Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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)
Start a new discussion

Appeal

Arbitrary header

Magog the ogre has just imposed a restriction on my editing, he has banned me from editing Battle of Chawinda for two months[1] even though I have committed no violations, there was an Iban violation on the part of the other editor with who I have the Iban yet again Magog sees fit to restrict me. His policing of this dispute has been suboptimal since the start had has gotten worse. I demand he remove himself from policing this dispute, and this restriction lifted. Ok here is the timeline [2] Added by Mar4d. [3] Removed by Dbigrayx. [4] Restored by Nangparbat. [5] I revert back to Mar4d. [6] removed again by DBRX. IP reverts himhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Chawinda&diff=next&oldid=496114020] which I revert assuming it was a sock, I self reverted this once I checked the IP. I have now edited this content twice. TG first revert of this quote was two days after I had worked it twice[7]. There has been no violation on my part Darkness Shines (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I guess you caught me, Darkness Shines. I am a proud American; Pakistan is as virulently anti-American parts of the Pakistani population is as anti-American as any nation in the world, save parts of the Afghan population. They harbored a mass-murderer of American civilians in their equivalent of West Point, and then threw the guy who helped out the US in jail for 30 years. They do things like throw US government agents in jail for the crime of being stuck up at an ATM.[8] Their nuclear arsenal scares the daylights out of me, like no one else's. I harbor no such thoughts towards India. And yet, despite all of these thoughts going through my head, I have thrown my hat in the ring with a pro-Pakistan POV-pusher. Or could it possibly be that you are just acting disruptively? Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excuse me? Am I now to Check content to see if an Iban violation occurred before? It is not my job to check if the other part of an Iban has edited content I had previously edited, and if my revert of content I had edited beforehand is a violation why did Magog not sanction or warn for this[9]? Sorry but with Magog it has been one way at all times, I did not violate the Iban, I should not be sanctioned. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Discretionary sanctions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ban proposal: TopGun and DarknessShines

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

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

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

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

• How soon they forget [10] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• People need to remain fair and balanced here. Darkness Shines should be unblocked like TopGun to have similar possibility for defending himself. BOTH committed a violation of the IBAN and both recently had a similar number of violations (DS being blocked more often for them) but only one editor has been unblocked. The good faith gestures shown by Darkness Shines should be taken in account. Darkness Shines has agreed to a topic ban and thereby to not edit in the topic area until mediation is concluded. If the other editor were to show a similar good faith gesture people could all move forward to mediation and leave this unpleasant litigation behind. The mediators have raised interesting questions which, if addressed, could create a framework from which to work from. Darkness Shines has provided dozens of reliable academic sources in the topic area and people in the mediation are waiting for others to do the same. JCAla (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. India-Pakistan edits are contentious and I agree with Regentspark that the dialectic is keeping the other's crappy references out. Disclaimer:I have had differences of POV with TG in the past. AshLin (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose for Darkness Shines Conditional Topic Ban until Mediation is completed (as proposed below) seems quite fine.Agree with JCAla. It doesn't look fair to give one of the two involved users'..chance to defend himself while the other is deprived of the same.Since DS agreed for a topic ban until mediation is completed, it is now time to lift the punitive block from DS so that he can participate here. This also follows neutrality. Thanks ƬheStrikeEagle ^AMRAAM 12:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support for Darkness Shines as his only purpose here seems to add strong ant-Pakistan POV (examples: [11], [12]) to Pakistan related articles. He has been in disputes with most of the editors who are working in this topic area and TopGun is one of them. I did suggest "Pakistan" topic ban for DS previously but his continuous POV editing, hindrance in improving articles in this topic area and hounding has forced me to support an indefinite site ban. --SMS ^Talk 14:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Question

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

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

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

More violations

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

Hounding

• The interaction ban was placed because I was being admittedly hounded (first saying things like RC patrol and later admitting to following me around) and I was in full support of it... even got the thread reopened when it was being closed. This was where I proposed a site ban before but due to my own conflict, it appeared retaliatory. Hopefully it doesn't now that I've not made a violation myself here. [13]. This hounding has still continued and has violated the spirit of IBAN: [14] (an article I'm a major contributor to where DS just appeared), [15] (appeared here right after I edited for the first time), [16] (and another one where he never edited before). There are many more and would take up useless diff digging. This has not been reciprocated by me. And not to mention calling it a violation when ever I report one, contest one reported against me or get involved in an IBAN related discussion like this one. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• This is another Ivan violation. One was already explained I was reverting Nangparbat, the other was on RC patrol which anyone. can see I do occasionally and self reverted once I looked at the articles history so as to warn that user. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Alternative: Conditional topic ban until mediation has concluded

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

• Support Thanks Sunray. I for one am willing to let them try this restricted approach. Unfortunately, they're both currently blocked, so, assuming this has traction at all, if someone could ping them with this as a question, that would be great. --regentspark (comment) 18:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• "By Sunray. I will go along with a topic ban until mediation has concluded." - Darkness Shines (brought over from here) 09:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The mediation is the right venue to determine the honesty of the editors with regards to abiding by the rules of wikipedia (sourcing, civility, etc.) and gives both editors (and the others) the chance to work out a common basis to work from which could prevent extensive future disputes. JCAla (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose ban: for myself as it will hinder general progress, most of my edits are in this topic area only and also because this thread is not here because I made a violation; I've made no violations atleast on those things previously clarified and my block was reverted as not a vio. To be serious, the disputes follow me around. I'll try not to engage in the same dispute on different articles while the mediation is on, but I can not say the same for unrelated disputes or for conduct disputes which are the prime issue. Also I think the mediation is kind of failing (not due to the content itself, but because of the conduct disputes that are there going in the parallel and out right denial of each others' views at different venues including the mediation). I will, however, still make good faith attempts to continue the mediation until it is rendered impossible due to the conduct scenario (I will withdraw though if a topic ban is implemented on me due to this thread as I had no part in starting this other than correctly reporting a vio). --lTopGunl (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support This will be reasonable, both can be topic banned until the meditation process is over. Site banning one or both while the mediation process is running is clearly not the best option. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Wholehearted Support This is in fact a constructive way, that will actually be beneficial to the project. Blocking is only a final option when everything else fails. Admins needs to be specially careful while dealing with promising and good article contributors such as User:Darkness Shines. The process of mediation had been proposed for reasons such as this. Lets rise above from the mob mentality of lynching editors and think wisely and allow people who are willing to handle it in a better way.--DℬigXray 09:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I hesitated to support the proposal above as I felt that was draconian, but I find it unbelievable that these two can still continue to bicker even when facing a full site ban. Time for a holiday for us all - they are both clearly incapable of acting like adults towards each other and so I support this restriction. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support Completely agree with DBigXray.Block should be the final action when everything other than it fails to achive the objective.Let mediation be given a chance.I'm sure Darkness Shines would try to settle any disputes whatsoever so that he continues his great contributions in sock-puppetry fighting here.Blocking for 6 months doesn't seem fair as it is not the case of any serious sock-puppetry or abusing.Just another part of Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts.....so can be resolved with mediation.Thanks ϮheჂtriԞeΣagle ^Sorties 13:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support I am more than willing to refrain from editing existing articles in the topic area until such a time as mediation has concluded. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support, despite TopGun's declaration that he'll withdraw from mediation (in fact, that statement makes me even more certain that this is necessary). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

