP editor's less accurate description of the headquarters. Additionally, Grrahnbahr's deviation into Penton's supposed views of the Holocaust has no relevance to any of the disputed changes. Most of the changes are to text that isn't even sourced to Penton, and none relate to the Holocaust.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors have been trying to straighten out articles in certain religious areas from pervasive bias. There are 2 or 3 editors who have userboxes proclaiming themselves to be formerly of a certain religion, and these same editors persist in re-adding negative information about that religion to certain lightly-viewed articles. There is a strong feeling of ownership over these articles by these few critics, and a reading of the talk page will show their continued attempts to overcome well-intentioned and clearly-sourced corrections. Jeffro, BlackCab, and to a lesser extent Vyselink have been editing these religious articles continuously for many years, and their apparent negative personal experiences with the religious group affect their edits. Perhaps they should step back and let fresh eyes wash away any unintentional bias. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The claim about "2 or 3 editors who have userboxes proclaiming themselves to be formerly of a certain religion" is a lie. Only BlackCab has such a Userbox. As I have previously stated when falsely accused by pro-JW editors on Wikipedia, I have never personally accepted JW beliefs, though I have relatives in the religion.
It is not clear what "negative information" has been added to the articles being discussed, and this is the first time the IP editor has made any attempt to discuss any of their changes. The editor is still yet to engage in any discussion about the specific content at the article's Talk page.
For several years, I have edited Wikipedia articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. The pro-JW editors call me 'anti-JW' and the anti-JW editors call me 'pro-JW'. Overall, it's a pretty good sign that my edits on the subject are neutral.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The IP editor has also added a bogus warning about supposedly 'biased content' at Vyselink's User Talk page, but Vyselink has only restored the stable version of the article that was already supported by existing sources.
When the IP editor initially made their changes, I removed only the parts of their changes that did not properly represent the cited sources, as well some mundane issues such as wordiness. Other elements of the IP editor's changes were retained. However, the IP editor has shown no desire to work collaboratively, or to discuss any element of article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that BlackCab has such a userbox, while Vyselink states the same in the text of his user page. It appears that your close coordination with them in attempting to override clear consensus caused me to lump you in with them unfairly. I thank you for your attempts to be unbiased, however after extensive discussion we have decided to move forward with the proposed changes. If you have any concerns, you are welcome to explain them in the usual manner. 2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's as close to an apology as I will get from you in regard to the lie about the Userbox and religious affiliation.
There has not been any discussion of the proposed changes. If you believe there are problems with bias in the articles, you should start a relevant section at the articles' Talk pages raising your specific concerns.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop saying I lied. You were working with two editors who had a disclosed bias against a certain religious group; I somehow got it in my head that you had the same bias. It was a mistake that was quickly uncovered. The repeated undesirable edits are more of a problem. 2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been 'working with' the other editors any more than I've been 'working with' you. Except that you refuse to discuss your changes. You haven't indicated anything about what is supposedly 'undesirable'. As an example, you've claimed in your edit summary that referring to the Watch Tower Society's publications as "Watch Tower Society literature" and calling their headquarters their headquarters and saying the Governing Body don't call themselves "leaders" are all "inappropriate". You need to articulate why you believe those things to be "inappropriate", since they are plain statements of fact that are more accurate than the wording you keep asserting. You should do so at the articles' Talk pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the editor User:2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0, who has been making the same edits in tandem with the other IP editor named above, is now playing tedious games. After I advised the editor that the changes they are seeking to introduce to the stable version of the article should be explained at Talk after they've been disputed, the editor is childishly claiming that it's actually me who introduced changes to the article. With this kind of behaviour, it seems unlikely that the editor will ever be able to meaningfully contribute to Wikipedia. See User_talk:2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (only one Talk section).--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Grrahnbahr has the correct view above. Jeffro and 1 or 2 others have been editing these articles for many years, and seem to strongly resist any changes not made by them. However, we have been working to resolve all the disputes, but Jeffro has not yet shown any willingness to work collaboratively. Instead, he and one of his associates have repeatedly made threats of blocking and banning rather than discussing using normal Wikipedia processes - processes I have used for over 5 years. He may need a preventative block for 24 hours to regain perspective if he does not stop the disruptive editing. 2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no 'associates' on Wikipedia.
It remains contingent on you as the editor who is insisting on changes to the stable version of the article to indicate why you believe them to be improvements.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of "I didn't hear that" behavior that has become troubling and makes me feel Jeffro has developed ownership feelings toward the article. He insists on his preferred version as the "good version", and pretends not to understand that by "associates" I mean "the 1 or 2 other people who are making the same types of edits you are - edits against the consensus" 73.11.72.255 (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have not insisted on 'my' version of the article at all, but simply the stable version of the article from before you began making changes and then refusing to discuss them. No 'consensus' whatsoever has been established for your edits. Based on the principles at WP:BRD, after your initial edits were challenged, it is contingent on you to discuss your changes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The IP editor has finally begun 'discussing' at article Talk, in a highly combative manner and apparently under duress after repeated warnings of their inappropriate conduct. The editor is continuing to misrepresent their changes to the article as the stable version. It seems unlikely that it will be possible to work with the editor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Block of Jeffro77 possibly needed - Jeffro77 continues making personal attacks above despite repeated warnings. He is dismissive of any views other than his own, and is determined to force through his preferred versions over the versions supported by sources and the other IP editors. I remain very open to discussion once he stops making attacks and threats and is ready to move forward in a collaborative fashion. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now he's just lying outright about alleged personal attacks. There have been no personal attacks. The editors continue to misrepresent their recent changes as the 'stable version', which is another lie. It is not possible to work with these two IP editors, who are clearly working in collusion. (Earlier in this thread, one of the editors said "extensive discussion we have decided", but no on-Wiki discussion exists, so they are collaborating off-site.) I'm going to leave the article for a while until admins have addressed the edit-warring and belligerent behaviour of the IP editors involved here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sock puppet alert: It is still unclear whether identical edits from the two IP addresses are being made by one person or two. This edit, however, from an IPv6 address, was signed as the IP editor 73.11.72.255. That same IPv6 address was later used to continue the edit war at Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses, using precisely the same edit as IP editor 73.11.72.255. (See [40][41] and the whole edit-warring sequence at that article). In any case 73.11.72.255 on his own is on the verge of breaching 3RR.
It is also highly amusing that the declaration on my user page that I am ex-JW proves "bias", while the IP editor whose edits bear all the hallmarks of a JW member is just trying to, you know, "straighten out" the article. Let's not lose sight of the fact that this thread began with a complaint that the IP editor had decided on his user page to brand me and another editor as "known apostates"[42]. That sort of cranky religious hate language, a term widely used by JWs to denigrate former members, is a fairly good indicator of the motives of this editor in trying to "straighten out" the article and, indeed, have a long-standing editor blocked. BlackCab (TALK) 12:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:73.11.72.255's "warning" on my talk page is interesting, as I have (as has been stated by other editors above) not INSERTED any new information, but reverted to the original information which, at the time of my revert, had not been discussed. I see that they have now, belatedly, started discussions in a very contentious manner on those pages, while attempting to shift the blame to myself and other editors for "changing" information, which is categorically false and verifiable by anyone who looks at the pages edit history.
As for being in collusion with "1 or 2" other editors (I assume BlackCab and Jeffro77) this claim has been made in the past and it is false. I do not know BlackCab or Jeffro77, and my talk page clearly states that I was raised a JW, but have never believed, and that I rarely edit those articles except in the cases of obvious vandalism, such as the IP editors are currently engaged in. I have no bias against JW's, as (current IP editors aside) they have been nothing but great to me personally, and have changed my mother's life very much for the better, allowing her to stop smoking and drinking and generally be a much better and happier person because of it. I have made exactly 4 edits to the "Governing Body" page, all in response to vandalism, and until the recent vandalism, the one I had made before that was in 2012, which was also in response to vandalsim. As for the "Organizational Structure" page, the only edits I have ever made to that page have been to reverse the current IP editors vandalism. Both editors have mistakenly asserted that there is "consensus" for their changes, and I agree with BlackCab's sock puppet warning as being something that an admin should take a closer look into. Vyselink (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Time to close? - This complaint can probably be closed now. Jeffro has calmed down, and the other two editors on his side, BlackCab and Vyselink, are acting in a less militant fashion. The bit about sockpuppetry is a diversion. My IP address changes between IPv4 and IPv6, I don't know why as it is the same connection. There are some edits from an IP that are not me, so I think there are at least 2 IP editors, perhaps 3, editing under dynamic addresses. 2601:7:1980:5B5:21C2:E1D6:3861:74AB (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. The suggestion that the complaint "can probably be closed now" comes from the subject of the complaint himself who, after removing from his talk page warnings for 3RR and sock-puppetry [43] continues to edit-war under dual IP accounts. [44][45][46][47][48][49][50]. The user admits he is behind both IP addresses[51] but disingenuously suggests other editors are sharing his IP address, presumably to reinstate his own material. BlackCab (TALK) 22:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what? You and I have both been the subject of recent "complaints" and I want to encourage you to stop personal attacks and focus on the articles. I have said for some time that my IP address sometimes shows up as IPv4 and sometimes as IPv6, I don't know why. However, there are other IP addresses editing these articles that I have nothing to do with. There is nothing odd or suspicious about any of this... 2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any other IP edits in other ranges that have been editing the articles recently, and certainly not in support of your edits. Of recent edits to the articles you've been editing, which IP edits are you claiming are not your edits? There has actually been only one other IP edit on only one of the articles you've edited. That editor introduced a copyright violation, which you persist in restoring when I've tried to remove it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There have been edits from seven separate IPv6 addresses on the relevant articles. All of the addresses begin with "2601:7:1980:5B5", confirming that they are all on the same network. If they are not the same person, they are different persons on the same network colluding together.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffro77, BlackCab, and Vyselink conspiring - I have tried at great length to deal with you in a kind manner. However, additional efforts may be necessary to overcome the apparent schemes that involve conspiring and colluding to produce lies. I will no longer be editing any of these articles. But you are put on warning that you will have to answer for your error. 2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now I'm "evil" for pointing out that you lied about IP addresses being unrelated. You've edit warred for several days and only attempted to superficially engage in discussion after you were reported to admins. You have lied about the stable version of the article. You have lied about consensus for your changes. You have lied about providing new sources. I'm not sure what is intended by "harsher chastisement", but I certainly hope its not intended as a legal threat.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lies by anti-religious activist Jeffro77 - I have never lied about anything. I told you from the beginning that my IP kept changing. Another IP posted some things about creationism in one of the articles that you reverted at the same time, so I didn't want to take credit for all IP contributions. You sure know how to play the Wikipedia game with your NLT accusations.2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ho hum... now I'm an "activist". Where do I find the time!
So your threat about "harsher chastisement" it was just a meaningless assertion about an irrelevant theological opinion? Rightio. You're most welcome to imagine whatever scenario you like where I'm tortured and killed by your preferred deity. Enjoy. (Who even says "chastisement" anymore?)
You claimed there "there are some edits from an IP that are not me" and that there were "at least 2 IP editors, perhaps 3". The only other IP editor has only made one edit (pasting an entire article form the source, which is a copyright violation) on one article, and that article isn't one of the two that generated this discussion. You suggested that "they" are "editing under dynamic addresses", which is a conclusion no one could draw from a single edit by one editor. Your new claim that you only referred to that one editor is therefore false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Admins Please Take Notice: At this point I believe that the block on both the IP originally addressed in the complaint and also for the other IP he has been using (2601:7 etc just above) is called for immediately and permanently. While he may insist that he will no longer be editing it is irrelevant at this point. His latest edit at my talk page, as well as I believe at Jeffro77's, clearly shows he has absolutely no intention of attempting to reach consensus and having a reasonable debate about his changes. The veiled threat of being "put on warning that you will answer for your error" (mentioned above here) and the veiled threat at my talk page (see link, but it reads "you may face serious consequences for your actions") while obviously the ramblings of a disgruntled IP user who can't get his own way, seal the deal as far as a permanent block is concerned. The history of the IP users edits, his original personal attack on myself and BlackCab by naming us a "Known Apostates", and his complete refusal to even tell the truth about what he himself has said is getting absurd, and taking valuable time from myself, BlackCab, and Jeffro77 to continually attempt to mitigate the damage, as well as wasting space on this ANI noticeboard. Vyselink (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vyselink may need preventative block - Like Jeffro and BlackCab, Vyselink is part of a group trying to invent reasons to block people who disagree with him. I suggest a topic ban for the three of them from this area. 2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tell us more about "religious threats"... what does that mean to you exactly? I tried to disengage from the two of you but you have taken to following me around to revert my edits on sight. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of events - BlackCab has been editing articles related to certain religious denominations in a way that reflects bias in favor of the denomination. Perhaps he is a member? In any event, Jeffro77 has a similar ownership tendency along a different POV. All the new editors to these articles are being chased away by their automatic reverts going back 5+ years - look at the article histories. I told them they would need to discuss matters rather than just ignore earnest efforts to improve neutrality and sourcing. BlackCab and Jeffro now stalk me and revert my edits on other articles. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IP 73.11 has clear POV issues with this area e.g. this amongst many others - I would suggest a topic ban initially, followed by blocks if that does not work. GiantSnowman11:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The IP have no more POV issues than some of the other users contributing to the topic. The IP may need to adjust and adapt to be a productive editor, but the ban proposal seems to be based on the IP's views rather than behave. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The IP editor's behaviour is indeed certainly a significant problem. The editor has lied about consensus,[57] about sources[58] (none of the editor's changes provide additional sources), about who has introduced changes,[59] and about his identify as other IPs (says multiple IPs weren't him[60]; says all but one were him[61]). Subsequently, the editor has engaged in retributive editing, refusing to comment on content instead of contributors, and bizarre threats about 'judgement by god'.[62]
It is also telling that at the outset of this discussion you characterised the editor's repeated reversions to their preferred version of significant changes to multiple articles as merely "editing", but you have previously reported me for changing four words in one sentence (diffs supplied earlier in discussion). As such, there are indeed some POV problems to be addressed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To lie about anything is not a reason for imposing bans, even less if it is not intentional ("lie" imply it is done on purpose). Presenting "religious threaths" is may not good conduct, but probably no reason for a ban, while legal threaths are. Making use of puppets could be a reason. User:GiantSnowman introduced users with clear POV issues, while I can't see the IP being in a more POV positions than other users editing topic-related articles. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked 73.11.72.255 (talk·contribs) for engaging in a long-term pattern of edit warring about the Jehovah's Witnesses and being unwilling to wait for consensus. This editor appear to be switching between this IP and 2601:7:1980:5b5:0::/64 in conducting these wars. Consensus can change, and nothing prevents our articles about the Jehovah's Witnesses from being updated by reaching agreement on talk pages, using the normal steps of WP:Dispute resolution when needed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EdJohnston:, can you also give closer consideration to Grrahnbahr's behaviour in this matter, along with his history of attacking my edits? He has characterised this IP editor's edit-warring as simply "editing"; he's claimed that the IPs editor's dishonest assertions about consensus, sources, stable article versions and IPs were not "done on purpose"; he has previously reported me for much less (as indicated above and with full details in the earlier linked discussion—that was for restoring the same edit he did, and he admitted during that debacle that he had a separate agenda). It is evident that Grrahnbahr has an agenda to support pro-JW editors and argue against editors who provide a more neutral view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) I am not the subject for this AN/I
2) @Jeffro77: havent discussed his concern on my talk page ("Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page")
3) Jeffro77 is suggesting an investigation of me, without notyfying me, or even pinging me ("When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page"). The IP was blocked, and it was not given I would return to this discussion. I was not a subject of any discussion until Jeffro77's last post.
4) The reasons for a suggested investigation was me alleged having an agenda of supporting "pro-JW" editors. I find any allegations of me arguing against editors who provide a neutral view of any topic, the mentioned one included, as ridiculous.
5) I've produced tens of thousands edits in several wikimedia projects, and have started a four digit articles in several languages, and a number of featured articles and lists in the same projects, including one directly related to this topic. It is not an excuse for anything related to conduct, but, a couple of editors from English JW-related articles are the only editors complaining about my conduct.
6) It is not a violation against anything to support a new editor at wikipedia. The IP will probably never return for editing now, so good work!
I'll leave this discussion, since this isn't my AN/I. Any investigations or actions against me will be taken seriously, and would thus require a proper notification on my userpage. Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have simply responded to the comments that you have already made in this ANI. Your claim that you haven't been advised is therefore disingenuous, as is your claim that your actions had not been called into question until my immediately previous comment. In the scope of this ANI, I first raised the problems with your ongoing bias on 6 February after your response at this ANI on 5 February. It is incredibly dogmatic to insist that I 'advise' you about a discussion in which you're already involved.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier tonight, I was blocked by HJ Mitchell(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA). He also added me to the ArbCom sanctions log. Apparently, the reason they did so was because of an edit I made to Emma Sulkowicz - a woman who claims she was raped and has since been carrying a mattress around her university as an art project. The man she accuses of raping her, Paul Nungesser, has recently come forward and given an interview to to The Daily Beast to clear his name. (He had previously been named against his will in other sources.) His family also came forward and named themselves in the interview.[63]
I edited the article to add the name of the individual. It was reverted by SlimVirgin (talk·contribs) per WP:BLP. I did engage on the talk page, but I also reverted because I felt that this was a clear case of WP:CRYBLP - the individual obviously wanted themselves to be named, and their name cleared, in reliable sources. However, shortly after, I was blocked without warning or discussion.