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

• Support, bans are too heavy. As Regentspark & AshLin have said, these two editors are constantly in conflict but, properly managed, this is an overall productive conflict - adding new info to the projects while keeping the others POV in check. The main negative result of the conflict is excessive wiki-lawyering that consumes the time of other editors, but a ban is not a solution, tho it may seem very tempting and desirable to some editors who are tired of the long and constant boxing match, which sometimes results in halt of progress of an article. A temporary conditional topic ban seems right, but what is really needed is more one on one direct interaction between the two. Disclaimer:I have had one instance of difference with TopGun in the past, which was amiably solved immediately by edits by Darkness Shines. Anir1uph (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Establishing conditions for successful dispute resolution

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, the mediators suggest the following conditions:

Participants voluntarily agree to:

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

Discussion

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

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

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

• In "Participants voluntarily agree to: Cease major edits..." can the definition of major edits be explained? Also, in "avoid complaints about one another", can it be made clear what avoid means; when' and to whom can they complain in case of a violation. Only so there are no loopholes in the future. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd presume 'major edits' means 'anything that isn't a minor edit'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for those suggested changes to the wording. The general principle is that issues are discussed on the mediation talk page. I've tightened up "avoid" to "refrain from." I like the distinction The Bushranger makes, about major/minor, though we might extend it to "non-controversial edits." Sunray (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• Question, "freeze editing on the subject matter in future instances" As in I cannot add content to an article after mediation? That seems a little much. It is not a 1r restriction on such articles, it means I cannot add content to them. I am currently working on getting an article up to GA, it involves both Pakistan and the Taliban. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Would it be better to leave it at 1RR? Sunray (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If possible yes, or even on articles only I edit I would not be able to add content. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm already on 1RR. But I don't think why the articles shouldn't be edited after the mediation has concluded. More things always come up. But I see the principle, don't want to overrun the mediation effort.. so talkpage discussions should be used instead of sneaking in content like was done before. I do not agree however to refrain from making valid complaints and fully intend to observe and make sure that the previous community restrictions are enforced. Anyone making a bad complaint is dealt with accordingly anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the "after" restriction should be dropped. One purpose of mediation is to get the two editors to learn to work together. If, after mediation, they haven't learned that, then we'll probably need to revisit the ban proposal above anyway. --regentspark (comment) 02:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, that should address the concern. Sunray (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I should point out that the recent reports and appeals with regards to DS's and TopGun's IBAN were brought forward not because of disputes related to the Taliban, but because of articles dealing with Pakistan/India battles and wars especially Battle of Chawinda. There seems to be a general question with regards to proper sourcing or lack thereof [17] as well as how to properly represent sources on several articles. JCAla (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Phew... I tried to bring that up quite a few times above but was ignored. This dispute even though the first and the core dispute, has nothing to do with the IBAN violations per se, which are not limited to any single topic area. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There exists a general problem with sourcing or lack thereof beyond the Taliban issue which shows how much mediation is warranted to deal with the general question of verifiability and proper source representation in the topic area with some issues such as Taliban (as the first dispute) serving as an example. Once a common basis is established and if editors adhere to it, this might reduce disputes. JCAla (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Following this discussion and with the above adjustments, it sounds like you are both o.k.with the conditions. Are you ready to sign the agreement now? Sunray (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The conditions do not mirror the issue of dispute. The issue is not the Taliban. The issue is Pakistan, its connection to the Taliban and its battles/territorial disputes with India. It makes no sense to issue a restriction for the Taliban. There has never been a dispute between these editors with regards to Taliban edits except for those edits dealing with the Taliban's relationship to Pakistan. Let's say people want to make an edit about the Afghan "peace process" and the Taliban (without mentioning Pakistan) or the Taliban's philosophy there should be no problem with it. The real topic is how to describe Pakistan's role in world affairs, results of wars involving Pakistan and whether some groups are/were associated with the country or not. The major problem is the sourcing issue as mentioned above. Can you adjust the conditions accordingly? JCAla (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘If one of the major issues is the Chawinda page, then why have no major attempts been made for dispute resolution? Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The major issue is the question of appropriate sourcing with regards to Pakistan (not Taliban - can the mediators change that?). This attempt at dispute resolution at the Chawinda talk page shows the same problem with regards to sourcing or lack thereof as this attempt at dispute resolution on another article. Mediation is needed to come to a common understanding with regards to sourcing based on examples. JCAla (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

And how's that related to IBAN? --lTopGunl (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreement

Participants signify their agreement below (~~~~)

• Darkness Shines (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: Remove the interaction ban

A drastic solution perhaps but I'm proposing this because I believe that the interaction ban is actually making matters worse. An interaction ban on two editors who edit in mainly the same areas makes little sense, especially considering that they are the lead editors in those areas. What we get instead is a game of "gothca" where each editor is busy trying to catch the other one in a technical violation of the interaction ban (leading to their overarching presence on noticeboards and Salvio's talk page). Instead we should let them get back to content writing while enforcing good behavior through civility and tendentious editing warnings and/or blocks, and by encouraging them to settle disputes through RfCs. (I Note also that TopGun hasn't agreed to the proposal above - he is a bit of a Gandhian! - and that proposal, limited as it is, is not going to fly without his agreement.) Whether this gets any traction or not, I'm putting this forward as one solution. --regentspark (comment) 14:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. --regentspark (comment) 14:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support - I had not caught up in a couple of days, was reading through and was about to propose the same thing. The iban has failed, it is causing massive amounts of bureaucratic headaches for admins and the boards, and perhaps the traditional way of dealing with the problems is warranted: block where needed, as needed, for as long as needed, like you would any other editor. The iban has become a fallback to justify bad behavior and is creating even more of it. If we can't agree to block them for 6 months after all of this, we need to release them from the obligations of it. We spend more time determining if actions do or don't apply to iban, instead of determining what is simply unacceptable behavior for any editor, and applying common sense to each situation. If they can't get along without the iban, then they will both likely see a series of blocks, as any admin will feel more free to apply them without worrying about being bogged down in a debate over the terms of the iban. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support It is a waste of time and gets in the way of constructive editing Darkness Shines (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support, plus alternative: Not only this, but replace the interaction ban with an NPA/civility probation on both of them - any negative interaction by one of these two, if observed by an uninvolved admin, can result in escalating blocks. The idea is to just say that they have to stay completely civil or else - which is best accomplished by minimizing their interaction with each other - instead of having to monitor each other in order to avoid the other one. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Question: The heading says "Alternative proposal:" Alternative to what? There is a possibility that mediation could succeed. If conduct disputes do not stop, arbitration would seem to be an option. I would support this proposal on the condition that participants return to mediation. Regentspark, would you be able to clarify this? Sunray (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I had assumed mediation would carry on regardless of whichever outcome here? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That was my assumption as well. Except that the editing restrictions suggested by the mediation proposal above will no longer apply. --regentspark (comment) 19:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Constant attacks by editor

121.216.230.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has strong views on Craig Thomson affair. He's also constantly accusing others of vandalism and of inserting libel and defamation. [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] via edit summaries and section headers. The material in question has three different sources and judged not to be libelous by an admin [25]. He was warned by me about WP:TALKNEW and personal attacks [26] and has received other warnings, [27] for example. He's still continung [28], [29]. At this point I'd like an admin to step in and make it clear to 156.* that these attacks must stop. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

WP:SPI is that way. But yes, you're wrong. I'm glad to see you seem to have finally stopped comparing editors to rabid dogs and mislabelling edits as libelous, false, and defamatory though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, NeilN, I have made mistakes; people learn by making them when trying to do something about a serious problem, not by sitting around. But okay, I'm wrong about the sockpuppet issue. I'm glad to see non-partisan people have also seen the same problems which I saw when I first brought the bigger issue about the defamatory material to the BLP noticeboard which was, as Skyring gloats about here, previously dismissed. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Craig Thomson affair

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

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

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

I have exactly one edit to the article [....] Exactly. You've been concentrating on WP:GAME and finding 'better' things to do than fix the article itself - like your threats and baiting [30] on the article's talk page, running round all over Wikipedia to 'get that anon user to see how things are done here' [] and all your little games left on 'my' (this IP's) talk page. And what about your moving of my responses around on the article's talk page, and then invoking some nonsense about 'incorrect intending'? Both you and Skyring did that, and did so deliberately to bait me, NeilN. Instead of examining and fixing the serious problems then present in a BLP article - which you knew about well before this blew up ([31]) - you've been more interested in harassing me and wasting my time and that of others by playing The Wikipedia Game - e.g. [32], [33], [34], [35] etc etc. But let's get back to the article:

1. . There were defamatory and false allegations of fact previously in it and they were being used to push a POV agenda; they were altered or removed.
2. . The article was full of defamatory innuendo and in such poor shape that it prompted one editor to ask if the subject of the article had been found guilty of anything by a court upon that editor's initial examination.
3. . When Skyring alias Pete deliberately restored the innuendo and referenced a source cited by the legal system as a reckless libeler, I removed them again.
4. . What many people outside Australia may not know is that the subject of the article began defamation proceedings against a major media empire, whose publications would ordinarily be considered a reliable secondary (ie neutral reporting) source for Wikipedia purposes. What happens when these previously hereto reliable secondary sources are also the defamation defendants of the article's living person? They cannot really considered to be neutral reporters of fact in that instance, can they?
5. . The other national media source whose opinion sources Skyring liked to use is owned by Murdoch, and so that should speak for itself.
6. . For you and others to falsely describe my edits as 'vandalism' when I attempted to put some balance into an article which Skyring and his (ex?)Liberal Party of Australia chum were busy making into an attack page before HiLo48 and I came along (and before Collect cleaned it out) to try and put it right simply isn't true; what happened to your assumption of good faith?
7. . Your friend Skyring alias Pete is baiting me with nonsense after I added a comment on the AfD. And he's still at it, moving my comments around and trying to bait me. He knows perfectly well that I had already addresses that very issue right here before, when Ball couldn't cope with the fact that some people see through the smears perpetrated by the Liberal Party of Australia. For the record, (a) I am not Craig Thomson; and (b) I reiterate the fact that, unlike Ball, I have no past or present membership of any political party. So AFAIC, Skyring's comment falls into the "when did you stop bashing your wife?" category. Before choosing to ignore him, I had previously asked that editor to stop his lying and harassment, and that was redefined as "a personal attack".
8. . For the record, I assumed good faith with Skyring until he (a) inserted material which was demonstrably false and untrue (which I referred to as 'lying'; why sugar-coat a turd and call it birthday cake?) and (b) removed any material which conflicted with his POV that the subject should be presumed guilty of offences and/or torts without trial; in Australia, that is called defamation. I am not the only person who can see that a slant and bias is being added by certain editors and the article is/was in poor shape, with such descriptions as, eg bad and opinionated content creation, adding his own POV slant, and creating the page as a perfect place to hang one's prejudices.
9. . Also for the record, I assumed good faith with you until you started playing games with me - moving my responses around on the article talk page to bait me, and your making of threats to report me to ANI and so on, but it now appears to me as though you support Skyring's POV pushing and gaming the system. Then again, you're not alone in that; the sort of game playing I've experienced here (e.g. [36](reply to false accusations by Skyring maliciously deleted by User:Armbrust; [37] (semantics and games from User:Despayre when I attempted to jump through hoops to get approval for sources which had been deleted by the POV pushers) and this from User:Dennis_Brown [38](that edit was 'a legal threat'? Oh, please; can someone put the lid back on the glue?) amongst many others which I can't be bothered to cite) is both a travesty and so incestuously ridiculous, since the policies are being gamed by a handful to promote the outcomes which those policies were intended to prevent. The preceding are a few examples of the kind of circle-jerking which puts people off participating in Wikipedia. I began editing the article to fix the POV and source problems which were clearly obvious and thus enhance the integrity of the project by contributing to it - NOT to argue with recalcitrants, NOT to spend hours jumping through hoops, and NOT to play stupid games. Despite the good efforts of HiLo48, Collect, Youreallycan, and some others, this experience has certainly put me off making any further contributions - but what does that matter; I guess that won't matter since I'm 'just an IP and thus a non-citizen'. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