I'm a productive contributor of many years - I just ask to have a notation added to my block log that this was an incorrect block, Also, I'd ask to be removed from the ArbCom sanctions log, or for at least a note to be added. Kellyhi!00:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's a misrepresentation of the situation, and I do not believe the block as incorrect or unjust. The article in question is a BLP that has been the subject of problematic editing recently. An edit war broke out earlier tonight over a name which was added to the article and removed on BLP grounds. Twice. The edit war petered out and a discussion ensued on the talk page. Kelly, a third party, re-added the name. It was removed on BLP grounds, again. Kelly re-added it for a second time. I observed that Kelly had previously been notified of the BLP discretionary sanctions, so I imposed a short block to prevent a potential BLP violation from being restored again, and unblocked once Kelly agreed to stop. This is absolutely not a case of "crying BLP"—the objections have been explained and merit discussion, so the name should not be re-added until and unless there's a consensus for it. We should not allow editors to bat away good-faith BLP concerns just because they disagree with them—concern for the real people discussed in our articles comes before our theoretical policy discussions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain the specific BLP concern involved, given that the individual concerned had gone public? Also, could you show some evidence of the previous warning for BLP sanctions? Kellyhi!01:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The "specific concern" is that some people feel that naming him in the article could cause him harm; it's a reasonable enough objection that it needs to be discussed and a consensus found. I don't have an opinion on whether the name should or shouldn't be included. And the discretionary sanctions notification is here (type "discretionary sanctions notification" into the 'tag filter' box in the page history). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A BLP violation on The Federalist (website)? What specifically was it for? It has to be bogus and probably related to Neil deGrasse Tyson. What exactly was the nature of my BLP violation on that article? Or are we just giving people unjustified warnings and blocking them later for other unjustified reasons? Kellyhi!01:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good block. Kelly was simultaneously edit warring against consensus on multiple articles under arbcom sanctions, including Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson.[64][65] He says he's "productive", but he deliberately and consistently disrupts articles related to left-wing politics, liberals, and conservative causes. His idea of being "productive" involves misusing the file deletion process to delete images that go against his POV. I think we can do without that here. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good block The specific concerns involved are nearly irrelevant; there was a reasonable discussion going on at the talk page, which you knew about; other editors had asked that there be a pause for consensus to develop before this information was re-added. Was it really so important that it be added again immediately and couldn't wait for a talk-page consensus? IMO probably a good block, if perhaps slightly - just the slightest bit, not more - hair-trigger.
As for the notification, it doesn't matter what the notification was for; you were notified and should have been aware of DS for BLPs. GoldenRing (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So if someone throws a BLP warning against someone, no matter how flimsy or bogus, the receiving editor can henceforth be blocked for any disputed edit on a BLP? Kellyhi!01:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's a notification warning you that discretionary sanctions are authorized for a particular subject. The notice says clearly 'Please carefully read this information' and then outlines the scope of DS, 'for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles'. After that, you're expected to be aware that DS are authorized in that scope of subjects. It's not flimsy nor bogus; DS are authorized for that scope and you were formally notified of it. That you didn't read it, or didn't believe it, or thought it was idiotic, or didn't keep it in mind, or whatever justification you have, doesn't matter. That's the process. GoldenRing (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bad block Blocking has one purpose, and one purpose only - preventing disruption in a situation where no other effective remedy exists. Blocking a well-established user with a largely problem-free history of years of constructive contributions without talking to them first is a bad call. Sure, there was a technicality that allowed HJ Mitchell to carry out the block and get away with it, but is that really what we want? When an admin considers whether to block or not, what I'd expect him to think is "Is there really nothing else I can do?" rather than "Let's see, if I institute this block, will I be able to plausibly explain it thus getting away with my questionable conduct?"
HJ Mitchell, do you honestly believe that simply TALKING to Kelly would've been ineffective in preventing him from doing whatever he was doing? If yes, what makes you think that? If no, why did you block him when there was another solution? Do you want to drive Kelly out of here perhaps? 70.189.56.157 (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Of course a concern/feelings is not the same as a violation of policy. Could you (HJ Mitchell) please answer two questions:
1. Is there any reason why you couldn't have just asked Kelly to stop adding the sourced content, on his talk page?
2. What part of WP:BLP policy was violated given that the name of the accused party has been published in at least one reliable source, based on that source's interview of both him and Sulkowicz?- MrX02:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I raised the issue at the BLP noticeboard. What is the rush to re-add it absent thorough discussion? This seems pretty concerning given you just assured an admin you would not re-add it as condition of unblock request and then turned right around and re-added it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A legitimate BLP concern had been raised, the name had been removed twice, there were two objections on talk to inclusion, and a discussion was underway. Kelly then went ahead and restored the name, and when reverted restored it again. After the block and unblock Kelly added the name to this AN/I report, then restored it again to the article.
Whether anyone agrees that the name should be in or out is a separate issue. The point is that this isn't a frivolous objection. It's true that the student has given two interviews, but only after he was outed, and he's still trying to maintain some anonymity by being photographed in the shadows. Publishing a name on Wikipedia increases its visibility in terms of reach and perhaps endurance, so we should consider this carefully rather than racing ahead. Sarah (SV)(talk)03:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it seems part of the motivation for going public was to clear his name - interviews specifically cited that Internet search results were depicting him as a rapist. "And yet if you Google him, in half of the articles you´ll find, he is still labeled a serial rapist.” (a quote from his father)[69]Kellyhi!02:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So keeping his name out of the article is a BLP concern, because it keeps him from clearing his name. The university cleared him of rape, our article is doing him more harm than good. Kellyhi!03:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: What was the "legitimate BLP" concern? Was it "I would appreciate it if the discussion could wait until tomorrow, because I would like to take part in it but don't have time today. This needs some careful thought before we do it, because names on WP become more widespread."? - MrX03:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to litigate the merits of including the name, that's what the talk page and BLPN are for. We are here to discuss the block and Kelly's conduct the precipitated it. The block was not for BLP violations in their own right, but for repeatedly restoring material that had been objected to on BLP grounds. A legitimate concern had been raised and was under discussion, so reigniting an edit war to restore it before the discussion has even fully got underway if grossly improper. Given the speed of the reverting, I did not feel that warnings or advice would have adequately prevented disruption. I feel this belief is vindicated by Kelly's continuing to revert, despite the sole condition of the unblock being that they stop. I suggest Kelly be re-blocked and/or topic-banned; note that this can be done under discretionary sanctions. Again, the issue of whether to name the accused is irrelevant to this discussion; the issue is that it was removed in good faith on BLP grounds and should not be restored (much less edit-warred over) until consensus is established. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are not hearing the message, so here it is again: Stop pushing your view. Wait for the community to deliberate. There is no rush. Good-faith editors have said there is a BLP problem, and such issues are not resolved by determining who is willing to edit war the longest. The only question for ANI has been answered by HJ Mitchell above. Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly, you've pushed your view here in this discussion and on the BLP board. Your view is that adding his name helps him clear his name. That's your POV. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This case (like many involving similar allegations) is an absolute minefield. Anyone curious to know more should read the abovementioned NYT article. Maybe one person is guilty, maybe another person is innocent, maybe it's a complicated mixture. Columbia University and/or the judicial system will be hard-pressed to determine Truth here; Wikipedia (let alone AN/I) certainly won't, and must do its best to follow RS and BLP policy in deciding what and how to report. Whether or not to mention the guy's name, whether that helps or hurts his case, whether it is what he would or wouldn't want -- none of these questions is trivial, they're all difficult, and not at all to be decided in a moment by one user. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You say "We are not here to litigate the merits of including the name," but we must discuss this enough to say if the BLP is "legitimate" or not right? Or in other words was the BLP objection in "good-faith"? If it was, then there is a problem with restoring it, if not then it wasn't. In this case however WP:BLPCRIME seems to put enough of a reason to consider not including his name (even if he came out publicly). The only reason to include his name as he has not yet been convicted would be if he wanted his name out there. I don't quite see that being the case here (and needless to say that was not demonstrated prior to the revert which it should have been if that was the reason). So the block seems good to me. So the only question then is what is the remedy? A block is not to be used to punish and I think using a block at this point would be inappropriate. So what is the remedy that you are seeking? A topic ban? From what exactly? --Obsidi (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So we're supposed to write biographies without using the name of person now? How is using someone's name as the title of an article about them a BLP violation? GoldenRing (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple reliable sources covering her story over a pretty decent amount of time or, in other words, "per GNG". You can play coy all you like, Bugs, but it doesn't help anyone, least of all Kelly. And restoring information when legitimate (meaning "not crazy") BLP objections are brought up is always going to lead to a predictable outcome. Next, Drmies (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just closed the requested move at Talk:2014 Odessa clashes. RGloucester (talk·contribs) was against the move, and is apparently trying to game the outcome of the RM by removing all article content at the new title and turning it into a DAB page, presumably ending up with the other page being back at his preferred title.
Some action is clearly needed here, so can some other admins please intervene. Locking the article might be a start. Cheers, Number5723:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of the article has changed. The move is fine, as the editors involved must've wanted an article on the other Odessa incidents of 2014. Therefore, I'm happy to oblige, as I said in the move discussion. This is now a summary article, and the individual incidents will get their own articles. There is no other way to move forward. The RM participants decided they wanted an increased scope, and I'm granting them that wish. If they did not want to broaden the scope of the article, they should not've have voiced support for this proposal. RGloucester — ☎23:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can I have administrator assistance please? I've just finished writing the new summary article on the 2014 Odessa clashes, in line with the RM result. I now need the old edit history transferred to 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes, so that article can be restored. I'll start working on the December clashes article shortly. RGloucester — ☎01:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of the article changed with the move to "2014 Odessa clashes", to encompass all 2014 clashes in Odessa. I've done this expansion, wrote a new article on the subject to match the RM result. The 2 May clashes have their own article, and a summary section in the 2014 clashes article. RGloucester — ☎21:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Back then, I probably would have been aware of the December bombings in Odessa. However, I was uncertain about its notability because no mainstream media have reported such event. Also, voters were not aware of it, and RGloucester neglected to notify us about the bombings. I requested that the mess be cleaned up, but I see that consensus must be adhered. Unfortunately, the discussion has become useless and void since the mess. George Ho (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I told RGloucester that, if he can't create a separate "May 2014 Odessa clashes" soon, I'll re-propose a page move on the same article with only one name, and that's final. George Ho (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How long must a given IP address stay suspected of being a so-called "sockpuppet"?
When any given IP user gets accused of being a sockpuppet of a named user (which should only be done if the IP user was abusing the system at the time of their writing, but is unfortunately sometimes done even without abuse from that IP user), and then if, for some dumb reason, that IP user is given the suspected-sockpuppet label, how long must it stay there--even if that IP user was never blocked, and regardless of how long, if for any time, the named user the IP is accused of socking was blocked? Is it just like that for the remainder of the Wikipedia's existence, or... what, exactly? And whose decision is that supposed to be, anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remainder of Wikipedia's existence would be more like it. It's the decision of SPI clerks entirely. And they can only be over-ruled by ArbCom. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C08:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, QEDK. But why, if most IP addresses are shared, and so a new person using that address then has to hold onto that label, as well as the named user never being let go of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shared IP addresses are blocked for a short period of time (the maximum can be ~2 months) - keeping in mind that it's shared. However, if we find a LTA from such an IP for years, admins will indef block the IP. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C08:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe IPs are almost never indef blocked - static ones are blocked for long definite periods. By the way, I think the relevant term is dynamic (vs static) rather than shared - dynamic ones are re-allocated at intervals, sometimes very short ones, and I don't think sock tags would be left on those for very long. Squinge (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By shared, he does mean "shared" i.e. when one IP is used by a number of people. For example, intranets which have only one exit point to the internet have one external IP address only and a WHOIS will only point to that intranet and not be able to pinpoint a specific computer in it, since all have the same IP address. Since, institutions and work places have a lot of computers, shared IP addresses save resources (i.e. hardware load and money) because only one or a few addresses need to be allocated. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C13:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he did mean "shared" (and yep, I know what it means, thanks), but I think the difference between dynamic and static is also relevant here, especially when people are suggesting IP address are indef blocked (they should almost never be), and it's really only static IPs (shared or not) that get long blocks. Squinge (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well guys, I don't mean "blocked" necessarily, but even just being suspected of sockpuppetry. How long must an IP user hold the "suspected of sockpuppetry" label as slapped on by an assuming admin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Template:IPsock or another template like it can be removed by anyone at any time (assuming it is not checkuser confirmed sockpuppetry, which for an IP is unlikely). That is, they are not listed at WP:UP#CMT as needing to remain on the user talk page so removal is only subject to the edit warring and blocking (edits by blocked users) policies.