1) Please provide a diff where I moved your comments. 2) Please provide a diff where I called your edits "vandalism" 3) You can repeat it all you want, but the text I was discussing ("Fair Work Australia asked lawyers to commence proceedings in the Federal Court against Thomson and others named in the report's adverse findings") was neither libelous or defamatory as it was reported by three different sources. 4) Trying to get you to calm down and make your points rationally is not baiting you. Comparing an an editor to a rabid dog who needs to be put to sleep [39] and stuff like this however, is. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'll take your point on that diff, must have selected the wrong one. Baiting aside, HiLo's rising to the bait is hardly the way to deal with things. My political POV is exactly the reason why I avoid editing in political articles. I would be vastly surprised if they could find anything to complain about in anything I write, since I solely focus on copy editing, but if they do my talk page is always open for criticisms and opinions. Blackmane (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing so sophisticated; just a plain rabid mongrel. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I am not HiLo48 (or Craig Thomson for that matter!) but now I know how, I'll do that if he doesn't. Give me a couple of hours. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Skyring (Pete) topic ban

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

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

• Support - as per above - Youreallycan 05:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support for ongoing active disruption in relation to Australian governance related pages, given a history of disruption in relation to Australian governance related pages. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC) IDHT diff IDHT diff Fifelfoo (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC) IDHT PRIMARY diff Fifelfoo (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

I created an article on the notable topic when Fair Work Australia presented its report and thus provided a solid source. Apart from linking the Craig Thomson and Gillard Government articles to the new article, I didn't touch any other "Craig Thomson-related articles", let alone make massive changes. The article needed to be written, I begged for coöperation on the talk page, the BLP problems were raised at the BLP Noticeboard and [dismissed, and I have rejected and continue to reject your unsupported and erroneous allegations of political motivation. Why not stick to facts instead of making personal attacks? --Pete (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm a teacher. It's part of my job (and, I might say, a professional skill I possess) to try to work out the real reasons the behaviour of some people is a long way from the norm. It's not a personal attack. It's an attempt to better understand your true motivation so that I can work better with you. As for facts, despite your massive denials, you HAVE tried to make big and significant changes to Craig Thomson related articles. That you do this while claiming that most of your edits elsewhere are minor is a real puzzle. I'm still trying to figure you out. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I created Craig Thomson affair from scratch. That's a significant change, I guess. Kindly provide diffs that show I have made "massive" or "big and substantial" changes to any other Craig Thomson-related article, as per your repeated claims above. --Pete (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Nup. Not playing that game with you. Perhaps a better indicator would be a simple count of the total number of edits you have made to Thomson related articles and talk pages. That includes pages like this one. Have you any idea how many that would be? I don't, but it sure ain't small. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collect, as you labelled the Craig Thomson affair, "classic silly season stuff",[40] when in fact it's been ongoing for three years of front page news with intense public interest in Australia, and the ongoing notability is that it could cause a fall of government in the tightly-balanced parliament where Thomson has been removed from the governing party[41] and now sometimes votes with the opposition, could I ask if you've read through some of the sources that demonstrate that this is not some passing scandal. It may sound like sleazy mud-slinging, but like the Profumo affair, it's been prostitutes in the headlines since day one. Just google "Craig Thomson" to see what I mean. There are reliable sources for all of my edits, and a government body has produced a report listing and detailing 150 findings made against Thomson.[42] It took three years to gather the material, and over a thousand pages to put the case. Thomson was given the opportunity to refute the report in Parliament - in a speech which was carried live throughout Australia and put the Twitter hashtag #thomson into global number one trend for a time[43] - but brought no evidence to counter the claims against him. His position was that he had been somehow set up by his enemies, who had gained control over his credit card, drivers licence and mobile phone, hotel room phone and forged his signature.[44] Repeatedly without his knowledge over several years while he continued to approve the credit card bills, sometimes for thousands of dollars at a time. All of this is supported by reliable sources from the leading Australian news agencies and the subject of keen public interest.[45] This isn't a case of Wikipedia smearing a person out of all balance - what I produced was mild compared to the mainstream reports. Thomson sued the first publisher to break the story for defamation, but dropped the case two years later before it could be heard, and paid $240 000 in settlement.[46] That newspaper - and every other within Australia - continues to publish the allegations against him and no apology or retraction was ever made. I invite you and others to examine our coverage at Gillard Government#Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper, which has the same sourced story, occasioning no controversy on the discussion stage, and no input from me except to provide a link to the Craig Thomson affair main story. I invite review and criticism of my actions in writing an article on a notable matter, but I do ask that the sources be read, and my edits examined before making a hasty judgement. --Pete (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for so spendidly showing the problem. It is, in fact, the fact that you edit with a specific intent which is so wondrously limned that this proposal has been made by others. The policy of WP:BLP requires articles to be conservatively written, which is not what your edits seem to have been intended to follow. Cheers. And have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Coffee, actually, in a 20oz "Americaware" mug I bought last year just outside St Louis at the Route 66 State Park. I'm onto my second Aeropress coffee maker, which I heartily recommend to all. Big mug of sweet coffee - makes working here a pleasure! Just out of curiosity, just what do you see as my "specific intent"? I would describe it as "summarising a major Australian political scandal for the benefit of Wikipedia's readers", and I invite you to start at the top of the Talk:Craig Thomson affair page for what is virtually a blog of my stated specific intentions and read on down. I copied across the relevant material from the Craig Thomson article and set to work on expanding it using the just-released 1 100 page Fair Work Australia report as an authoritative source. Three years in the making and a wealth of forensic detail. I urge you to at least thumb through it. But you have a different perception of my "specific intent", apparently. Do you have any diffs to illustrate your opinion? Thanks. --Pete (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