@QEDK: just to clarify something you said SPI clerks are just like any other user except they are trained and trusted by the checkusers to keep SPI functioning. Blocks (and other actions) by SPI clerks can be appealed and overturned by any administrator. Blocks made by checkusers (and marked as a checkuser block - see WP:CUBL) can only be overturned by another checkuser or the Arbitration Committee because they rely on private evidence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, QEDK, then why is it that when I have once had another IP address and I went to remove that stupid notice from IP editors I know, those admins think it's their duty to keep replacing that notice and also add me as one of the sock suspects? When does that stupid practice die, and after how long do those addresses get to go back to normal (they'll stop insisting that those are permanently marked)? Do we have to have admins that just keep adding those back as well as adding new ones indefinitely? Do they not have better things to do than maintain those indefinitely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are on a suspected sockmaster's shared IP, your recourse would be to make an account and file an appeal to BASC citing that your IP is shared. And well, your account and IP will be either freed from the sockpuppet trademark or you'll gain IPBlockExempt status. But then, you seem to be on a static and clean IP till now. What's the problem? --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C10:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Darkstar1st on a site-wide purge of any mention of "libertarian socialism"
None of these mentions of libsoc are the least bit controversial, to my knowledge, and the political groups in question all describe themselves as libertarian, as typically confirmed by native-language articles. Offering citations doesn't seem to make any difference at all, so I don't know how to proceed. fi (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at the ref for PPK and Darkstar1st appears to be correct. All references to liberarianism are in reference to Öcalan, not PPK. Can't comment on others, but the user does seem to be editing specifically on this issue. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 01:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. That document does specifically identify it as libertarian socialist unambiguously, in exactly the same way that a manifesto proclaiming Maoism would identify a group as Marxist-Leninist. Bookchin's communalism is a form of libertarian socialism, just like a lemon is a type citrus fruit. B ⊃ A fi (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're assuming the result you want. You say a lemon is a citrus fruit, but another editor objects, unless you have a citation from a reliable source that says that a lemon is a citrus fruit, you can't use that in an article. If someone disputes it, you need a citation from a reliable source that says Maoism is a form of Marxist-Leninism, or you can't use it. Does your source say specifically that "Bookchin's communalism is a form of libertarian socialism" (or words to that effect)? If it doesn't, then it's not the source you need. Your prior knowledge is not sufficient, you need a source. BMK (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's just patently silly. Wikipedia (on the articles for communalism, Murray Bookchin, libertarian socialism, for example) is absolutely plastered in references confirming that Bookchin's communalism is uncontroversially a type of libertarian socialism. What you're saying is like saying it's OR to call a "poet" a "writer" because a source explicitly called him a "poet" and there's no reference literally saying "writer." I'm not offering my personal knowledge as a reference; it's just documented all over Wikipedia that one is a superset of the other. A square is a rectangle, so we don't need a reference on something being a rectangle if we have a source saying it's a square. More importantly, the editor has not objected as you say and has brought no credible objection or dispute to the discussion. This is just a continuation of the abuse already on the editor's rap sheet. fi (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Common sense", for want of a better word, tells us that a lemon is a citrus fruit, and a poet is a writer. It tells us no such thing about the relationship between Bookchin's communalism and libertarian socialism. It is way outside the bounds of common knowledge, and therefore needs a source. BMK (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then "common sense" tells us, in the exact same way, that a Maoist is a Marxist-Leninist, especially when there's dozens of citations, all over WP, saying B ⊃ A -- same as references describing Bookchin, communalism and (shockingly) libertarian municipalism as libertarian. You can pick your favorite reference, but you're the first person to challenge this, as User:Darkstar1st did not. So, I don't even understand why we're talking about it. fi (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WSPUS was the US contingent of the World Socialist Movement, which was described as libertarian socialist, for example, in Anarchy Magazine, Volume 3, 1963, page 178 (can't link directly, so search for "World Socialist Movement" and "non-state libertarian socialists"), among numerous other sources. "Common sense" would just be transitive logic. If we know where a superset belongs, we know how to describe a subset. fi (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Transitive logic works only if you accept the premise. Perhaps you're not aware of just how contentious political labels can be? I'd advise you to find multiple reliable sources before slapping labels on political organizations, especially when (as in the current case) the organization itself rejects or has never used that label. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a premise is wrong is another thing, while this is about validity: if A and B then also C. If someone's arguing that it's valid but unsound, could you please link me to the discussion? Like I said though, I am aware of zero controversy and I rather doubt WSPUS would have rejected being called libertarian Marxist (had the term been more widely used in the early 20th century) or libertarian socialist (had the term not been associated almost exclusively with anarchist communism then). It's just the most accurate description of their politics and it's not considered pejorative... not that it particularly matters if they *had* rejected it. Whether a group likes the label they're given or not is hardly the one criterion for verifiability. Anyway, I still don't understand why we're talking about this when Darkstar1st's only stated contention was that he doesn't like how libsoc exists, historically. fi (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it seems you're just making stuff up. Darkstar1st's stated contention for the removal in question was the reliability of the source, not with his distaste for the idea of libertarian socialism in general. You even linked to his edit summary upthread. (And as a matter of fact, your doubts about the label are without merit; the WSP(US) denies that it is "Marxist" so it's a safe bet it would also take issue with "libertarian Marxist".) Of course, disputes about our categorizations of parties are best resolved on article talk pages, not here. There's already a talk page discussion about the categorization of this particular party, to which you're welcome to contribute. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you even talking about? WSM and WSPUS were founded by anti-Bolshevik Classical Marxists. It's pretty much the first thing both articles say. So far as the editor in question and that editor's POV crusade, I can back up everything I've said with diffs, like the user's insistence that libertarian socialism isn't real libertarianism, refusal to enter into discussion and the removal of perfectly legitimate sources on statements contradicting that POV. I'm here to talk about that editor's conduct. fi (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're trying to build a case for Darkstar1st's POV, then it help if you got the facts of your complaint straight, and demonstrated a modicum of familiarity with the examples you're invoking. First you stated upthread that Darkstar1st removed the "libertarian socialist" label from the WSP(US) article, even though you claim they "describe themselves as libertarian". However, the WSP(US) has never referred to itself as libertarian. Then you said that "Darkstar1st's only stated contention was that he doesn't like how libsoc exists" (my emphasis), though your own diffs show a variety of stated contentions on his part, including objections to the reliability of one citation (a perfectly reasonable argument, even though it proved to be mistaken) and to another's language (much less reasonable grounds, but still nothing to do with political ideology). Then you claim that the WSP(US) would refer to itself as Marxist, when in fact they have always quite vocally rejected this label. In short, I'd be taking your complaint a lot more seriously if it wasn't so easy to poke holes in your evidence. —Psychonaut (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WSM is commonly labeled libertariansocialist and describes itself as Marxist, which takes all of ten seconds to verify. If you have some reason to believe both the WSM and WSPUS articles are 100% wrong in their descriptions of these groups, please fully rewrite these articles accordingly: articles presently describing anti-Leninist Classical Marxists. So far as Darkstar1st's removal of the source for being unreliable, that source was a pamphlet published by WSPUS, so I find it difficult to believe that the WSPUS is not a relevant source on the topic. There may be a worthwhile discussion to be had about whether this Marxist group (according to every source available on all relevant WP articles) is more accurately described as impossiblist, libsoc, both or neither, but the editor was not interested in having one. I encourage you to take your own advise and stay on topic. fi (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is your failure to present a coherent argument about Darkstar1st's disruptive editing. Neither the document you just cited nor the one Darkstar1st originally objected to say what you claim they say, and in this thread you continue to argue against strawmen. (I never said that the WSP(US) is not Marxist or libertarian socialist, and I never said that our articles shouldn't describe them as such.) I think I've seen enough of your line of reasoning (such as it is) to come to a conclusion as to what needs to be done here. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't backpedal. Nearly everything you've tried to derail this with has been total nonsense and just factually wrong; e.g. apparently WSPUS is so adamant about rejecting allegations of Marxism that they devoted a quarter of their website to a "Study Guide to Marxism." I'm sorry you tried to grandstand and got called on it. Good call on bailing out. fi (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In one edit Darkstar reverts the addition of a Spanish language source (in an article on a Chilean political party) with the edit summary "Engligh language sources only please". That is unjustified. We have no requirement for sources to be in English. For writing about political parties in non-English speaking countries particularly it would seem a particularly silly requirement.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·21:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Finx may well be wrong, that is a content issue for discussion. However, if, as they claim, User:Darkstar1st is not discussing the disagreement, we have a behaviour issue. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 18:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
A quick look shows that, for example, this edit by Darkstar1st does have an edit summary that points to the a discussion section on the talk page. I think, therefore, that it would be a better plan to engage on the article talk pages than pursue this AN/I. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 18:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
On the face of it, this certainly appears to be a behavioural issue - and if Darkstar1st thinks that it is appropriate to remove all mention of a significant trend in the historical development of socialist thought from Wikipedia, as appears to be his/her objective, we need to do something about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that, as of now, the user is still edit warring and Wikilawyering all over the place. I don't feel like getting into fifteen separate games of revert pong, so I'll just let this roll on until someone wants to do something about the continuing pattern of disruptive behavior. fi (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend admin action. Well there is some pretty obvious POV pushing. It's a systematic removal of references to left wing libertarianism, presumably to POV push that it does not exist, and only right-wing libertarianism exists. So in effect it is vandalism, as a clear pattern has emerged. If left unhindered he may remove all mentions of left-wing libertarianism. --Mrjulesd(talk)23:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there's a larger problem involving libertarian editors and articles. For an example, look what's happened to our article on free society.[70] This kind of assimiliation of a non-libertarian topic, takeover, and OR is going on everywhere. Darkstar1st is only one of many editors engaging in this kind of behavior. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think part of the problem is that User:Finx is a bit clueless about citations and original research. (See example.) In the example, Citation A, did not support the statement, but Citation B did. User:Finx did not understand that Citation B needed to be by the statement, not Citation A. Regarding original research, User:Finx seems to think that if a party is socialist, and says it has liberal/libertarian values, that makes it a libertarian-socialist party. [The same non-English word translates as "liberal" or "libertarian".] What Darkstar1st seems to be trying to do is to clean up this kind of thing.-- Toddy1(talk)09:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I don't stoop to personal attacks, but if you want to charge me with being "clueless" on ANI, let's review the absolutely mind-boggling level of incompetence you have displayed on the Freedom and Solidarity Party article. First of all, the citation already present before the titular POV warrior arrived used the word "özgürlükçü" which, beyond any reasonable doubt (as was explained), translates to "libertarian" in this context. So, no further citation was even needed. Assuming good faith, however, (and way beyond what is reasonable) the very first thing I did was add an inline English-language citation from a respected authority on the subject with a quote that just could not possibly be any clearer: "the ODP, or Freedom and Solidarity Party, is a Turkish socialist libertarian party founded in 1996." This was removed and ignored. When I pointed this out, it was ignored again by both yourself and the POV warrior, followed by complaints about the original reference using "özgürlükçü" instead of "liberter" -- which are synonyms, as can be seen here. When that objection clearly fell apart, the Wikilawyering moved on to ridiculous claims of OR: it's OR to assume that political groups claiming to be libertarian are... libertarian. I mean, this is just comedy. "Liberal" and "libertarian" are mutually exclusive groups: one is capitalist, the other, in this (and practically any) context, anticapitalist. That is also not original research. It's the most basic level of comprehension you can have on the topic. Libertarian, outside of its isolated use in the US as another word for advocacy of laissez faire "free market" capitalism, universally means socialist. The libertarian qualifier in libsoc qualifies the type of socialism (to distinguish from state-socialism), not the other way around, i.e. the type of libertarianism. When a socialist political organization declares itself libertarian, that means one thing only: libertarian socialism. If you are this confused or just know absolutely nothing about these topics, why not ask for clarification instead of calling others "clueless"? And, speaking of clueless, I invite you to find me one article on Wikipedia -- or anywhere else for that matter -- where "özgürlükçü" translates to liberal, let alone where that's a reasonable translation in the context of describing far-left socialist groups. The only thing in your contributions so far that would have even vaguely resembled a rational thought -- had it been concerning a non-socialist party -- is based off a funny Google translation error which you couldn't be bothered to verify when it produced an obvious absurdity. fi (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Site ban proposal for User:Darkstar1st
Normally I would recommend a topic ban from libertarianian-related articles, but the editor's history shows that he has not made a positive contribution anywhere, and has carried out this type of editing in other areas such as the Tea Party movement. He's had years to change, but seems more interested in conflict than improvement of articles. So probably best to ban the editor and avoid having to discuss him at ANI again and again. TFD (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Site ban for Darkstar1st. This battleground behavior and tendentious editing has been going on for years in many articles related to his interests. He has failed to respond to the many requests and warnings to stop. There's no reason to believe that his behavior will improve in the future. I think he has exhausted the patience that has been extended to him. SPECIFICOtalk04:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any action against Darkstar1st. The editor who brought this complaint has failed to make a coherent case for any serious disruption by Darkstar1st, willful or otherwise. Most of the edits I've checked seem to be correctly, or at least plausibly, tagging or removing claims which are not supported by citations. And for cases where the edits are disputed he has requested and/or engaged in talk page discussions. He seems to have been confused about the acceptability of non-English sources, though solving that ought to have involved drawing his attention to WP:NONENG rather than dragging him to WP:ANI. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Psychonaut:This disruptive behavior is just the latest in a long history of such conduct in articles on related subjects. This user repeatedly either ignores or fails to understand warnings and guidance as to behavioral and sourcing policy. He's been blocked numerous times for misconduct. Unfortunately, there is no reason to expect things to get any better. SPECIFICOtalk19:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Restored this section from archive: Request admin attention
He previously removed references to these ideologies, put on tags, and now he is removing the socialist libertariansim, pretending that he did not put on these tags.
Note: I've invited Darkstar1st to join this conversation, and let them know that the discussion is currently moving towards their being blocked. -- The Anome (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if he is changing 100 articles, if he is doing so for good policy based reasons. To ask for a source for a disputed claim is fine (which is what most of his edits have been). He did get into a bit of an edit war on Equality_Party_(Chile). That was wrong, he should have gone to the talk page after he got reverted. He did remove some content that was sourced to a site in a foreign language, he should have asked for a translation if he disputed it before removing. Other then that I don't see the problem --Obsidi (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't that suggest a POV pusher? Removing references to "Libertarian" from lots of socialist political parties? And that's all he's been doing. And there are ample references he's ignoring. There is a definite pattern to his editing suggesting heavy POV against libertarian socialism, like he doesn't like that it exists. --Mrjulesd(talk)19:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POVPUSHEditing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing. If there are references he is ignoring, first make sure that he is aware of them, and then it becomes behavior issue if he continues. Demanding sources and removing unsourced labels (until a source is provided) even on multiple pages is not quite enough to be a problem. If he was repeatedly adding, especially fringe material or expanding sections beyond what would be due weight that would be far more of a problem which is what POV pushing is. --Obsidi (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The editor "asked" for sources and then deleted them when they were provided, or when clarification on the correct and already present sources was offered. fi (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did see a few that he removed even after a source was provided because the source was not in English. That was wrong. And if he persists and keeps removing it, he should be blocked until he acknowledges that he cannot remove sourced material just because it isn't in English. So far I have seen him remove stuff cited in other languages because it wasn't in English, but after it was added back in he doesn't appear to have kept removing it (meaning a block isn't yet appropriate for that). --Obsidi (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... removed sources in English that stated what the article said word-for-word, as well. There were up to six or seven reverts on about dozen separate articles, each. Indiscriminate mass deletions by political POV warriors call for a complete topic ban, at the very least, IMO, though I'm tempted to agree with TFD that it might be too lenient in this case. Honestly, the editor above who pointed out that US libertarians are a site-wide problem hit the nail right on the head. I don't know of any other political group here that causes so many problems repeatedly, or spends so much time on shameless appropriation and recuperation of absolutely anything that has some imaginary tenuous connection to the USLP marketing campaign. The issue, as far as I can see, is religious fanaticism. fi (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide diffs for those in which he "removed sources in English that stated what the article said word-for-word"? There are a lot of different articles and lots of different edits, I have been through all the diffs posted on this thread so far. --Obsidi (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So I followed the link for the source cited in the diff and got "Aradığınız sayfa sistemde kayıtlı değildir" which is Turkish for "System is not registered on the page you are looking for" did you get something different? Oh, I see now, your talking about the ref to the book (he didn't remove any content just the ref to the book) I am not sure why he did that, that doesn't seem right. His edit summary seems to be related to the other two edits he made about the weird Turkish page not found message. --Obsidi (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he felt that it did not support the statement. The text in Wikipedia is "The prominent grouping within the party is Revolutionary Solidarity (former Devrimci Yol (Revolutionary Path) - also known as Dev-Yol) which was formed following the split of Libertarian Socialism Platform in 2007." But the source only says "The remnant of Del Yol, now called the Libertarian Socialism Platform, is also a member of the ODP." Close, but a bit different (or at least doesn't support all the sentence). --Obsidi (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source explicitly says: "the ODP...is a Turkish socialist libertarian party" -- which was made clear about four or five times, by my count. fi (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does, and like I said that is a good source for that. But he removed the reference in the diff above for a different sentence not dealing with if it is a socialist libertarian party. --Obsidi (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion above about a possible site ban for Darkstar1st. I have just created the heading "Site ban proposal for User:Darkstar1st". Please give your views there. --Mrjulesd(talk)02:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated censorship of politician Michael Portillo's page
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ex MP and cabinet member Michael Portillo appeared on a BBC television programme and said that he has dual Spanish and British nationality and that his Spanish name is Miguel Portillo Blyth. I add this fact. User:Smerus keeps removing the information claiming variously that the reference isn't valid - it is per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source, or inferring that Portillo was joking - for which he provides no evidence. Smerus mentions on his biography page that he was involved in politics in the same political party and town as Portillo. Consequently I believe that Portillo's article is being censored. It's all been discussed on the talk page - Talk:Michael_Portillo#Spanish_name.3F. Thanks, -- John (Daytona2·Talk·Contribs)16:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correction is not censorship; the discussion on the talkpage does indeed speak for itself, and the opinions of other editors there will I am sure be taken account of by administrators. They may also note that I made a polite suggestion to Daytona2 today on that talkpage, at 13.39, about how this information could be used in the article if he wished. Instead of responding to this he has proceeded to make the above complaint (at 16.18 today). I am seriously upset at his utterly unjustified and aggressive suggestion that I am attempting to 'censor' Wikipedia; however, as I am not of a vengeful nature, I will merely suggest that he tries to be little less bumptious, and that he tries to AGF with editors whose opinions differ from his. I haven't a clue what he is seeking to imply by posting bits of my biography here. It is the case that nearly 20 years ago, Portillo was my MP; and it is also true that we were then (but are no longer) members of the same political party. I do not see why this should prevent me interesting myself in his article on Wikipedia, any more than my interest in classical music has been held against me in writing on Richard Wagner and others.
Furthermore, he uploaded an copyrighted image to the Commons which bears the POV caption "Muslims Protests Armenian Aggression Against Women".
He twice (1, 2) re-added the section. First time he called its removal by me "Vandalism" and the second time his edit summary was "it is a source for the subjekt about the Commemoration in Akdamar island". --Երևանցիtalk17:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
nonsense and a ridiculous claim from the user Yerevantsi (talk·contribs). the subjekt is clearyly about Commemorated in Akdamar Island. It does not matter if this user like it or not, this commemoration takes place in Akdamar Island, and this topic isn't about genocide etc. Yerevantsi (talk·contribs) should stop his Vandalism, because this entry is comply with the rules Եalesgeriytalk
i have chose this source because is English written. This entry belong here because is strongly associated with Akdamar Island and its about Akdamar ısland's history. the source is reliable because this commemoration is held every year, denial about this fact would be a hypocritical policy which is don't belong to wikipedia terms. btw theire is many such informative entry in wikipedia. and yes, the removal act with his comment "nonsense" of user Yerevantsi (talk·contribs) is vandalism. talk
I'm not at all concerned with the source, or the information right now. (I have marked the source as unreliable.) I am most concerned that you insist on calling the edits by Yerevantsi vandalism. That is harassment on your part. --OrduinDiscuss19:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I view this as a content dispute, and was commenting on behavior. I am not saying the content is incorrect or correct, I am merely providing note that your behavior is not proper. --OrduinDiscuss20:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Orduin: you don't saying the True WP:HERE , and my entry according this policy is appropriate. this removal are not not cited in wikipedia policy and you vandalising my entry. you should stop immediately your vandalism and harassment . i will report you because of your hypocritical behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesgeriy (talk • contribs) 19:49, 8 February 2015
I've notified Alesgeriy (talk·contribs) of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAA2. Those sanctions cover "pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan or related conflicts". This puts him on notice that he is expected to follow Wikipedia policy from now on. If he is uncertain about the reliable sourcing rules, he could ask for feedback at WP:RSN. If you persist in adding material to Wikipedia that doesn't follow our sourcing rules, sanctions are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)(Strike per above comment)This is in direct violation to a decision from the Arbitration committee. A part of the final decision states: 2) Armenian, Azeri or other local sources are subject to the same requirements of reliability as any other scholarly or journalistic sources. Use of material from propagandistic nationalist sites is unacceptable. These sources are concidered propagandic.Alesgeriy has been warned by an admin over this. Also, you have broken the 3RR.
As well, the sources you have all added, are written completely in Turkish, which means that not everyone on the English wikipedia can verify these sources.
Please consider thoughtful discussion before you call me "hypocrite" again. That is baseless, unlike the comments I have made utilizing wikipedia policy and the article history. When you make an accusation, it must be supported with evidence, or it will be treated as a personal attack. --OrduinDiscuss21:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EdJohnston: one of this sources is also a source of Grand National Assembly of Turkey how can you call this source unreliable? but user Yerevantsi (talk·contribs) vandalising my entry with this comment "Turkish government aggressively denies the genocide; whether or not you cite the Grand Assembly means nothing" wut? my entry is not about genocide at all, and how can call this guy the turkish piarlament "means nothing" seriously ? why you don't stop this troll and vandal? Alesgeriy (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Orduin: so your point? so that you have proven your hypocritical approach. do you think wikipedia based about your own views and intereses? yes, i was right, you vandalising my entry just because of your own political views and this kind behavior do not contradicted with wiki terms. wikipedia is not your own toy. you should immediately stop your approach about this issue because you are not objective — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesgeriy (talk • contribs) 22:12, 8 February 2015
I have no political views on this matter. I did not even know about this article and events until I looked into this report. Your considering that I have predetermined thoughts on this event is incorrect. I focus on wiki policy. Your comment is harassment to get me out of this discussion, which I find very offensive. I got involved, now there is nothing you can do to get me to stop being involved. You are attacking everyone you have issue with. This will alienate any support you might have gotten. --OrduinDiscuss22:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Orduin: pls stop your aggressive attitude towards me, you playing with words and move away from the subject. i'm not agree with you, you don't give an proper answer but furthermore insulting me with such vulgar ascriptions
first, my entry is "not" about genocide etc. "is about the Commemoration in Akdamar Island, and sources proves that.
2. the source of the second entry which is about a monument, and is the "original" proposal. and you you call that is POV.? you denying an original source ? how can you do that? you acting just with your personal viewpoint and against the wiki terms this which is unacceptable
according to your logic %80 of the comments for Akdamar Island is nonsense , we can not continue in this way at all Alesgeriy (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, do we have a problem here. One of these sources refer to Armenians as "animals" (Turkish: Hayvanlara). The other source claims that Armenians killed Turks between the years 1915-18. That's a ridiculous statement since all Armenians living in the region were obliterated by the Turkish government by early 1915. Interestingly enough, the claim is made by a senior member of an ultra-nationalist Turkish organization called ASIMDER, which stands for the "International Association to Fight Unfounded Armenian Allegations". This organization had at once targeted Armenian schools, churches, foundations and individuals as part of an anti-Armenian hate campaign (see here for more information). The other source is by the Turkish government, the leading propagator of Armenian Genocide denial in the world. I found no neutral source, meaning non-Turkish or non-Armenian prime sources, that says Armenians raped women or that 50 or so women killed themselves. It appears that that story is entirely fabricated. As for the user's conduct, it just keeps getting worse. He has reverted yet again, well surpassing the 3RR mark. And he continues calls other user's edits vandalism. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
what did you think about what Armenian rebels did during the revolt? before genocide or exile? distribute flowers ? btw this incident is happenend on 17 april 1915 and also your debate is off topic, because in my entry i have not mention such "animals" like words. seems you have also your own viewpoints? I repeat, my entry is about memorial and monument in Akdamar Island. with just a little surf on Internet do not be shy, you can also find many article about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesgeriy (talk • contribs) 06:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was no "rebellion". It was an act of self-defense by the Armenians. The Armenians, in fear of a massacre by their own government, defended themselves from death marches and genocide. Cevdet Bey, the governor of Van, started a campaign of mass murder against Armenians throughout Van. The reports of Clarence Ussher, Ernest Yarrow, Elizabeth Ussher, Grace Knapp, and others all point to the fact that Cevdet Bey wanted to annihilate all Armenians in Van. The "incident" you refer could not have happened on 17 April 1915 because Russian soldiers did not arrive in Van until late May. There's also no evidence that Russian and Armenian soldiers massacred the Turkish population. No primary source makes such a claim. The only people who make such baseless claims are ultra-nationalist Turks whose sole mission is to deny the genocide. And I never said you called Armenians "animals', but I did say that the sources you provide refer to Armenians as such. By the way, it's absolutely pointless to add any information about the monument since it was never built (see here). Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Etienne your claimes is not to taken seriously you talking nonsense and your behavior is hypocritical you are an political propagandist and you are not neutral. i my self don't deny genocide, but you deny what armenian rebels before 1915 did. there is still survived Turkish/Kurdish victims from this massacre. here is no need to debate about this issue. Alesgeriy (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Roscelese is right. Also that one user, Alesgeriy, has now been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring, see WP:AN3 report here so the protection really isn't needed. Please consider unprotecting if you're around, Nyttend. If you're not, I guess I'll do it later. Incidentally, Alesgeriy seems surprisingly well acquainted with Wikipedia practice and jargon right from their first edit, if you glance at their edit summaries. Does anybody have a suggestion for a likely sockmaster? Bishonen | talk15:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I'll do it momentarily. I didn't see that the other guy had been blocked. Aside from that, protection is reasonable; when we've got an ongoing edit war, either we protect or we block the people involved, and I figured it would be better to protect it than to block three people. Nyttend (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User Binksternet deleting discussion of his deletions from his talk page
User Binksternet keeps deleting discussion of his deletions from his talk page, with claims of "vandalism"/ "trolling", in spite of admitting "the truth of what you were inserting". This is not constructive, only obstructive to well-meaning IP-editors editing.
Binksternet deletes WP-content he actually agrees with, according to himself, only to embroil IP-edits in edit warring where he then games the system to exclude the primary edits and their content. That seems unconstructive to WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.22.29 (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
:: Tnx - didn't know that. It still seems an unfactual way of handling attempted constructive criticism, even though acceptable. Sorry to've forgotten signing. 88.88.22.29 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the comment you posted on his page, you called him "Binky" and signed yourself "Kris", as if this was a name he would know. Do you have an account on Wikipedia, and, if so, why are you editing as an IP? BMK (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Last month, the IP 80.212.111.41 tried to post the same material to Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and left a similar note on Binksternet's talk page. I presume this was you. The material you posted this time has been removed from the article by multiple editors, but not by Binksternet, so your current comment seems like an egregious and unwarranted slap at him. On top of what would appear to be block evasion, I wonder if an admin might consider blocking both of these IPs? BMK (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:85.164.61.86 joins the group. Editors with accounts are not allowed to use multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny of their edits, but editors without accounts who have dynamic IPs avoid scrutiny just by the nature of the beast. Perhaps we shouldn't allow dynamic IPs to edit, only static ones. BMK (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, these q's appear too fast to keep up. Tried re names and got an 'edit-clash', and lost the reply. The name, actual, was an attempt at being personal and constructive, acknowledging edits in spite of power-outage changed IP. As I'm not sufficiently familiar with the arcania of WP-rules, and not really interested in time-consuming learning to master it and the intricacies of wp-bickering, I'm outta here. No block evasion, though - rather the contrary by acknowledging by real name. Tnx for the discussion, it's been interesting. Now to real-world issues :-). Good luck to you all, and tnx for replies. * And 'edit-conflict' happened again (!). I'm deluged, sorry. 88.88.22.29 (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No real need for an answer from you, those IPs are obviously all you. And calling a person you don't know by a diminutive version of their name is insulting, which I would guess (from the content of those "constructive" messages) was your intent. You were annoyed that your unsourced, OR, or poorly sourced BLP edits were being deleted, and you lashed out at one of the editors doing it -- but the very fact that multiple editors have removed your contributions from verious articles means that you're not getting it. BMK (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Edit conflict' happened again, with entry below. * Your claims and accusations are entirely subjective. E.g. abbreviating a long name according to convention, with first syllable + "y", is no insult. In addition, disparaging my clarification as "no need for an answer" is in itself a condescending attempt at insult - so you're overreacting and being unfactual. I repeat, my edits were/are all about including correct info on WP. E.g. why is the statement "Bootlegs exist" re Fogerty's "Hoodoo" unacceptable to you, when they most certainly do, as amply demonstrated on Youtube? - That's a fact just silly to delete. In spite of whatever pretext of sourcing-faults applied. Let it rest. Or btr yet, improve the ref.s yrself, accomplished WP-editor that you appear to be. (Unless, of course, you have some ulterior motive for deleting verifiable facts - like not liking that smbd tried to keep those facts on WP. But that wouldn't be the case w you, would it? - Sure hope not). - Still trying to get out of here, w/o too many misconstructions left standing.88.88.22.29 (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to remember where I had heard an editor call Binksternet "Binky" before and it was in the course of the hubbub prior to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics with one editor receiving an indefinite block and several others receiving topic blocks. I don't if there is any connection but since Binksternet has stated he doesn't like that nickname, I thought it was curious to see it again. LizRead!Talk!23:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question to you all: Is there anywhere some kind of crash-course in WP-editing which doesn't lead to swamping in details and exceptions to rules?
Is there some way for sporadic IP-editors to make sure facts remain on WP without biased editors going hunting to keep those facts off WP?
Or is this last a currently unsolved problem on WP, where 'fair warning' needs to be presented all prospective IP-editors (or maybe such 'fair warning' is a good idea: a short txt telling of how a simple edit may lead to endless entanglement in disputes and accusations from up to 7.3 billion editors?). Or maybe simply a warning that there may be deep layers of incomprehensible attacks coming if one tries to contribute? Or is this smth one must risk wading into unwittingly, like an invisible quagmire? Maybe a simple, friendly warning that "there be monsters" off the map should be publicized? 88.88.22.29 (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Targeting nothing, baseball-head - just contributing facts. Check it out. If you dare look at facts. - Gee, WP appears just chock full of people seeking fights not facts. 'Fair warning' should be served. :-)88.88.22.29 (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tnx for nothing, Baseball-head et al. As for 'IP-hopper' - say that to the electricity provider, I'm sure they'll thank you for yr input (maybe they'll electrocute you as reward? ;-). 88.88.22.29 (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guess you also think that calling someone "Baseball-head" is not insulting either.
Admin assistance requested, please This IP doesn't seem to be here to improve the encyclopedia. If the IP is dynamic, and he's not just IP-hopping to avoid scrutiny of his editing, is there nothing that can be done to put him on ice? BMK (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 'Baseball-head' at least seems no worse than 'Baseball-bugs" (as the editor calls hirself). But if you feel insulted on hir behalf for some humor here, apoplectologies to you. Unless humor is Beyond Yr Ken? Why so aggressive about excluding others from WP? - You sure "seem to be here" to quarrel rather contribute to WP yourself. And you still haven't replied to why you insist the factual info "Bootlegs exist" re Fogerty's "Hoodoo" should be excluded, instead preferring to attack the contributer to be "put on ice" (killed?) - is that constructive? 88.88.22.29 (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did miss that. Incidentally, all the IPs listed above are from the same region of Norway, most of them from the same city. BMK (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any obvious correlation between Steeletrap's article editing and that of the IPs listed above, and "Binky" is, unfortunately. probably a fairly obvious choice for someone attempting to bug Binksternet, so I'd say offhand that there's probably no connection there. BMK (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This cat from Norway came up on my radar because of one edit continuing a hoax at the Pamela Des Barres biography. It appeared that the Norway IP editor was unwittingly contributing to the hoax, which I saw as an honest mistake, but since the editor had proved somewhat problematic (using poor sources in a BLP), I looked at other contributions and found original research and misrepresentation of sources, which I quickly reverted.[75][76][77] Other respected editors were reverting this person, too, for the same reasons. The Norway guy began to edit war against everybody rather than discuss, and thus got blocked on 8 January as 88.88.36.157. Another block came on 12 January, stopping the same editor from using IP 80.212.4.12. While blocked as 80.212.4.12, the same person used IP 80.212.111.41 to continue edit warring at the Dominique Strauss-Kahn biography, which I reverted because of block evasion. This person apparently wishes us to ignore his record of block evasion, edit warring, misrepresentation of sources, and original research. Now we can add trolling my user talk page. Binksternet (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BMK: Yes, I'm pretty sure that the evidence is strong enough for a duck block. Besides the "Binky" comment, I found six other traits shared by both editors. I'm not sure whether the level of disruption justifies the effort though. I don't want to give hints so the sock learns how to avoid detection. If I pursue it, I will email the evidence to Arbcom or an admin.- MrX13:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This community is a joke! Mister X ublicly accuses me of being a liar and creating a fake account. But he refuses to provide any evidence for this charge. And he ignores the obvious counter-evidence: the fact that I edit from America and this gentleman edits from Norway.
I challenge Mister X to publicly state what his "evidence" against me is. I think the charge is pure speculation, based only on the "binky" connection, and that he lied about having additional evidence. Unlike many users here, I am a serious person with a serious reputation. I would never engage in "socking," which is not only dishonest and immature but attacks the basic integrity of WP. A major problem with WP--and its Revenge of the C Students style culture--is that no one abides by basic standards of evidence before making a change. Steeletrap (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This community may be a joke, but it's not because of anything I wrote in this thread (which somehow came to your attention in spite of your retirement). What I said was "I found six other traits shared by both editors". I never accused you of being a liar, nor did I accuse you of creating a fake account. I stand by my original statement that if the disruption doesn't continue, I see no reason to expend effort to collect diffs and present evidence. My time is valuable. If someone else familiar with your editing history such as Srich32977 or Sitush decides to file and SPI report, I may add my evidence to it. My preferred outcome would be that, with the IP blocked, we won't see this type of trolling and harassment occur again.- MrX21:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listen up, Perry Mason: I have contacts on WP who emailed me about the allegations. How about you present your alleged "evidence" that I am socking as this Norwegian dude? If you make an allegation of socking--one of the most serious charges one can meet on WP--you should back it up. I get the feeling you know you have a flimsy basis for such charges, and that you wouldn't make the allegation if you weren't hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet. Steeletrap (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for name calling. Since you obviously refuse to let this go, I will oblige you by opening up an SPI case.- MrX00:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for the charges against Bink- There is no question that drive-by style of "research" and editing are highly problematic, as is his rude treatment of newcomers. Such conduct has led to a long record of blocks, a record that would be even more extensive and damning if not for the weird friendships Bink has made with "like minded" editors. Still, as a general rule, everyone is entitled to remove what she wants to remove from her talk page. So this action should be dismissed. Steeletrap (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Currently, that username is a blatant violation of our username policy. First, it begins with the prefix "Te-", which is good, but the suffix "-dickey", is not. I suggest that this account be blocked indefinitely.
Is it just me, or is it curious that this user has edited with no complaints about his username for over eight years, and this complaint is the IP's first edit? I think there's more than meets the eye here. Recommend no action against Tedickey. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could as well be someone trying to pick on him. This user is perfectly fine and no one has raised a voice for 8 years. In India, there are names which end with "shit" and here is just someone who chose to have an username ending with "dickey". I recommend keeping this closed. I don't know how on earth could an admin like seicer recommend opening this. Anyway, I'm opening this using my BOLD right to take in community input. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C13:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing at all wrong with the username, and I'm usually more sensistive to username problems than the admins who parol UAA.BMK (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason for concern based on looking at a few of the user's contributions, and the name is not inherently problematic because "Dickey" is indeed used as a surname. --Metropolitan90(talk)19:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jack E. Jett has been very uncivil towards me regarding my reversion of his addition of unsourced content. He also was accusing me of having some "prejudice" towards him. I tried to resolve the issue on my talk page but he raged. Sorry if this is a little late, as I have been quite busy with my work.
Considering that User:Jack E. Jett's first edit was to Jack E. Jett back in May 2013 to change a quote to the exact opposite of what the cited source actually says (and which has remained like that since then until I just reverted it), is there not a user name problem too? Without confirmation that this is actually Jack E. Jett, should this be considered impersonation? Squinge (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't think that he meant it the way you're implying it to be. He said that if objectionable material is there on BLPs, legal action could be taken against Wikipedia. However, he hasn't written anywhere that he'll be the one to file a lawsuit. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C11:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's best to advise him to do an RfC. Let's give him the benefit of doubt and think that he accidentally edited from his IP. If his purpose was to malign Wikipedia however, bad move. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C13:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An RfC at WT:BLP was started [83] by an editor who has now voted to "oppose" his own proposal: [84]. Surely this means the proposer has rescinded his own proposal -- and so I tried to archive the RfC [85], something the proposer then reverted [86]. Can someone please have a look -- I really think the RfC should be archived now, to save editors' time and avoid confusion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed the RFC. Nobody agreed with the proposed changes to the policy, or even with the necessity of changes to the policy. If someone thinks policy should be changed, they (and not someone else) should propose the changes they think necessary. Huon (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um -- the RfC was started due to an editor proposing that indirect self-identification of a living person as Jewish was sufficient. I noted that the only way to do required a change - and I was willing to back whichever side had the strongest arguments. It was not a sham RfC by any means, as one notes by the prior discussions about ethnicity on that same talk page. I am uncertain why this aroused such strong animus from Nomoskedasticity, alas. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC looked like forum shopping and pointiness. We can accomplish a lot more for the project by collaborating, cooperating, and each doing some of the content footwork ourselves. There's no need to make everything about blind adherence to rules.- MrX16:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you were one of the ones specifically proposing that indirect identification was sufficient, I find your point here amusing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing indirect about his self-identification across multiple RS, so Collect is putting words in the mouths of the three of us that were in consensus on blpcat. Collect launched the RfC to assert that he was attempting to defend against "indirect identification", but that was not the issue, because we were not asserting "indirect identification", at least I wasn't. Collect seemed to be demanding something akin to what in the analytic philosophy of language is called a "performative speech act" to demonstrate self-identification meeting blpcat. I agree that it was a pointy RfC.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑16:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I apologize wholly, and sincerely. A friend of mine had installed the Word Replacer Chrome extension on my laptop and had changed the word "Video" or "video" to "Jaguar" or "jaguar", respectively. This led to a fair amount of confusion, and me attempting to erase some vandalism that wasn't actually vandalism. when you "edit source" on a Wikipedia article, it seems to disregard the WR extension, leading to even more confusion for me. Moreover, upon looking at this closer, it appears to somehow edit all forms of the word video and change it to Jaguar in the entire article. I used Wiki love as a means of warning users who had made an innocent mistake and didn't need reprimand, they just needed someone to tell them not to do it again. I personally love Wikipedia and can spend hours poring over a well-written article. I try to keep edits summaries light and humorous while still to the point. Usually, I will put a summary on every edit that is not adjacent to an edit I just made. I hope that these mistakes are forgivable. Thank you Eik for bringing this to my attention. I was about to sit down and pump out 20 or so edits -- who knows what a disaster that would have been. k_scheik (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, glad that got figured out! That is a great idea with wikilove, just looks unorthodox. I've seen other accidental problems caused by work replacer before.... --OrduinDiscuss20:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it's me, i think that is really not OK to block my ID without letting me to respond!...