In a period of just over an hour there, Pete made 17 separate edits to this page to create that content above. He has digressed all over the place, delving right into the nitty gritty of detailed content for the Craig Thomson affair article. He has completely missed the point of THIS discussion, clearly demonstrating his total obsession with Craig Thomson, and an inability to look more broadly at the issues under discussion HERE. A total lack of perspective. In the broader Wikipedia context, this editor simply does not know what he is doing. HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I make three points:

1. I have asked for diffs to be provided, demonstrating the claimed non-compliance with wikipolicy. After a day of discussion the evidence provided has been scanty, but I invite inspection by any admin. I stand by my edits.
2. This is a subthread of an ANI request launched against a recently-arrived SPA:IP editor. I invite examinations of the contributions of that editor, which are best described as relentlessly abusive against myself and any other editor opposing his or her view. I also note the behaviour of other users involved in the article referenced by the first sub-thread. User:HiLo48's contributions are also disruptive, containing frequent personal attacks[47]. User:Collect, as outlined above, has in my opinion made a serious error, removing most of the material from Craig Thomson affair, which had already been advised and dismissed at WP:BLPN, especially the material contributed by other diverse editors which had been copied across from Craig Thomson and formed the starting material of the new article. If the material had survived two notifications on WP:BLPN and been worked over by many other editors, where is the BLP violation? Massive removal of reliably sourced material during collaborative editing is disruptive in the extreme. Any disruption to editing has been the product of more editors than one, I suggest.
3. It has been mentioned above that I was banned for a year. Yes, I was. I did not enjoy the experience, but I learnt from it, and my edits over the past few years have been productive, in accordance with wikipolicy, and polite and coöperative despite serious provocation.

I ask that any admin involving themselves here look at all the material. If this needs to be referred to ArbCom, I have no objection to my edits being scrutinised in a more formal manner. --Pete (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes please. ALL the material. Especially Pete/Skyring's editing style, which is confrontational rather than consensus seeking, impossible to explain using standard Diffs, and involves a rapid fire, scattergun approach. And, you describe some editors as opposing your view. My opposition has nothing to do with what I think of Craig Thomson. It an opposition to his unhealthy trial by media and politicians, and now by Wikipedia, handled here with an unseemly haste. It's an opposition to keeping up with every scandalous tidbit obviously involved media and politicians release on a day to day basis. Wikipedia doesn't need this indecent haste. We could write a much better article in fifteen months time, when all the emotion and political ambition has gone. Maybe that's what we should be aiming for. HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Skyring has a long history of treating Wikipedia as a soapbox for his political views, and making edits which are obviously motivated by his political leanings. Many editors (including myself) have asked him to stop this, but without success. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This can be sorted out by discussion. So little evidence is supplied here that a topic ban is not needed. Living in Canberra does not mean a propensity to be politically biased. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to very firmly disagree with you there. Discussion with Pete/Skyring is pointless. Rational discussion is almost impossible. He does not comprehend the problems his editing style creates here. He ignores what others say. So how can it be sorted out by discussion? HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There's been lots of discussion including Skyring, and I'm sorry to say that it generally makes things worse. Skyring has an unfortunate tendency to use article talk pages as a forum to discuss his political views rather than to propose concrete improvements to the article. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you provide some diffs, please? --Pete (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And that's another bloody annoying habit of his. One presents a well explained, comprehensive explanation of the problem, then Pete/Skyring (and some of our Admins who want this to be simple) just ask for Diffs. As I've also explained many times, Diffs on their own will never tell the whole story here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, let me put it another way. Should this matter go to ArbCom, they'll be wanting evidence, not personal attacks or gripes. --Pete (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Here are some examples from Talk:Kevin Rudd: [48], [49] [50], [51] [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57]. The common thread in most of these posts is that you make a vague suggestion about changing the article as part of a post which is mainly about your personal views on Rudd. There are lots more posts from you like this in the talk page's history, and it adds up to POV pushing and an attempt to include negative material in a BLP on the grounds that you don't like the guy. Nick-D (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, not quite! It was his deputy Julia Gillard didn't like Rudd, moved against him and became Prime Minister without benefit of any ballot or election. For our readers looking at the article painting Kevin Rudd in a saintly glow, there was no explanation. In the eyes of Wikipedia, the guy was a hero! NPOV doesn't mean merely reprinting every media release out of someone's office. --Pete (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There was no need for an election for Gillard to replace Rudd. What happened was legal, and completely ethical in the Westminster system. The Libs have used the same process themselves. That you post this line pushed by the Liberal Party's tame shock jocks shows that either you are ignorant, are deliberately pushing a POV yourself, or are easily manipulated by others pushing a POV. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: I have used the word election there because Pete/Skyring used that word in the previous post. He has now changed his post to say ballot instead, perhaps because of my post. He hasn't explained, or apologised. I won't change my wording. It made sense before Pete/Skyring again abused and confused the discussion process. HiLo48 (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Diff here shows the change was made well after HiLo48's response.One21dot216dot (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it was. See my apology below. --Pete (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for any misunderstanding. By using the word "election", I meant to highlight that Gillard became Prime Minister without either the processes of a general election or an internal party ballot, both of them perfectly normal. She did, however, topple Rudd, and she said that "Rudd's government had lost its way" as her explanation for action. Our article did not provide any such reason, despite heavy media criticism since the Copenhagen thing. Barack Obama is supposed to have rung Rudd after news reached the White House and asked if there had been a coup! --Pete (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Consider Holt, Gorton, and McMahon and the lack of howls of illegitimacy about them. One21dot216dot (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Any primary investigation of your talkpage contributions supports the Admins comment - such as diff, diff - the second one is a clear verification of the Admins comment - Youreallycan 00:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps these diffs may may also assist to illustrate the points more clearly which Youreallycan and Hilo48 have already clearly made wrt to the opposing admin, that discussion is not going to solve this issue. Skyring has an agenda at work; these diffs all relate to a simple statement which 3 different editors all agree is supported by the reliably-sourced reference: talkpage a; talkpage b; and talkpage c. The result on the article has been article a; article b; article c; article d; article e; and last I saw it, article f. People try to work with Skyring to achieve consensus but it's not happening because it conflicts with his POV and let the facts be damned. It seems to me as though Skyring wants to be left at liberty to bias the article the way he wants. Circular discussion seem to be one of the methods he uses to remove any balance and annoy other editors with this behavior so that they either inappropriately blow a gasket in frustration (as I must confess I have) or give up on the mess and walk away (as I nearly did). One21dot216dot (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! You only provided one diff of mine, which looks perfectly reasonable. Your own contributions on that page don't show you in a good light, but it's tough sometimes being a raw editor, and I forgive you. You're learning fast. For the record, if anybody here wants to have a go at getting the statement discussed on the page to agree with the source, feel free. --Pete (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