Did you read all of my post?
I have didn't plagiarize other content of other articles. I have wanted to add this contact to the article "Human rights in Israel" (In my own words - it does not appear in any where also - and all of the content is on my ID computer number), but it have been undid because it does not directly related to the value.
So I wanted to move the contents to other article instead; that is more consistent with the contents Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations.
Could you pls undo the blocking?...
See the "Human rights in Israel: Revision history" page:
20:35, 5 February 2015 213.57.144.175
19:25, 5 February 2015 213.57.144.175
18:57, 5 February 2015 213.57.144.175 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoniA20 (talk • contribs)
Done, by another admin while I was at the gym. I have not protected the articles involved, under the assumption that he doesn't have access to further IPs. I will watch -- Diannaa (talk)
Repeated personal attacks despite numerous warnings
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dr. Feldinger has taken to repeatedly attacking other users and to make irrelevant assumptions about their backgrounds. Despite having been warned by different admins no less than three times just in the last 48 hours [89], [90], [91] for his repeated personal attacks, the user seems to almost make a point of continuing [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97].Jeppiz (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Malik Shabazz (or MShabaz) is an Arab. His name is in Arabic and he has edited many Arab-related pages. It's a very obvious assumption along with his desire for anti-Israeli edits. Same goes for you Jeppiz, you do know we can see your contributions to Palestinian pages? Your POV complain is just sad. Dr. Feldinger (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An edit summary of "Helping my fellow Israeli countryman to add some new pictures in this article. Arabs and Anti-Israeli article editors tend to revert his work for obvious reasons." is unacceptable. --NeilNtalk to me21:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry if it made him cry. I didn't realize it's so offensive to be named an Arab. Maybe he is a racist? That's the unaccepted matter about this. Dr. Feldinger (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You do not add words to my or anyone else's posts, as you just added "A Muslim according to Wikipedia" to mine (now removed). My point is that it's not his real name. I'm sorry you weren't sharp enought to get that point (I hope that remark doesn't make you cry). Paul B (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think Dr. Feldinger's comments here make the case even better than the diffs I provided. (Not that it matters one bit, but I doubt even 2% of my Wikipedia edits are related to Israel or Palestine, despite Dr. Feldinger's assumptions about me). The user is clearly WP:NOTHERE.Jeppiz (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to ask for IP confimiation about the 3 users of you which you use against Wikipedia's rules? Jeppiz, Malik Shabazz, and MShabazz? Let's check those IP's and have some confirmation regarding your 3 shared work for the same articles. Dr. Feldinger (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind being called an Arab by a racist like you, Dr. Feldinger, but calling me a scumbag was too much.[99] It's clear that you're incapable of collaborating with people with whom you disagree, and that's unfortunate because Wikipedia is a collaborative project. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk21:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem like it might be one of the quicker requests to be dealt with here. I'm not sure the current edits are worth the hassel but might be worth going off to check if anything needs rev-del. Amortias (T)(C) 21:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not important, but if Dr. Feldinger had bothered to look at Malik's user page, he would see that the user is in fact Jewish. Now whilst being Arab is never a bad thing, the way that Feldinger is using it as an insult is wholly offensive to Arabs and Jews (speaking for myself, don't want to speak for others). I could understand if we had a heated discussion over the pic of Bar Rafaeli and said that x, y, and z thing that wasn't an NPA, but on the Talk:Israel page, we're seeing no assumption of good faith, lots of personal attacks and outright racism. That page has enough issues without this kind of thing going on. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19 Shevat 5775 22:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that his actions can only get worse. By the way, he is making false accusations against me and other things on the Israeli Jew talk page, see here: [102]. AcidSnow (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Problems on the American Sniper page
After putting it to a vote, the official Wikipedia consensus was for the Controversies page to be merged into the main page. I have gone to extremes to put in the work to greatly compress the the articles within it, and to compromise with the other users. However, in spite of this, and multiple warnings, the user MONGO keeps making crude partisan personal attacks on the talk page, and far more significantly, the user DHeyward is attempting to censor all of the additions wholesale, in fragrant violation of the official Wikipedia decision, and all the work that I put in to summarise the critical articles into one sentence each, with no compromise whatsoever. I would greatly appreciate an intervention. Thank you very much for any help. Here is the current Talk section. David A (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide diffs for the personal attacks? Having been the subject of MONGO's attacks in the past, I would like to see something done about this. Viriditas (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hum...somebody should remind David A if he's going to level false accusations he needs to learn common courtesy and leave a note on that editor's talkpage. Since I have this page watchlisted no need now, but thanks for nothing. There aren't any personal attacks unless calling it as it is is a personal attack. David A seems to be in severe violation of the undue weight clause of NPOV and is engaged in POV pushing on the aforementioned article. No amount of reasoning about what is and what isn't reliable sources and quality of sources seems to matter. Merge meant that the article mentioned needed to have critical reviews mentioned, but David A and one or two others believe that means the article is to be once again a coatrack of opinion pieces. The article critique was condensed to avoid the coatrack, a POV fork was created (not by David A) and then nominated for deletion and the vote was to merge back, but nothing was ever taken out of the main article in great details until now and I wasn't party to that!--MONGO06:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have that much of a problem with MONGO, but rather with DHewyard's massive censoring of references, but here are a few quotes from MONGO at the American Sniper Talk page:
“Its kind of fascinating to me that rags like Salon actually pay people of limited journalist integrity and zero ability to do investigative journalism (these tall tales would never hold up in a court of law) to write articles for them....I guess there is a target audience of persons with a predisposed bias that only want to read about things that support their biases.“
“I think it would be fair that if radicals and anti-American bigots and non expert opinions about movie crafting are to have their useless opinions quoted, then there is no reason to not elaborate in a few words to a sentence why each of these non experts likely hold such opinions.”
“Looks like a laundry list of wimps armed with a typewriter. “American Sniper’s” biggest lie: Clint Eastwood has a delusional Fox News problem... is this person insane or something?...nevermind, they "write" for the overtly left wing biased Salon. I think for every pro or con opinion, we should help frame some examples of those person's other viewpoints, to add perspective to their ridiculous biases.”
“I think the Michelle Obama quote is as worthless as the ones that rag on the movie. Who is she anyway, a Presidents wife...big deal. She isn't a movie critic anymore than I am. Look...we really need to stop all this quotefarming. I wouldn't mind seeing very brief quotes from movie critics but otherwise all we have are writers using the movie as an excuse to go off on some pro war, pro soldier or the opposite of that vein to promote their political viewpoints which are not relevant to the movie.”
“He writes for Salon, a left wing rag...of course they are going to obfuscate his firing because he now works for them in their efforts to propagate more biased "reporting" to continue to get their fan base to read their nonsense. Its pretty funny to think that even the Obama administration would have found his tweets and other commentary worrisome enough to pressure that PAC to remove him.”
"Bullshit..."
"It won't be much longer before the Democratic Party in the U.S. sees a total abandonment of Jewish support what with the radical left being so antisemitic... (Caution: That's a link to Fox News website and they have fixed it so their cookies can vaporize lefties computers!!! Just wanted to give you a heads up)"
“The "writers" that are busy writing vicious garbage about the movie and Kyle say zero about the beheadings and those being burned alive by ISIS. That is the definition of mental illness. For every lousy opinion piece I'm going to write qualifying comments in the article to help put perspective on why some of these people have such hate.”
“The article is not going to be the new coatrack for every hate filled opinion piece that are primarily from those using the movie as an excuse to unload a barrage of lies and misepresentaruons. “
“this article is not going to be drowned out by every wimps opinion about the movie, provided in long winded quotes that have about as much worth as a dog turd to us, an encyclopedia.”
“Well...the thing is that no one really reading the article could care less what some opinions are by anyone. They want to know what the movie is about and the mechanics of it. The sane know that the opinions are just opinions and could care less.”
“I've narrowed it down to 13 critiques...a few more are pretty much just opportunistic rants that discuss the movie only in cursory detail. That's still 13 critiques...I really have no idea what the complaints are about that the article doesn't have a critique section. Even if we eliminated a half dozen more of the most ridiculous opinion pieces it would still be undue weight to have the remaining ones in.”
“The controversy is mainly a stirred up concoction by people that want to use the movie to promote their unvisionary personal opinions about the war, snipers, Kyle and Eastwood and take pop shots and make shitty accusations about rednecks, Americans or gun right supporters. Its some of the lowest low ball bullshit I have ever read and is fascinating to me that while these "writers" get carte blanche to saw some of the most vicious things I have ever read, if people like me call them on their bullshit I'm somehow engaged in personal attacks. I'm going to take down a few more of these "critiques".”
"No one is trying to do anything but keep ranting raving opinions masquerading as movie reviews out of the article."
Personally, I find this kind of language crude and offensive, but unlike DHeyward, he has actually been willing to compromise. David A (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been pretty active on that and the related Chris Kyle page but the truth is almost all of your last 250 edits spanning the last 2 plus weeks has been on this topic...as shown here...and you wonder why I might view you as a single purpose account with an agenda? Seriously...why wouldn't anyone view it that way? Your purpose at least for this period has been solely to put as much negative bias in that article as you can get away with...please correct me if I am wrong. To be fair here is my last 250 edits...[104]--MONGO06:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been active on Wikipedia for 9 years running. I am not remotely a single-purpose account. However, I do have OCD, and get fixated on things. My attention has been splintered between different things outside of Wikipedia however. David A (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, cannot help you with that, but none of my alleged "personal attacks" were ever at you but about the SOURCES which I can say any thing I please about. You couldn't get all the attacks in the article so a POV fork (which you voted to keep) was created which was discussed at Afd and closed to be merged back but the majority of the most related negativity was still in the article...so when you can't add more and more and more you come here to complain about it? as a lesson plan, view Wikipedia:Criticism, which makes it clear that a controversies or criticism section, while not against guidelines, should be cautiously applied or avoided if possible. By creating and maintaining a section devoted solely to controversies or negative critique, we run the risk of it being used as a coatrack.--MONGO07:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've provided evidence that MONGO may be misusing the talk page. I say "may" because we don't have all the facts just yet. In the past, MONGO has had difficulty controlling himself on political topics due to his simplistic, black and white way of viewing the world. Reasonable people understand that reality isn't bifurcated between left or right. In any case, you've also shown that MONGO has made personal accusations against you in this thread that lack substance. I can't comment on the other issues without more evidence. If you choose to provide, add diffs instead of quotes. Viriditas (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will that help distract us from looking at your behavior mentioned in this report? Does the talk page require your running commentary about politics? Viriditas (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources are nothing but partisan attacks about politics and not real movie reviews then they should be identified as what they are. If they were legitimate reviews (and some are) then no reason they cannot stay. But honestly, how many disruptive editing blocks have you had ? and you're throwing stones because you have a score to settle? Cute.--MONGO07:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having been the subject of your unprovoked attacks before, I can sympathize with the OP. I'm not the type of person who is out to settle scores, so I think you are confusing me with someone else, perhaps yourself. Thankfully, we are very different people. I just want your attacks to stop, that's all. As for your political commentary, I have to say that I don't have very much faith in your critical abilities when it comes to an unbiased opinion. You are probably a little too close to this topic, both on a personal and a professional level. Therefore, it would be sensible if you took a step back and removed yourself from the article. Viriditas (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, not going to step away from the article until the POV pushing stops. I've made it clear that I think all the critique both pro and con needs to be balanced...but the OP merely removed the negative quotes and left a laundry list of links. As far as partisanship, speak for yourself.--MONGO07:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have diffs supporting your claim about POV pushing? I'm responding only to the evidence I've seen in this thread, namely, evidence that you've engaged in disruptive editing and levied false accusations. Do you still maintain that the OP is an SPA or will you be issuing an apology? Viriditas (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The wordiness of your complaint without a single diff or actionable item sums up your contribution to American Sniper (film). The consensus was to "merge", not copy the POV fork into a new POV section. This is a content dispute and I trimmed the content of its QUOTEFARM 'controversy[ (both positive and negative). I removed grand introductions (appeal to Authority) of the people being quoted in the quotefarm and I removed fluff that wasn't related to the film. The decision to merge isn't "copy/paste." It means a thoughtful inclusion of valid criticism that meets our objectives of NPOV, UNDUE weight and reliable sources. There are literally thousands of film reviewers in notable and reliable local papers yet we don't want an article that simply repeats the same thing. We could literally write hundreds of pages of "John Smith, film critic for the Ottumwa, Iowa Daily Express and graduate of the USC School of Film called America Sniper a delightful film that gave us tender insight into the trials and tribulations of soldiers tasked with figfhting wars. He said "Eastwood was brilliant in capturing the subtle nuances of the distinction between battle and home life." I could write a hundred pages of that crap, just as you did for the "controversy" section but it's not how ewell written articles are constructed. I'm sorry the film isn't as controversial as you wish to make it nut that doesn't mean we sacrifice standards. --DHeyward (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have never remotely suggested to censor all of the positive responses. There have been a massive amount of articles criticising the film with eloquent well-worded valid arguments, that you attempted to censor wholesale. You just compared said critics with the Ku Klux Klan. I had enormously compressed just what seemed to be the most relevant 9 of all the references from the merged criticism article into one brief summary sentence each, while keeping the section balanced by affording the positive defense of the movie more room than the critics, and I had also accepted to cut away several articles that MONGO took issue with. And there was a Talk page agreement to keep to this compromise. Then out of nowhere, you decided to censor 95% of everything, in an effort to cover up that a controversy even exists, simply out of personal bias. Even the New York Times has written about the controversy in articles. It is definitely very notable. David A (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
David A, ANI can't handle content disputes, only behavior. If the behavior of MONGO and DHeyward has made the editing environment difficult, you'll need to provide diffs to personal attacks, disruptive edits, and other behavioral problems such as reverts. If DHeyward has indeed "censored" an article, that would be a violation of NPOV. Again, we need diffs. Don't focus on content, just behavior. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DHeyward: given this thread, there appears to be much more than a content dispute at work here. I'm seeing personal attacks from MONGO in this thread alone. David A has also offered quotes from the talk page indicating that MONGO takes a battleground approach. Viriditas (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but OP says that his issue is with me and I've not made any personal attacks or any battleground behavior. I've made within police edits that adhere to MOS standards for both general encyclopedic articles and specific MOS standards for films. OP hs not provided a single diff of an edit I've made. I've not censored anything, rather I cut down long rambling quotes and puffery introductions to simple sentences. I merged it into the critical response section. I'm not sure what else I can do here. --DHeyward (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For a similar movie that had widespread appeal but some controversy, see Avatar (2009 film) for its portrayal of the soldiers and their identification as being U.S. Marines or simply U.S. military in general. Note the lack of a controversy section the OP created in America Sniper (film) or the long drawn out individual quotes by critics. The controversy is summarized in a short paragraph that is according to its proper weight. There is no reason to believe the controversy here should be treated differently. Trim it and integrate to a level that is commensurate with a hugely successful film with large amounts of critical acclaim.. --DHeyward (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtful that Mongo or the other editor discussed here negatively is making any thing other than guideline type of edits. This is a content dispute where a lot of personal animosity is driving it. The Afd discussion said to merge, but the material was already still here in this article. IjonTichyIjonTichy...you are the one that has been blocked and warned multiple times in the past and nothing seems to have changed. You couldn't get what you wanted here, so you created a POV fork that was almost immediately nominated for deletion and you're using your sandbox to stage more stuff. If there is disruptive editing going on here its from you....something you have been blocked for in the past.--MONGO That is a fact IjonTichyIjonTichy was or is topic banned in at least one area for completely ignoring consensus and edit warring over and over and over. Mongo also has been a guideline editing 'type' from my experience. I think toss this one in the garbage. Content dispute with no real personal attacks in that but lots of old fights from other things being hashed out. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing much more than a content dispute at work here; I'm seeing serious behavior problems. As it stands American Sniper falls under the standard discretionary sanctions imposed by the American politics ruling. If the talk page isn't already tagged as such, it should be, and all active editors in this thread should be given the sanction warning. Viriditas (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ignore your latest personal attack. Far from being off the deep end, according to WP:ARBAPDS, the Wikipedia article on American Sniper, as well as any other articles directly connected to that topic, are currently under arbcom sanctions. Please consider yourself warned. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I typed is a personal attack. The article in question is a movie biography and is not a political article like the Tea Party Movement or similar.