But it's not all about just your posts. It about how your posts relate (or don't relate, as is more frequently the case) to what others say. So showing what others have said is important in showing your inability to discuss. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Still, I believe the diffs I showed above illustrate the point, and using the arrows back and forth can illustrate it further. Anyway, this appears to me to be a dishonest edit summary from our friend per WP:ME as the change seems a bit more than minor and involved more than an indent. But maybe I am being over-sensitive here given the history. One21dot216dot (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to my knowledge never directly interacted with this editor, but came across some of his edits at the Julia Gillard talk page when it was nominated at WP:GAN last year. I remember reading through the threads here and here and thinking that, although exceedingly polite, Skyrings comments were aimed more at expressing his personal opinion on the Government than any real meaningful improvement. AIRcorn (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the links - for which thanks - my comments there go to the question of balance in Australian politics articles. The opinions I expressed are those of established political commentators using reliable sources. The bad news for Gillard] keeps rolling in, but our article does not reflect the reality. How can our readers rely on Wikipedia when our political coverage is tilted? Looking at comparable USA articles, for example Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, they read more like balanced biographies than the choppy and incomplete pieces on Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott which are the Australian counterparts. Wikipedia is best served by input by editors from all views, and seeking to exclude those with whom one disagrees through topic ban proposals is poor practice indeed. If the diffs supplied showed a pattern of abuse, of acting against consensus, of pushing views unsupported by reliable sources, then maybe. But where is it? Those most strident in their criticism of me are hardly shining examples of model wikihaviour and might look to their own hearts before stabbing mine. --Pete (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing baiting and harassment from User:Skyring (Pete)

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

This user persists in moving my responses around to annoy and provoke, latest example of this is here; more available on request. He persists in this behavior after being asked to stop on several occasions. I note he doesn't try this stunt with experienced editors. One21dot216dot (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's your problem right there! More experienced editors know where to place and indent their comments correctly. For example here, where I respond directly to HiLo. Your subsequent response should have been placed below mine. You've been told about this a couple of times, at least once by me. When I move my contribution back to its original position, that's not intended as a personal insult, it's just the regular practice. My apologies if any offence was taken - none was intended! --Pete (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• He's done it again well after being asked to stop on numerous previous occasions. No one else except Skyring has had any issues with my indenting. Can an admin please respond to this? One21dot216dot (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: To support my comment of "I note he doesn't try this stunt with experienced editors," please that Skyring didn't dare move HiLo48's comments around when the chronological order of edits was post a / post b / post c, but the order displayed is (a) / (c) / (b), as post (c) was HiLo48's response to The Bushranger - in other words, the threading follows a logical pattern. The same applies to the matters complained of. One21dot216dot (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

One21dot216dot (previously the IP) seems to be trying to create drama here unnecessarily. In the first diff produced above, Skyring is clearly moving his own contribution and states that in his edit summary. Yet One21dot216dot not only interpets it otherwise but opens a whole new subthread. What possible administrative action does he expect? Mathsci (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci writes, "In the first diff produced above, Skyring is clearly moving his own contribution and states that in his edit summary." There's more to it than that, so I will try and explain the issue more clearly. Please carefully examine the difference here between lines 371 (left diff) /372 (right diff) and lines 384 (left) / 387 (right); Skyring is moving not only his own contribution, he's also moving mine. Note how the diff as shown there omits 38 intermediate revisions by 11 users, but when the differences are displayed in the way I set the diffs up to appear, it clearly illustrates the point - that is, he is disruptively editing, and he's doing it intentionally. Why? Maybe in the hope that I'll revert his edits and so I'll run afoul of the 3-revert rule. Or he's doing it because I won't otherwise respond to him. Yes, I opened a new subthread; should I have started a completely new case, considering all of these matters are inter-related? I do not know; I am learning. Ditto insofar as what kind of administrative action can be taken. Considering Skyring has created a defamatory attack page to supplement kooky blog pages while having a clear conflict of interest, and has had numerous problems with other editors - some now, some long before I began editing, do you think some form of administrative action is required? As for your other comments, thank you for showing me another amazing display of WP:AGF. One21dot216dot (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC) (PS - there was an edit conflict the first time I tried sending this.

The last change, however, did forget that the highest level of indent should not be moved to a position where the material to which it was a response is apparently changed - which is what Pete did. You need to count the colons, Mathsci! One's edit had more colons that did Pete's, so the move made it look like one response was to Pete's post and not to HiLo's post. Meanwhile. I think you should look at Pete's overal history with regard to Australian politics here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

SPI harassment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oncenawhile appears to have a personal vendetta against AnkhMorpork that borders on obsessive. It started with this inquisitive and rather nebulous question on Ankh’s Talk page and quickly escalated barely a month later to his first SPI against AnkhMorpork. That SPI resulted in  Unrelated[58] But oncenawhile was unsatisfied and continued with his badgering by filing the instant spurious SPI.