--MONGO08:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you typed falls afoul of our civility and personal attack policies. You may want to read them again to understand why referring to someone and their ideas as crazy is not the right approach. Further, the type of article has no bearing on our arbcom sanctions. Arbcom is very clear: This case relates to behavioural issues from many articles spanning multiple topics. All the involved articles and instances of misconduct relate to political or social issues in the United States...Placing all pages dealing with such a broad subject under sanctions is not desirable, but neither is having continuous disruption of content as the problems move from one area to another. Please read the case pages again. This report highlights a dispute involving American politics and social issues. As such, it falls under the broad remit of arbcom. Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its an article about a movie biography, the politics are manufactured. There is broadly construed and then there is overly broadly construed. I fail to see how this article has a thing to do with political or social issues related to politics. All this discussion is about is about whether we incorporate real movie reviews or articles pretending to be movie reviews.--MONGO08:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it doesn't matter if it's about a film in the slightest; we have plenty of films under similar political and social sanctions. This film in particular falls directly under the American politics sanctions, and your own words about the film (quoted above) prove this to be true. When you say, " I fail to see how this article has a thing to do with political or social issues related to politics", one has to take a step back and wonder if you expect anyone to take you seriously. You yourself said that your singular motivation for participating in this dispute was to prevent political positions you disagree with from appearing the article. You said that. You referred to these American political positions as those of "radicals and anti-American bigots", people with "overtly left wing biased" views, "Michelle Obama", "a Presidents wife", " political viewpoints", a "left wing rag", the "Obama administration", a "PAC", " the Democratic Party in the U.S.", the "radical left", "personal opinions about the war", and "rednecks, Americans or gun right supporters". That's a sample of your own words from the talk page as quoted above, and they represent what arbcom calls "political or social issues in the United States". According to Variety, "the film brutally exposes the unprecedented civil-military divide that exists in America after 9/11." Those are political and social issues in the U.S. Got it? Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now David A, who didn't bother to inform either myself or DHeyward about this notice, claiming he didn't yet have time, has decided to solicit another editor that has been in agreement with him on the edits to join the discussion here [129].--MONGO08:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I was switching from my notepad to my computer, and having some breakfast. I am a slow-moving individual, and you reacted quicker than I did. I apologise about this, but was going to inform both of you, and as I said on his talk page, I was just going to do so with DHeyward when I noticed that you had already done so. Aside from that, there is nothing wrong with informing the other involved parties as well. David A (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see, well, I am sure you are being honest but so you know, according to Wikipedia:Canvassing, "...canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior."--MONGO08:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
David A's notice falls under the category of appropriate canvassing and was not disruptive. However, you have once again attempted to change the subject by wikilawyering over an unrelated issues. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So now you're accusing me of wikilawyering and its not unrelated...he was invited here! Viriditas, I'm watchlisting your talkpage so I can enjoy the next block you get yourself into. Your commentary here, which is not helping solve the dispute will be ignored.--MONGO08:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my concern is just that I don't want the section to be completely censored, as I think that some of the cited articles make very valid points. It would be nice if some admins could step in and make a ruling what to do with it. David A (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An admin isn't going to have any more weight about content than either of us. My asking or pointing or things such as your editing history is not a personal attack, nor is my commentary about the lackluster opinion pieces that are not actually reviews of the movie. If I was POV pushing I could go out and find 200 positive reviews and then badger everyone ad nausea about the need to have them in the article...so all I am doing is trying to keep this mess NPOV.--MONGO09:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But I have attempted to keep it NPOV by allowing the positive defense of the movie to be allowed more room than the criticism. In addition, there is the reviews section, which does include lots of positive views about the movie. David A (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like old animosities revving up a content dispute, and this sure looks like canvassing with an actual introduction to the canvassers opinion instead of a call to edit in good faith. [130]Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing behavior not content, and it's already been explained that the canvassing was legitimate and appropriate. I see no "old animosities" anywhere in this thread. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue here and at the related articles seems to me to be that the over-emphasis on "controversy" is turning the page into a coatrack of complaints about the Iraq war and US foreign policy. Tom HarrisonTalk11:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not often a good idea to give administrators special powers to influence content. These things are best worked out among editors on the talk page. Tom HarrisonTalk12:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a biographical film about a non-political subject. The politics are manufactured creations. Your definition of "American Politics" would place virtually every article in WP under sanction. Sorry but that's just not the case. This is an apolitical movie with patriotic elements. Patriotism and military service is not political. --DHeyward (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given the documented greatly increased hostility towards Arabs and Muslims, and ongoing death, rape, etcetera threats against critics, following the movie, how is it avoiding to make a political statement? David A (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was in my version. Since I'm against "increased hostility towards Arabs and Muslims," as well as against "death, rape and etcetera" threats against critics - you must be for it if those are conflicting political issues in the United States and you oppose my edits on political grounds? Let me help you: there were both left wing and right winge and middle wing American soldiers in Iraq. There were Jewish and Muslim soldiers in Iraq. "War hero" doesn't mean right wing except in a very, very narrow reading by extreme left and extreme right viewpoints. It's not a political debate currently being waged in the U.S. -DHeyward (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that my impression is that media such as this film seems to greatly incite many viewers in a political/extremely partisan manner. Regardless of that the intentions of the movie seem more benign than that according to Eastwood and the lead actor, many people are reported to feel extremely increased hatred towards Muslims, Arabs, and critics because of it, and as the New York Times reported, part of the far right has seized upon using it as a banner, whereas the left or centrists are either outraged or worried. There is also lots of criticism about how the movie omitted relevant facts about the Iraq war. All of this ended up as political, regardless of intentions. David A (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your impression is incorrect. It incites partisan political extremists that see it and use it as a vehicle to forward their partisan, politically extreme position. They are a fringe group. Heck, even the marginally political film critic points out the film doesn't explore the politics of the Iraq War and that disappointed them. It's only the most extreme that find it to be political. The mainstream viewer is not affected politically in any way. Patriotic does not equal political. Here's an example: extreme political viewpoint writer decides to tie the movie to "Gun Culture" because she believed Eastwood threatened Moore at a "Bowling for Columbine" award. She uses this hook to get in her "this movie is about guns. Guns are bad." except one slight problem. It was at a "Fahrenheit 911" award and had nothing to do with guns. This was a source you originally provided. Salon did an in-line correction so it reads like a rambling, idiotic piece of derp until the reader reads the correction note and finds she was writing about a completely different topic. Before: [134] After:[135]. She didn't retract the story because in reality she just wanted a reason to write about gun control even when the correction destroyed her argument. Read it with and without the correction. --DHeyward (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, although I agree that this particular writer made a poor point, I respectfully disagree about the overall assessment. My impression of this and similar media is that they greatly increase the feelings tied to politically extreme partisan positions. I think that if this would just have been about fringes there would not be a reported greatly increased downright murderous hostility towards Muslims after it came out. David A (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A "merge" result does not mean that there was consensus for insertion of the entire article into the other article, the editors at the main article may find consensus to add some parts and not the entirety, especially since there were strong opinions that it was a POV fork to some extent. Collect (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify. This is exactly what I was trying to do. After much back and forth Talk page discussion, and several compromises, I had shortened down 8 of the more relevant articles into one brief sentence each. As well as 6 articles more as references following a "Several other articles have also been critical of the movie" at the end. There were lots more articles at the separate controversies page. MONGO was collaborating with this approach, and we were cutting away several articles that he had specific valid complaints about. Then DHeyward decided to completely ignore the Talk page discussion, the 14 votes cast in favour of "merge", as well as hours spent by myself reading and trying to concisely summarise the articles into just one vital sentence each, to just delete virtually all of it, as I illustrated that he has done repeatedly on this page before. That said, I had asked for help to merge together all of the summaries into a more coherent text, as had been suggested by NBauman, to read better within the article, but did not receive any assistance in this endeavour. David A (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The page is fully protected for a week on your version so that gives anyone who cares a baseline to look at and decide if any or all of it stays.--MONGO15:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Despite numerous warnings on the article talk page and on his user talk page to stop his disruptive editing and tendentious editing, mongo appears to have continued to WikiBully and personally attack users, including David A and myself. And he continued to act like he owns the article, and to edit war in an effort to remove content he just does not like. He also tends to attack sources whose criticism of the film he does not like (Zaid Jilani and even Max Blumenthal, a Jewish journalist and book author and an expert on the middle east) as anti-Semites ... mongo's behavior appears out of control. It was also explained to both mongo and DHeyward numerous times on the article talk page and on the related AfD that WP cares about how the sources interpret the political/ historical/ social aspects of the film, not how mongo or DH (mis)interpret the film. This point was made over and over again to mongo and DH not only by David A and myself, but also by several experienced editors on the AfD, and yet mongo and DH continue to refuse to hear. 'Sniper' has lots of similarities to Triumph of the Will,Birth of a Nation and Zero Dark Thirty, all films which are considered masterpieces of filmmaking but were also criticized heavily by many sources for their political/ historical/ social aspects. IjonTichy (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Warnings from who? You? You were unsuccessful in getting your coatrack established in the article so you created a POV fork which was immediately nominated for Afd and there it was decided to.merge the content since you had created a POV FORK. Just because people call you on your disruptive editing, an issue that has you topic banned and blocked previously, doesn't mean they are attacking you. I think your efforts to present an extreme POV and to do so in a very aggressive manner is disruptive so you are hereby warned to stop being disruptive or face a block and possibly a topic ban.--MONGO16:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a major overreaction to a simple controversy section in an article about a fictional film based on an autobiography. Please keep your politics at home. If you aren't this tall, you can't ride Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
mongo is continuing his personal attacks, which he has done from the first time I added sourced content to the film article, and from his very first comment on the AfD. When mongo and DH appeared to be willing to abide by the consensus on the AfD, I've added content to the controversies article but immediately reverted myself. When it became obvious mongo and DH had no intention to abide by the community consensus to merge the two articles, I did not revert myself after adding content to the controversies article. Finally, please note that on the AfD discussion, the most thoughtful, insightful, and well-considered arguments came from several independent editors (eg. user:Erik) who made no mention of any fork (especially not a screaming all-capitalized one like mongo has done) but instead focused on logical reasoning in terms of what's best for the project while satisfying WP policies, without even having to mention the policies explicitly - one of the hallmarks of great editors. (And by the way my sandbox has nothing to do with this complaint against mongo's and DH's disruptive behavior and their editing against community consensus and is only a distraction.) IjonTichy (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I said above is a personal attack. You are already topic banned from an entire set of articles and was blocked for violation and disruptive editing. My pointing out these issues is not a personal attack. --MONGO17:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've watched this article and the film article since the AfD was created. I think loose accusations of POV-pushing were unnecessary and that there is a lack of cordial discussion about how to deal with all this commentary. At the AfD and on the film article's talk page, I've brought up WP:STRUCTURE as a guideline to follow because the commentary is pooled by POV. For example, the sub-article has "Allegations" section headings that are unnecessarily slanted, where a section heading like "Portrayal of Iraq" could fold the negative criticisms and the counter-criticisms into one section. I think a sub-article can exist, but it started off on the wrong foot, apparently because there was a dispute on the film article itself. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this count.) In terms of trying to work together to structure all this commentary per WP:NPOV, we could start a Draft:Commentary on American Sniper which could be imported to the main article after some collaboration, or if long enough and satisfactory per WP:NPOV, re-established as a sub-article. The current "Controversies" section is lacking in high-level assessment, e.g. a mainstream newspaper basically highlighting the key points of the debate, and has too many one-commentator-after-another sentences. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Criticism makes it clear that a controversies or criticism section, while not against guidelines, should be cautiously applied or avoided if possible. By creating and maintaining a section devoted solely to controversies or negative critique, we run the risk of it being used as a coatrack...as I stated above.--MONGO17:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why I'm suggesting "Commentary" to encapsulate the back-and-forth that has gone on. It would not be limited to the negative criticism. Even if one disagrees with the negative criticism, it is worthy of reporting since Wikipedia describes disputes as detailed in secondary sources. For example, we could focus on commentary that has been reported in high-level assessments. I think The New York Times mentioned a Grantland piece as one sample commentary, so that would be a reasonable threshold to emulate and to avoid throwing everything but the kitchen sink into such a section or a sub-article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)17:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with high level sourcing. The problem is Ijon seems determined to do nothing but coatrack. He has yet to demonstrate any desire to follow our best practices and has instead insisted repeatedly on using any and all sources no matter how circumspect they may be. Just now I reverted back the page at American Sniper (film) controversies that was voted to be merged as he is misusing it after the Afd closed to continue to post more stuff. The page is now properly a redirect and should be full protected by an admin in that version to comply with the Afd closure and to prevent Ijon from persisting in misusing it.--MONGO17:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like IjonTichy intended the page as a sandbox, but such a sandbox page should be off the mainspace. Either the draft page can be created from scratch, or the sub-article can be moved to that draft page to preserve page history (while we keep the redirect to the main article). I understand that it is difficult to imagine a proper sub-article about the debate being done, but I think it is doable. Articles like this can be referenced to capture the scope of the debate. If we start the draft page, we can collaborate to structure it appropriately. For example, a "Portrayal of Chris Kyle" section should start off with the reiteration that the film was based on Chris Kyle's autobiography, and then we can start including commentary from commentators, politicians, cast, and crew about whether accuracy matters or not. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)17:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He already is using a sandbox for this and was trying to use the redirect page to post the same. I disagree that the alledged controversies needs a standalone article...that was already tried and was voted for a merge. The issue again is such forks are usually just coatracks and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of links. If Ijon wishes to fill a sandbox up with every critique he wants then that's a different story.--MONGO17:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now Ijon is again using the redirect to post the same issue and edit warring to do so...[137]...how many examples of disruptive editing are needed here?--MONGO17:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what Erik suggests is a good idea, but when I asked for help to organise the section in this manner, I did not receive any assistance, and I distrust my competence to do so myself. However, I did write brief summaries for all of the articles that I could repost at the talk if you wish? David A (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mongo, I find that the agreement at the AfD was that the sub-article was a POV fork. This does not mean a stand-alone article is never possible. WP:POVFORK says, "The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article." It's possible that we would be fine with encapsulating the whole debate in the film article, but a more detailed sub-article can still be warranted provided that it is properly balanced. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)18:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IjonTichy, let's move the sub-article to the draft space. The consensus was that we should not have a sub-article at this point, so we should not keep it up currently. Merging does not necessarily mean that all the sub-article's content should find a place in the main article. POV concerns should be addressed first, and we can do that outside the mainspace and then import material that has a proper balance. If we do this, maybe on that draft page we can start in a specific sub-topic and develop coverage of the debate and get others to assess it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)18:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just reminded him of 3RR on the redirect which he continues to misuse as a parking place. An admin needs to protect the redirect. Erik....as.much as I would like to, existing and past behavior by Ijon does not indicate to me that he's going to do anything other than misuse a subarticle as a POV FORK. Good luck.--MONGO18:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is the best thing to protect the redirect? Otherwise there is a likelihood it will be used as a parking place. My last edit there told him to take it to the article talk page.--MONGO21:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will fully abide by decisions of the community, whether reached here, or on any article talk page, or anywhere on WP. The problem is mango's behavior, not mine. Drmies, please see the OP. The discussion closed as 'merge'. It did not close as 'delete,' but mango and DH are interpreting it as 'delete.' The consensus did not close as 'emboldening mango and DHeyward to remove practically almost each and every and all sourced criticism of the political/ historical/ social aspects of the film from the American Sniper (film) article because mango and DH do no like it, and emboldening them to attack and WikiBully editors that may disagree with them, and emboldening them to make a mockery of the consensus decision to merge, not to delete.'
In the words of David A: "After putting it to a vote, the official Wikipedia consensus was for the Controversies page to be merged into the main page. I have gone to extremes to put in the work to greatly compress the the articles within it, and to compromise with the other users. However, in spite of this, and multiple warnings, the user MONGO keeps making crude partisan personal attacks on the talk page, and far more significantly, the user DHeyward is attempting to censor all of the additions wholesale, in flagrant violation of the official Wikipedia decision, and all the work that I put in to summarise the critical articles into one sentence each, with no compromise whatsoever. I would greatly appreciate an intervention. Thank you very much for any help. Here is the current Talk section." David A (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Eh, "merge" does not mean "leave the original article as it was, substantially or otherwise". It means that the original article goes away, regardless of where the content goes. And one more thing: I see a whole bunch of talk of "censorship": there is no censorship going on here. DHeyward does not have the power to censor anything, though they have the opportunity to make well-considered edits. Simply removing something is not censorship unless it is...well, look it up at Censorship; that's not a bad definition. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support all the suggestions and ideas of David A, Erik, Viriditas, TParis and others. But mango and DH have their egos and their belief systems tied to what the sources describe as the ideology of the film and they can't bring themselves to accept that scholars found fatal flaws with that ideology. both mango and DH need to recuse themselves from further editing on these film articles. They contributed nothing except deleting sourced content, personal attacks, wikibullying and other disruptive behavior. And now they are trying to make it appear as if I'm the problem, not them. Please see the discussion on the user talk page of user:TParis. Thanks. IjonTichy (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its pretty obvious you're trolling when you deliberately misspell my username even though in all other posts you spell it correctly.--MONGO22:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, I might have used the wrong notice board, as I only wanted an intervention regarding not to censor all of the content, not to block anybody. David A (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think user IjonTichy is not here to build an encyclopedia and should be permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia for tendentiousness. Its not a red herring to mention his topic ban here on another subject. His attitude was exactly the same, he could not see his errors objectively. He used a litany of personal putdowns like he is doing to Mongo to make his points and had no element of recognizing his editing failures. Wiki lawyering guidelines in an extremely negative way. I don't he will change. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would Earl no longer be allowed to edit? He has never been blocked whereby you have and for BLP violations, disruptive editing, etc. How many disruptive editing blocks do you need to receive before you get the idea that others think you're disruptive?--MONGO06:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've never made any BLP violation anywhere. You're referring to an erroneous edit summary from an admin that upon review was found to be without merit. Your attempt at once again distracting this discussion away from your documented harassment in this thread is noted. The number of civility violations in this thread from you and the number of personal attacks made against multiple editors is entirely unprecedented in the history of ANI. If you aren't blocked, then the civility policy has no meaning. Viriditas (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about the three month (!!) wow block you had after a series of other blocks? How can you justify thinking that Earl King who has never been blocked should no longer be allowed to edit? That's mystifying.--MONGO06:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
I see a lot of heat and anger from MONGO and I think that User:TParisput it well. MONGO needs to learn the art of walking away from areas that upset him and letting calmer heads prevail. Because at the end of the day this sort of plain vanilla content dispute is what Wikipedia is best at solving. --John (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see this sort of sentiment more and more often. It's nonsense and generally serves to exclude persistent objection and create the impression of consensus where one does not exist. If he can come here and invest such an incredible amount of time and energy to coherently defend his position then excluding him because he's upset doesn't serve MONGO or the article, only the people he's in a legitimate content dispute with. MONGO is an adult, it's his prerogative to invest himself in a contentious topic. GraniteSand (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In John's defense he may feel that his advice is sound. But he should know me well enough by now to understand that I don't care what he thinks about anything. I'm surely not upset as John describes it so the usual condescending tone from John is worth about zero to me.--MONGO01:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors." That's a quote from our core civility policy. I think admins should take close look at the last 50 contributions made by MONGO. They will find that virtually every edit is either a violation of the civility policy or consists of a personal attack of some kind. And this all seems to stem from a dispute over a historical fiction film loosely based on an autobiography. As a result of this demonstrable pattern of disruption, I would like community to consider blocking Mongo until he is able to edit Wikipedia in harmony with his fellow editors. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should learn the difference between "ignore" and "discard." Why you are hounding MONGO is beyond me. You seem compelled to reply to everything he writes. For the record, I didn't "ignore" you so don't get your panties hung up on that. I carefully and rationally read your positions and conclusions and dismissed it as nonsense. Every post you write appears to be a violation of WP:HOUNDING too as you follow every edit. At least John quoted someone when they followed MONGO around like a puppy. --DHeyward (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its just AN/I. People come here when they can't get their way on an article and make accusations. Even if in the end, the fact is that I never said to take out all the negative critique...just to prune the bad apples from it...but they either didn't hear that or decided that they wanted the whole bamboozle. Those with an axe to grind show up to join the melee. Nothing gets solved. Admins obfuscate because they have little choice since some of the situations are boring since they aren't vested in the particular article. Best not to feed.--MONGO01:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the civility block for MONGO, I would also like to request a civility warning for DHeyward for making the above comments. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support a block for Mongo. One of his arguments linking ordinary Iraqis with the modern anti-Shiite jihadist movements is a plain case of Arabophobic racism. If Mongo does not want to appear to be a anti-Arab racist then he shouldn't link Iraqi nationalistic Ba'athists with global jihadists out of nowhere. I smell something (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And his statement might be smelly, but he is obviously missing the smell of Kurds in a way that don't really care about his distinction. --DHeyward (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No Support Barn-star for Mongo for trying to manage a little and point out IjonTichy's behavior that is out of control tendentious, attacking and pov to his personal interests. Content dispute. Figure it out on the talk page. Ijon is not here to build and encyclopedia in my view. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Boomerang block for John and Viriditas that have only posted inflammatory rhetoric. At the very least a One-Way IBAN that prevents them from commenting about MONGO. And an idef for User:I smell socks as obvious sock and trolling account. --DHeyward (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for immediate civility block on MONGO and a civility warning for DHeyward for continued false accusations. Upon reviewing the facts and evidence in this thread, it becomes immediately clear that the OP, User:David A, as well as complainant User:IjonTichyIjonTichy, have been under an enormous amount of personal attacks and harassment from MONGO, DHeyward, and Earl King Jr., who think that the civility policy does not apply to them. Because of this continued disruption and to prevent future disruption, I would like to see an administrator place the "American Sniper" topic area under the American politics discretionary sanctions as soon as possible. Viriditas (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since John is here and he was the most recent admin to block you maybe he can block you again to enforce our policy against hounding which you're violating in textbook fashion.--MONGO05:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is an enormous amount of evidence in this thread showing that you have violated and continue to violate the civility policy, to the point where you are disrupting the topic area. Commenting on this evidence and requesting sanctions is not "hounding" by any stretch of the imagination. Viriditas (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only disruption going in here is by you. I'm not going to be blocked or banned.There are currently no log pages for "American politics". The central DS log page covers only TPM and Gun control.--MONGO06:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the evidence says otherwise. The last 50 contributions in your edit history, for example, consist of nothing but personal attacks and civility violations. And this is all over a fictional film based on an autobiography? Please learn to control yourself and keep your politics at home. The American politics arbitration case was designed specifically to enforce discretionary sanctions on exactly this topic, and to sanction editors like yourself. I am an entirely uninvolved editor, as I have neither participated in nor edited any article or AfD related to this discussion. As such, I can safely observe that sanctions are desperately needed to restore order to the topic area and to stop you from editing. It is not "hounding" to say this, nor is it harassment of any kind. Viriditas (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Odd...more than half your last 50 edits indicate you've been hounding for blocks and bans...I'd say that is harassment.--MONGO06:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Annnnnddddd....that's all folks! Stay tuned tomorrow or the next few days for the latest get wild and crazy episode at one of Wikipedia's favorite places to be when you don't want to or can't write an encyclopedia!--MONGO07:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Need help with complex cut and paste move
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In ictu oculi's disruptive editing (again)
Like he has beein doing it for 2 or 3 years now, In ictu oculi (talk·contribs) (IIO) is, once again, disruptive editing. This time the report is because of 2 reasons listeb below:
1) Moving pages and leaving redirects to the moved page and not redirect them to another place.
2) Persistent lack of usage of WP:MOS in disambiguation pages (and articles in general).
Books, films, album, plays, videogame, or tv series (for example) have their titles written in italics, meanwhile songs and tv episodes have their names between quotation marks. The problem is that IIO rarely includes includes italics, or quotation marks, but also he excludes punctuation in general. For example:
Diamond Days. The page begins with "Diamond Day Records The Steepwater Band", unless you visit The Steepwater Band's page, you can't understand the meaning of this line. It should say something like "Diamond Day Records, an American record label, whose among their clients it is included The Steepwater Band", or if the label is theirs "Diamond Day Records, an American record label owned by The Steepwater Band". It also says "Diamond Days (George McCrae album) 1976", when it should be "Diamond Days (George McCrae album), 1976"; the same with "Diamond Days (Eric Bibb album) 2007", "Collection Album Vol.1 Diamond Days Lia (singer) 2007" and "Diamond Days (Bento album), Ben Gillies solo album 2012". Then we have ""Diamond Days" (own composition) Chris Murphy (Australian singer)Australian Idol (season 4)"; I don't know why it says "(own composition)" and "Australian Idol (season 4)" is included.
Dirty Business. I have made corrections to the page, but it originally was written like this. It begins with "Books: "Dirty Business", a play by William Mastrosimone". It is listed as book, but it says it is a play; ""Dirty Business" written by John Dawson New Riders of the Purple Sage (album)" (it says it is written by Dawson, but never says it is a song by the New Riders of the Purple Sage); ""Dirty Business", The Relix Bay Rock Shop, No. 1" (The Relix Bay Rock Shop, No. 1 is a compilation album by the New Riders of the Purple Sage, so it is the same song listed above); "Dirty Business (Sara Jorge song) redirects to R3MIX" (I don't understand why any reader must be informed that a title is redirected somewhere else); "Dirty Business" (Dalton) Live at Myrtle Beach" (laks of context [Who is Dalton], what is "Live at Myrtle Beach", etc.).
Amanecer. Created in January: "Awaking from a Dream (redirect from Amanecer de un sueño) 2008 Spanish drama film" or "Amanecer, song by es:Pic-Nic 1968", and in general, almost not a single comma is used throughout.
This is an analysis of three disambiguation pages, but the same repeats over and over again throughout his dab creations (by years now), the dab entries lack of a context that any person other than him can't simply understand (see New Love's song list). For other dab pages see:
Comment - this editor has been following me for some time making threats of something, presumably this. In that period there have been various personal attacks which I have not kept a record of, but the more extreme ones have asked for it not to happen on this user's Talk page so they will be there if anyone wants to work through them. As for the above, yes that's a small selection of the work of "2 or 3 years now" on disambiguation pages. As for edits in the last week, it's good to let edits sit for a few days in case there are talk page objections and allow for WP:BRD, this has been explained to this editor before. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On your second point, non-adherence to WP:MOS is irrelevant: the MOS frequently needs to be ignored, and following it is frequently a bad idea. The problem is that non-use or misuse of italics and quotation marks is simply poor use of English, like poor spelling. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On your first point, where's the evidence? Kill (album) was moved without explanation; Go Crazy! was moved because there's "no evidence for ! on cover or sources" (and Go Crazy is definitely ambiguous); Charlie Chaplin (song) was moved because "the skipping song"; and The New Girl in Town was moved without explanation. Aside from Go Crazy, IIO, you really need to provide understandable move rationales, but I don't see evidence for the initial assertion. Moreover, why is administrative intervention needed in this situation? It doesn't seem like an incident that needs an administrator. Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have had one run-in with IIO, in March 2014. He had moved, without discussion, the Jack Spratt article about the fictional detective to what I thought was an unnecessary dab. Worse, it was incorrectly/incompetently dabbed, so I moved it back. IIO then followed up with an RM for what would be a competent dab, we discussed the matter politely—no other editor commented—and eventually an uninvolved third-party closed the discussion, felt IIO made the better argument, and made the requested move. (I still believe it was a "mistake", but I'm not here to "win".) I noticed his work on some other dab page seemed a little off, not quite in accord with MOS:DAB, and fixed it. He told me he was in the middle of things, but he also explained that one of the dab entries really ought to go against the rules, his argument made sense, so I went ahead and self-reverted that change. All-in-all, our exchanges were entirely satisfactory and civil and made in the spirit of what's right for WP, so I'm dubious about the above long-term behavioral accusations. I have not looked at any of the listed complaints, but it's entirely plausible to me that the OP is not trying hard enough. Choor monster (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user keeps reverting the article content for the whole week removing huge portion of the referenced text along the references verifying it. For details see
here and specifically here,
here, here,
here, here
He was warned here after which he reverted the article content again.
Thank you for pointing to my past behaviour which has nothing to do with you or the article in question here. For the record, User:Michelle Ridomi seems to be a sock/meat puppet of User:Milos zankov. Both of them have been engaged in censoring edits to Magnum Crimen - a controversial book originally published in 1948 claiming that Catholic clergy was closely related to Croatian fascists during World War II and which seems to have a special place in Serbian nationalists' hearts. They have been doing this in an effort to keep our article word-for-word identical to what has been posted to magnumcrimen.org, an external website set up to promote English-language edition of the book. The text over there is a mirror of a previous version of our Wikipedia article, much of which had been added in 2010 by a user blocked since, and which had plagiarised verbatim a 1950 book review, including a few glaring factographical mistakes. Correcting these (or at least rephrasing to avoid obvious plagiarism issues) is virtually impossible due to these two editors' never-ending reverts.
Only after User:Milos zankov (a recently registered account) opened an RfC (which was ciriticised already for overall tone and lack of good faith assumption by a passing by editor) and after Milos reported me here twice did Michelle Ridomi (yet another recently registered account) appear out of the blue to start blowing the same trumpet. I think we would all have to be imbeciles not to assume these two are puppets and not to assume they have a vested interest in this article because of a political axe to grind. Perhaps I should have reported both to WP:SPI. I see now I should have, and I will, once this thread is concluded. Thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"They have been doing this in an effort to keep our article word-for-word identical to what has been posted to magnumcrimen.org, an external website set up to promote English-language edition of the book." It is quite clear that magnumcrimen.org copied most of the text from the Wikipedia Magnum Crimen. The time stamp here shows that the word-for-word text existed in the Magnum Crimen as of 27 August 2010. The magnumcrimen.org site claims its copyright as of 2015. If there is a copyright violation, it is on the magnumcrimen.org side. We tried several times to explain that the time does not run backward which this user kept rejecting. Collaborating in a constructive way, which I did when commenting and submitting changes to Magnum Crimen, is not puppeteering. "and which had plagiarised verbatim a 1950 book review" In 2010 a portion of this text was not referenced. The un-referenced text was reworded by Milos zankov and the reference added which makes no sense to call it a plagiarism now, nor remove the whole section from the article.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I explained what happened quite clearly - an entire 1950 book review was pasted into our article years ago (unattributed). The article was then mirrored at magnumcrimen.org (unattributed to either Wikipedia or original source), which claims copyright to it. Milos and Michelle are now edit-warring and speficically reverting any re-wording of the said text, many, many, many, many, many times. They also deleted external link back to magnumcrimen.org (the book's official website) several times, they deleted sections on criticism of the book, and they pretend they don't see factual mistakes in the quoted review itself (the book was not banned by the Catholic church; its author was not a priest, etc, etc.). They even oppose translating the title in English exactly the same way it is printed on its English-language edition cover. Milos and Michelle are just here to revert whatever anyone does on the article. And they have no intention of behaving otherwise since they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Timbouctou (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Timbouctou I'll respond to a few issues mentioned by this user.
"an entire 1950 book review was pasted into our article years ago (unattributed)" -> the fact is just these two sentences were "unattributed": Viktor Novak, a Croat by birth, has been, since 1924, active among the Serbs. He has held the Chair of Croat History which was founded at the University of Belgrade in order to promote mutual understanding between the two kindred peoples. which I attributed properly. The whole book review is in front of me and has four pages. As a proof that the "entire 1950 book review" is never pasted into Magnum Crimen I'll offer this snippet from the O. Neuman book review: "The invasion and disruption of Jugoslavia in the spring of 1941 has served the author as the dividing line of the period to be covered in the third part of this trilogy. The magnum crimen is not and individual or isolated action: the author uses the the term to designate the activities of that part of the Croat hierarchy which cast their lot with the poglavnik of NDH. Ante Pavelic and endorsed his policy, friendly to the Axis and hostile to the Serbian people, and in general to all those who even after the forceful dismemberment of the country remained faithful to the idea of Yugoslavia. Two long chapters covering over 500 pages, have been reserved for the description of conditions prevailing in the NDH". The Google search will show you this
"its author was not a priest, not banned by the Catholic church" A Corrupt Tree: An Encyclopaedia of Crimes committed by the Church of Rome against Humanity and the Human Spirit, A.S., Xlibris Corporation, Jan 13, 2014 page 803 Novak, Viktor, ex Catholic priest, professor, historian, anathema pronounced against him, 537 Magnum Crimen ... placed on the Index, 537. See also Autor je Viktor Novak (1889–1977), hrvatski rimokatolički sveštenik i profesor Univerziteta u Beogradu translated as The author, Victor Novak (1889-1977) , is a Croatian Roman Catholic priest and a University of Belgrade professor--Milos zankov (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Milos. Too bad you have no clue where "A Corrupt Tree" got that information from since page 537 is missing from Google Books preview you plucked this from. Also, too bad you don't actually use references when editing the article itself instead of reverting. And reverting. And reverting. And reverting. And then some more reverting. Timbouctou (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I initially encountered the user at ITT Technical Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where they inserted a long list of sites that were called out by USA Today as having default rates higher than graduation rates[149]. I trimmed the list, and I moved the text of the criticism to the section "Investigations, Lawsuits, and Controversies"[150] where the study results remained visible, just omitting the excessive site listing that overwhelmed the rest of the article.