There are three elements in Oncenawhile’s SPI that evidence bad faith in the extreme and classic BATTLEGROUND behavior. First, of the the noted IPs in the instant SPI, some geolocate to Belgium while others to Toronto. Two other named puppets, Jabotito48 and Tutangamon, edit from Argentina. Unless, Ankh is the host of Globe Trekker it is ludicrous to assume that he is the master. Second, Oncenawhile had already been unequivocally told that IP 74.198.87.103 has nothing to do with AnkhMorpork [59] yet he included it again in the instant report. Third, one of the accounts that Oncenawhile included as Ankh’s puppet is 91.180.72.97. The absurdity of this is that Ankhmorpork actually brought a case against that particular IP for socking [60] and Oncenawhile, who obsessively watches Ankh was aware of this.

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

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

• Comment. The same thing happened to me recently. I had a dispute with other editors and an SPI was filed on me. I knew it would fail or I could have had closed it with an office action. It was still a pain in the butt to have to defend myself from wikidrama.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• The fact is, the page in question has seen a number of sock accounts (some now blocked) edit warring in favour of Ankhmorpork's position. This activity is highly detrimental to achieving a consensus on the page. Ankmorpork is not correct in saying that a second case was filed against him. In fact Oncenawhile filed a case listing a number of suspected accounts that had edit warred in favour of Ankh's position. He categorically said that "I do not claim to know who the puppetmaster is..." It seems to me that Oncenawhile was making an honest attempt to address a very real problem on the page in question and in the I-P topic area in general. Also I find Jiujitsuguy's righteous indignation to be a little hard to swallow, given that after several content disputes with me he filed a SPI investigation against me [61], which turned out to be entirely unfounded. Instead of accepting the decision and moving on JJG decided to start making totally unfounded allegations about me being a sock on other users talk pages. [62].Dlv999 (talk) 3:15 pm, Today (UTC+5.5)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of the most vicious destructive scenarios that often goes unchecked in Wikipedia is using the Wikipedia mechanisms, policies, guidelines to CONDUCT obsessive warfare. One of the nastiest forms of wiki-lawyering. The fact that it is via mis-use (not blatant violation) of those mechanisms is why it often goes unchecked. It appears that there is a possibility that this is happening to AnkhMorpork and I would suggest that that bigger picture possibility be taken seriously. North8000 (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Oncenawhile

Apologies for the delay in responding.

AnkhMorpork and I have a lot in common - neither of us wish to spend time defending ourselves against apparently spurious formal complaints. Ankh believes that my SPI was spurious, and I believe that his complaint here was spurious. I am happy to agree to disagree. Having said that, I do not intend to build a case against Ankh in order to defend myself, just as I did not attempt to do so when Ankh filed a spurious AE against me. As I said on his talk page at the time (see User_talk:AnkhMorpork#Hi_Again), I don't take these things personally.

The only thing I do want to say is to confirm a point that a number of insightful users made above - the two SPIs I made were not "against" AnkhMorpork, as not a single one of my comments was directed "at" him. Nowhere did I claim that the other editors were socks of Ankh, only that they were supporting Ankh's position in the same slow-burn edit war, helping him to evade 1RR on multiple occasions. To my reading, noone here has suggested that it was spurious to suggest that the accounts and IPs I listed were socks. Just not proven socks of Ankh, which I never suggested.

Anyway, again I'd like to again confirm that I have no hard feelings towards Ankh, and Ankh, I apologise that my SPI cast unfounded suspicion on you.

Now, what is more interesting to me is the following conundrum. There is no doubt that many socks were involved at 1929 Palestine riots. What should I have done to report this appropriately? And is there any chance wikipedia can ever solve this problem?

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply to statement

I have a few queries on your statement that "the two SPIs I made were not "against" AnkhMorpork, as not a single one of my comments was directed "at" him. Nowhere did I claim that the other editors were socks of Ankh, only that they were supporting Ankh's position in the same slow-burn edit war."

1. Why did you see fit to name me twice as the sockpuppeteer which contradicts your above statement?
2. You state in your first SPI that "Two out of three are articles which AnkhMorpork has been Edit Warring on...", how is this "not a a single one of my comments was directed "at" him" and do you accept that this could be interpreted as personally motivated?
3. When I was visibly disturbed by the filing of the second report in my name and detailed the absurdity of my involvement, why did you not clarify then that "Nowhere did I claim that the other editors were socks of Ankh" and the SPI in my name was accidental, and instead refer to "Anonymizers"?
4. Do you agree in the future to avoid mentioning my name in connection with socking? Ankh.Morpork 00:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ankh, answers to your questions below:

1. As I said above, the incidents were related, as the 1RR evasions related to the same edit war on the same article. I tried to make my comments clear so that readers would understand that I was not directly accusing you.
2. By comments, I was referring to comments relating to the SPI. The edit war is a separate issue - you have been edit warring (it seems you do not understand how wp:consensus works)
3. Because whoever was behind the socks was almost certainly using anonymizers. It seems many admins are happy to conclude that because a group of editors and IPs are from different locations, that means they cannot be socks of each other. That is obviously not the case.
4. Of course not. If I think you are socking in future, I will say so.

Oncenawhile (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I still do not understand why you named me as the sockpuppeteer if you claim that"the two SPIs I made were not "against" AnkhMorpork". Even if I accept your premises that I was edit-warring, the IP were all supporting my position, and were being illicitly used to evade 1rr, why does that translate into me being named sockpuppeteer and the case being opened in my name? These are two distinct issues that do not affect one another contrary to your conflations. Ankh.Morpork 00:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Curiosity question

Call me an idiot (you wouldn't be the first), but I'm hard pressed to understand how someone opening an SPI against someone else really amounts to "harassment", from a practical standpoint. I've had a couple filed against me, and they were laughed out of court, so to speak, because I don't do socking. But even if they filed one every day and twice on Sunday, how would it be "harassment"? You don't have to do anything. And if the checkuser takes the case, and confirms the guy's not a sock, all well and good. Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear from an SPI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

In my case the editor that filed the laughable report that failed linked it on other pages. This included the talk page of a BLP, the dispute resolution page about the BLP, and I think other pages that I couldn't be bothered to look up right now. He did get in shit for mentioning the SPI on other pages and may have had private STFU messages sent to him as well. I think he was trying to use the SPI in a way that would actually affect opinions of other editors about the BLP dispute. I did label it as harrassment for this and asked admin to examine his edits a little closer. He hasn't edited much in a few days, so maybe he did STFU.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As you see, frivolous sockpuppet claims have a way of boomeranging. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Generally I would agree with this. However, I am somewhat concerned about SPIs that try to rely on a duck test rather than technical data. I don't know if blocks are ever handed out purely on this basis but if they are then such cases could be highly problematic as they would require an active defence. BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Not only have users been blocked based solely on the duck test, in several cases this has been done based on secret evidence without any record of the proceedings. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