The material was then restored by the original editor, where they posted on my talk page arguing that the material should not be "whitewashed" and that if I have questions I should email the user. When I then looked at the edits by the user, I noticed that they are adding comparable content to multiple articles, frequently using an edit summary asking that they be contacted first before any changes are made to the content or its inclusion in the articles.[151][152][153][154] I am concerned that this pattern needs additional attention to address. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Barek, I welcome a peer review by people who are familiar with this field. At the same time, I would hope that I would know their names to assess their credibility and trustworthiness. If we could get Suzanne Mettler, for example, a Cornell professor who did six years of research in this area, that would be great.Dahnshaulis (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you want to only allow people whom you feel have appropriate credentials to edit the articles shows you have a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. The content and who can edit the articles is not determined by user credentials, but by what is stated in third-party reliable sources and structured in a way that meets our content guidelines. One of those, re: due and undue weight, was mentioned when I purged the bulky list of sites, but there are many others as well which you may want to review, such as WP:OWN and WP:SOAPBOXING. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Barek, the problem is bigger than that. This is For-profit higher education in the United States before Dahnshaulis really got to work; this is the "after" version. Note the POV phrasing in the lead, note the many unreliable (or really way too POV-y) references. It seems to me that Dahnshaulis is on a mission here, and while that mission is--in my opinion--a laudable one, Wikipedia should not be engaged in what are, for our intents and purposes, crusades. Those ITT edits are of course unacceptable, and there's too much naming and shaming in edits like this and this. The problem is the presentation and the tone, and, as you noted, in addition the editor has a somewhat skewed idea of how we are supposed to work here ("Please talk to me before removing this information", "Please review carefully and talk to me before editing"). I think a topic ban here is in order, unless this editor successfully undergoes reprogramming in our gulag in San Francisco. Seriously, Dahnshaulis, I'm with you, but not inside Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think a topic ban would be useful. If the editor wishes to draw attention to problems with these institutions, he has to learn how to make his point without absurd lists, poor sources, and unclear accusations. BTW, I have just been accused of "whitewashing" [155] for removing this [156] uninformative and space-hogging list. However it's nice to know that I "may be an intelligent person". Paul B (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look at the editor's work the more I am convinced that they are indeed on a crusade of sorts--for instance, on their talk page to another editor, "I'm not here to make friends, but to make entries that will be helpful in the democratization of education. As I have said in other places, your attempt at so-called 'neutrality is actually an act of complicity"--this displays the kind of us vs. them mentality that is counterproductive in a collaborative environment, and WP:NOTHERE seems more relevant by the minute. I am also struck by the comments by Bahooka and ElKevbo (editors with cool heads, experience, and common sense) and Dahnshaulis's response to their comments. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seeming like they have the best of intentions but are unwilling to listen or incapable of understanding, either way an attention getting block might be in order. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't believe in those, and it would have to be phrased somewhat differently. An option is indefinite per WP:NOTHERE with an attached offer of "change your ways and we'll unblock you". An hour ago I thought that was way too drastic a measure. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best thing to do would be to consult an expert in the field of discussion, such as Cornell Professor Suzanne Mettler, who spent more than six years doing research in this area. Dahnshaulis (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Before you put me in the Wikipedia "gulag" as you call it, why not also consult ITT Educational Services (ESI) and ask them about the entries? Dahnshaulis (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dahnshaulis we cannot be expected to "consult" experts on the whim of an editor. If you wish to draw attention to the shortcomings of commercial universities, do so by quoting scholars and other relevant commentators with due weight. Your current editing comprises listings of often irrelevant material, such as obscure law-suits the content of which is often not even identified. You would be better served looking at good quality articles and learning how to identify key content and arguments. Nor can you expect us to defer to your own alleged superior experitise. Paul B (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, for people doing research regarding higher education in the US, this information is not obscure. Nor is this information trivial for people interested in matriculating to ITT Tech. Please carefully check the USA Today article and see how many ITT campuses are "red flag" schools. ITT Tech dominates the list. If an organization dominates a list, does one just make a small footnote (e.g. years the Yankees won the World Series)?
(edit conflict) The best thing to do is to follow established Wikipedia policies as well as and content guidelines.
As to contacting ESI directly - that would only provide non-verifiable commentary, which falls under the category of original research - so their comments would not be directly usable within an article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean someone else has to write about the information first, for it to be credible and trustworthy for Wikipedia?
Barek, what happens when the media and other organizations systematically censor information? For example, no major news outlet has written about Richard Blum's relationship with for-profit colleges in five years, even as for-profit schools have gained greater public scrutiny. Conservative as well as liberal media outlets haven't touched the subject. Yet Richard Blum is a California Regent and Senator Dianne Feinstein's husband. Does that mean that this story is insignificant? linkDahnshaulis (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and if you can't figure out how your comments here are completely at odds with what Wikipedia is, then you cannot edit here. I feel like I'm flogging a long-dead horse: no original research, and neutrality at all time. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Extra extra, all you Twitterers: you've read by now that Dahnshaulis told the world that "Wikipedia editors considering a ban on my activities for presenting too much information". Well, Dahnshaulis, they are not: they are considering a ban for your lousy and non-neutral editing, for your abuse of Wikipedia as a soapbox from which to declaim the rights and wrongs of the world. Wikipedia was not invented for that--that's what you have Twitter, MySpace, Wikia, and WordPress for. Let me just add that I am highly sympathetic to your cause, but you are going about it totally wrong--if you had had a bit less zeal and more smarts, you could have improved these articles and thereby bring out what some might refer to as the truth of, basically, taxpayer-funded "education" that does no one any service but the CEOs and stockholders. I would never say that; it's not a neutral statement.
I am this close to blocking you per WP:NOTHERE, so you can ponder the problem with statements like "no major news outlet has written about Richard Blum's relationship with for-profit colleges in five years" (hint: if no reliable source has written about it, it can't be in an encyclopedia). Drmies (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dahnshaulis: You wrote, "Does that mean someone else has to write about the information first, for it to be credible and trustworthy for Wikipedia?" Yes, that's exactly what it means. You may have thought you were being ironic, but in fact you've quite accurately paraphrased the formal, written Wikipedia policy on this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this entire thread was archived--a bit too quickly for my taste, considering, for instance, this edit by Dahnshaulis on my talk page: "The people I named with close ties to for-profit colleges is well documented. Yet you decided to remove all the information. Is this how you work?" It exemplifies, pretty clearly, everything that's wrong here: it's a personal attack, it shows a lack of good faith, it exhibits the fundamental misunderstanding about Wikipedia this editor suffers from, and we can throw in WP:IDHT as well. Barek, Paul Barlow, Bahooka, and really everyone else: give me one good reason not to block this editor indefinitely, summarizing it as WP:NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in responding; I was off-line over the weekend.
From what I can see in Dahnshaulis' continued behavior, including the post you reference on your talk page, the user's primary motivator seems to be their attempt to address WP:GREATWRONGS. The WP:IDHT issues are a direct result, as site policies and guidelines that block that goal seems to be ignored.
I think WP:ROPE is a good philosophy when confusion and competency at editing on Wikipedia are an issue rather than vandalism. One of the editor's problems was the inability to cite his sources appropriately and his talk page reflects that ignorance. I provided links to referencing and citation help pages and, hopefully, he will take the opportunity to read up on what is expected from all editors. LizRead!Talk!18:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Simply formatting a ref correctly is the least of the issues here. The much more serious concerns are documented above and revolve around article ownership issues, soapboxing, WP:IDHT, etc. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, following a discussion at ANI [157], user Dr. Feldinger was indefinitely blocked after a serious of personal attacks. Since then, the user has returned with a never-ending number of socks, both registered socks and IP-socks
The talk page has been semi-protected. I like trolling when it's funny, but I'm not keen on being called anti-Semitic in a serious context (my Jewish mother and grandma wouldn't approve) and I doubt the other users, Jewish and gentile, like it either when they're just trying to fix an article that is the target of constant fighting and politically-motivated nonsense. He seems to be on the war-path right now, but hopefully it'll taper off. Also, I think this might belong on WP:SPI if I'm not mistaken. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20 Shevat 5775 17:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe that someone actually bothered with all that IP-changing and registering. What's even more awkward is that he's cloaked himself with some really nice proxy/VPN because his primary subnet's different so we can't issue a rangeblock. Still a geotrace won't hurt (given respectively):
Thanks. Unfortunately it just continues, the latest IP sock (85.23.156.94) was just blocked but there will soon be other ones.Jeppiz (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly offensive comments at talk pages
There is some edit-warring at Talk:Israel over a comment that some editors consider offensive while some other consider correct and appropriate. Previously there was similar warring over another comment.
Is there a criteria for determining whether an editor's comment is offensive enough to justify the reversion or when editors that do not like the comment (and even consider it uncivil or a personal attack) have nonetheless to restrain from touching it ? “WarKosign”17:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it's a moot question. The comment is by a highly disruptive and racist user (see discussion just above this one) who is blocked. The block is for the person, not the account, and so every edit any of the socks make will be removed.Jeppiz (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My question is not specifically about these two edits, it's about the principle. I was under the impression that the offensive post has to be quite extreme to warrant suppression. There are other messages still on the talk page that I find nearly as offensive. Would I be within my rights to remove them ?“WarKosign”20:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the answer really cannot be given without taking into account the status of the person who made the remarks. The best answer is, really, sure, you can remove what you think needs to be removed (per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines), but get ready for people to revert you. Also, we're not talking about "suppression" here (as in Wikipedia:Oversight), but simple deletion, where the comments are still in the history. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Previously blocked for some combination of WP:EW/WP:IDHT/refusal to recognize WP:CONSENSUS. Long-term refusal to work constructively with various other editors (for example, explicitly states he is ignoring multiple EW warnings and related comments on his talk-page about his edits). Previous admin-board visits have resulted in a page being locked (he was one of several edit-warriors over image choice) (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive269#User:Lazord00d reported by User:VQuakr .28Result: Page blocked.29) and others commenting on his inability to follow WP:CIVIL/WP:CONSENSUS (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive869#User:Lazord00d disruptive editing). A boomerang at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive870#Harrassment and hounding from users ser:DMacks.2C user:VQuakr.2C user:Leyo.2C user:Ben and others was forestalled because he appeared to be headed towards cooperative/collaborative editing. That appears to have been a short-term change. Since that time, he has restated his rejection of discussion/collaboration with others and that he is treating such attempts (as well as WP behavioral policy in general) as mostly a joke for his own amusement. Most recently at 2-Fluoroamphetamine, he was edit-warring over the same image choice situation with several other editors. In his general statements on this aspect and specific edit-summaries, it boiled down to his belief that his image was not noticeably worse in fact (others dispute this), was better in style (based on precedent that does not have consensus yet on WP). But the "fact" aspect he says are his own use of a computer program that does not have a reputation for being correct in this regard (others have commented that his reliable-sounding precedent is merely embedding other work that has no underlying reliability). I finally found actual WP:RS (published scientific literature) contradicting a very substantial part of the image he created for this article and cited it in my edit-summary. His response was to continue the WP:EW with dismissal of it as his being unable to understand the simple (in the world of chemical-structure and source-citation) explanation I made. WP:CIR and WP:V failure, in addition to the other behavioral problems. I would discuss it with him, but (as part of his pattern of rejecting others' comments out-of-hand) he has prohibited me from writing on his talkpage (likewise, I will leave it to others to notify him of this ANI). DMacks (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks: If I can't google it, why bother with the citation? Do you think most of our readers are Chemists? Seriously you must be joking. Sad thing is I know you're not, you used some gibberish parlance to screw with me rather than fulfill YOUR burden of proof in a sensible manner. Your post and it's content are joke #1,324 at least since I've been counting. But yeah WP is SERIOUS BUSINESSSSSSS. Lazord00d (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS/WP:V is very clear that google is not the threshold or even a requirement at all. My WP:BURDEN is met by a standard academic citation. But googling that "doi" string actually did just lead me to the journal article too (so it's not some special inaccessible thing I wrote), so maybe you should spend some time practicing google and with a chemistry textbook before you complain that a ref-cite based on chemistry is not correct or that it's wrong because it uses words you don't know (again, they are words that are the same details that others have complained about in your images). DMacks (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why treat a public encyclopedia as if it's a chemistry textbook? (deja vu) The two are not equal, and neither are their audiences. It is counterproductive to use citation that laypeople will not understand. Lazord00d (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the recurring pattern of behavior (repeated edit warring against consensus) that was not affected by his prior block for doing so, I suggest that there be some type of editing restriction placed on lazord00d (Wikipedia:Editing restrictions), such as being only permitted to introduce chemical structure images into Wikipedia pages if there is explicit consensus to do so on the article's talk page. ChemNerd (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? Another Lazord00d hater committee? You do realize that here in the 21st century you can measure your success in life by the number of haters you have right? So this is awesome actually!!! When your data is proven right and everyone's wittle feelings are hurt this all starts to remind me of my kids daycare lol. I had hoped for more from alleged "chemistry experts" but alas that's what I get for hoping for anything. No hopes, no exquisitely entertaining disappointments hahahahah...
Mmmm no not silly. This is totes personal because I called you ALL out when you began removing my content without citation to back your changes OR the content you provided.. You feel that you (and WP) are above the need to prove yourselves. This started personal over some butthurt 'cause I changed an image, and remains personal right here and right now. There are more of you than me so ultimately you'll get your way regardless of fact.. but don't think for one nanosecond that I won't make you work for every point you try to make each and every moment until then. Or you can ban me now like a pansy without leg to stand on.
Some sort of editing restriction is needed, but I disagree with ChemNerd. Providing a consensus exception would allow him to claim consensus when there was none. If there really is consensus, someone else can add the image. I propose: “User:Lazord00d is banned from adding, deleting, or changing any chemical structural images.” I will note that a restriction of this sort, as opposed to an indef for WP:NOTHERE, shows patience on the part of the community for an editor who should still be encouraged to contribute to articles on chemistry. (If another editor thinks that he should be indeffed, he has made his own case for that.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what about uncited changes and the mass deletion of ALL of my contributed content regardless of it's relevance to Chemistry at all? What about uncited and unfounded attacks on me and my content from other editors? Lazord00d (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do not support This is all because of a negative attitude I have maintained due to constant unfounded reverts and deletions of donated content solely because I made some folks mad and "they run this show".. lol Lazord00d (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunatley the evidence presented was that the block didnt have he desired effect (as in none at all). Alhough I'd normally be happy for someone to edit with restriction rather than not at all (with the exception of vandals) this loos like a clear cut case of nothere exepcially with his statement about making us work for every point appears to be nothing more than an I'm going to be disruptive. Amortias (T)(C) 19:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
^Your assumption is incorrect unsurprisingly (<=apparently my lack of surprise is insulting.. aww kleenex anyone?) By "make you work" I mean I will call for citations and backing for your positions. Nothing more. If demanding that you prove both your data AND ESPECIALLY your case against me makes me NOTHERE (or whatever) then that is ALL good with me. Couldn't be better actually. Lazord00d (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a bare minimum, but just seeing his comments on this board (where one would expect someone to be on his best behavior) I doubt that it is anywhere near enough. Working with such an attitude in article space is more than volunteers should have to deal with. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Third choice as a bare minimum. My second choice (after a site ban) would be suggesting that he shouldn't edit articles period, but can suggest sources on article talk pages. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Site Ban
Since at least one editor has opposed the editing restriction as ineffective, do they want a site-ban for general disruption and a hostile attitude?
Support - underlying issue is behavioral and has nothing to do with chemistry. In my opinion, a topic ban would just be kicking the can down the road. VQuakr (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support If I say "put up or shut up" do any of you know what I'm trying to say? :-) I hesitate to use anything but the most basic and clear speech given my experience with the lollipop guild here.. Lazord00d (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! It's like I said to someone awhile back: Ridicule is appropriate for ridiculous situations like this. And so it shall be ridiculed for all time if I have anything to say about it.Lazord00d (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, if their prior record was somehow better (no where to go but up, I guess), then we have to wonder if their account was compromised. Otherwise, I'm wondering why there wasn't a troll block long before now. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support No it's you all who have not responded to my REPEATED requests for citation to back YOUR changes. I've included citation on every single one of my contributions. That would be quite the opposite of what you just said. Now pay attention Ian.. don't fall asleep during lecture period. Lazord00d (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Who is using the IP 88.106.241.208, and just reverted my counter-vandal edit to the Terraria page, sort of making it counter-counter-vandalizing.
Now I know that I did stuff like this in the past, but I wouldn't undo edits which undid my pranks, which he did. (Also, what he did comes from a long-lasting war between hardcore Minecraft players and hardcore Terraria players, who both pretty much compare a game that you can't.)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was unable to successfully edit the picture identification (Nicholas Clérambault):00:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)PLCraig3 (talk) He is composing at the harpsichord, not the piano.
With a history of only 6 edits, s/he has already vandalized an article twice (inserting Banana!!!?) and edit warred on another article to the point of exceeding WP:3RR (at 4 reverts in under 24 hours now). (The most recent 2 edits have re-inserted unsourced defamatory information about a living person into an article — an accusation that a professional journalist has "falsified references").
I haven't crossed the 3RR bright line yet, although I believe I am allowed to if only to remove the BLP-violating material. But there has to be a better solution to this situation. Advice, please. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I need someone to make a block since I'm technically involved here. Long story short, I deleted the article The Resonance Project because it had several issues: notability, copyvio, and it was also a complete and total puff piece for the project. I posted an explanation on Figure8state's talk page explaining why I deleted the page, which prompted them to make some pretty WP:BADFAITH comments about Wikipedia, editors, and the guidelines in general. They then came to my talk page and made even more bad faith comments. I'd offered to help them with creating an article if they could provide coverage in reliable sources, but rather than offering sources Figure8state has just given more abuse, which includes creating a bit of a "slam board" on their userpage (User:Figure8state) and making vague threats on Gbawden's talk page to "begin a campaign to discredit and inform of the corruption of Wikipedia, the not-so-"free" encyclopedia". If they want to do that then that's fine- there are entire websites devoted to just that purpose, but I think that it's pretty safe to say that they're not here to positively contribute to Wikipedia and that they want to use Wikipedia to promote the Resonance Project and its lead figure Nassim Haramein. From how quickly this has escalated on my talk page and given their actions, I think that they just need to be permablocked. I'd do it myself but I am technically involved and it'd probably be better to have a third party do the block instead. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)05:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stale: It seems that everyone is ignoring this as a 'simple' content dispute. -- Orduin Discuss 23:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Somewhere