He is back at it again. Another newer editor (Dec 6/11) posted an opinion on the BLP talk page. I responded on the BLP talk page and the sock accuser responded on my talk page and others. It seems he my open another SPI on this editor, even though I am sure it is not a sock of the others. Good way to scare away new editors?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, a frivolous SPI is definitely harassment. Sure, one can laugh it off when it comes up repeatedly negative, but nonetheless, it stays on your record as a sign of suspicion long after the filer has been forgotten. For some reason, the mark is never removed. --Shuki (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

What "mark" on one's record? There's an SPI report which is archived, and anyone looking at it will see that it was frivolous. There's nothing in the block log. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment:. Perhaps we need a 3SPI rule as well as a 3Afd rule like the 3rr one. I have just seen a 4th Afd closed for the same article. All within a month, I think. The laughs do increase, but it can be considered harrassment as well when editors use SPI and Afd, etc to flame each other for things they can't say on BLP talk pages. I had a similar thing happen to me on commons when I closed 3 deletion requests that were withdrawn by the nominator. Another editor filed an ANI over there that was mostly ignored by admin, and finally closed, with me being in the right about closing the DRs. We ended up in flame and edit wars all over commons. I think he was stalking my edits to try and piss me off to the point where I might do something blockable.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Troubling editor

• Borovv (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
• Edit-warring topic (archived after 48h with no activity)
• Sun Myung Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• commons:Project:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Borovv

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

With respect to the copyright violation, what he did was he copied a portion of a source to the Moon article and cited the source ([63]). When I reverted because of a copyright violation, he reinserted the same text, but this time cited a different source so the copyright violation was hidden ([64]).

He attacks editors, accusing them of vandalism because they disagree with him ([65]). He accused that same editor of sock puppetry, as User:JamesBWatson pointed out here. He accused me of having a conflict of interest, also merely because I disagree with him ([66]). As this last diff shows, he also mistakenly thinks I'm rolling back his edits when I am reverting them with explanations, one example of many illustrating his lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Although I stated earlier I was reluctant to support a ban, two things have changed. First, the image issue, which I find particularly disturbing. Second, the fact he has not come here to explain himself, even though he was notified and has edited since the notice. If a topic ban means he ceases editing on Wikipedia because he has no interest in other subjects, so be it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Let's not discuss a topic ban before getting an even more major concern out of the way. It's asserted that this person copies other people's work wholesale, with the images uploaded to Commons being scans of magazines and books, and the content added to Wikipedia being simple copies and pastes of other people's writing. If true, this is a non-contributor who doesn't generate original material and who is damaging both projects, and xyr editing privileges need to be revoked. What are the prose copyright problems here at Wikipedia, Bbb23? Uncle G (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've only accused him of two prose copyright violations, and the diffs are in my original post above. But based on your question, I began to look painfully through his edit history at Unification Church, another article he heavily edits. Although many of the edits were wrong for a variety of reasons (some VERY wrong), I didn't find any copyright violations (as far as I looked) except for the same violation he committed in the Moon article ([67]). In looking further back in the Moon article, I did find this violation in the Others section he added. I'm not going to look any more, though, at the moment - I've already been looking for almost 30 minutes, and it's slow-going. If others believe more evidence of bad edits (not copyright violations) is required to topic ban him, I can start listing some of the edits/diffs I saw when looking at the Unification Church history and put them here, but it appeared to me that there was already sufficient support to impose a topic ban, so I don't want to go to that extra work unless it's necessary. In addition, I wanted to address your question.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Question. Despite the fact that four editors have agreed sanctions are necessary, no action has yet been taken. If more evidence is needed, as I said above, I will provide diffs from Borovv's edits at Unification Church. Can an admin either act or express an opinion about the proposed additional evidence?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• My decision was not based on copyright issues but on the editor's behavior in the few articles they edit. It seems to me there is sufficient consensus to enact such a ban. I've never written one up, and time does not permit me to learn how to do it tonight or tomorrow--if anyone feels thusly inclined they may do so. Right now I am not in a position to comment on Uncle G's remark on copyvios: if the charge is correct that is a more serious issue, of course, but that in itself would not prevent a topic ban from being enacted for Sun Myung Moon. Unification Church was not explicitly addressed by me or the other respondents, but that could always be added. I won't be back here for maybe a day or two; if no ban is enacted at that moment, and the discussion hasn't changed significantly, I will address it then. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I've spent a chunk of time collecting diffs from the Unification Church article to support the topic ban:

• [68]. This is one in a series of edits where Borovv has attempted to reinsert material that is not source-compliant and non-neutral against a barrage of removals by other editors. The only difference between Borovv's various reinsertions is the sources. The latest one, which I removed here has different sources, which do not support the material. Essentially, Borovv is attempting to indict "Christian groups" in a section called Christianity, accusing them of a concerted effort to deprogram Church members. However, the sources cited talk mainly about individual cases of deprogramming efforts by families of members and don't support the idea that "Christianity" is behind it. Note also that Borovv labels the removal as vandalism when it clearly is a content dispute. Finally, "brainwashing" is a non-neutral word in this context.
• [69]. This one is complex. Borovv removed the material with an inappropriate edit summary (this "misuse of power" mantra he has). User:Dougweller restored it and referred it to Talk. There was a perfunctory dialog (and not with Borovv), and then Borovv again removed the material. There is a pattern he has of mild edit-warring and stubbornly pushing through his edits.
• [70]. Similar to the last one, this shows another admin, User:DMacks challenging Borovv. However, Borovv immediately removes the material yet again with a sly and spurious edit summary.
• [71]. This is a particularly troubling edit with an outrageous edit summary. User:Andries, now retired, restored the original material here, and Borovv repeated his pattern by immediately changing it to his sanitized version here. To compound the problem, he then removed all of the criciticism here.
• [72]. This one is troubling on two levels. First, the material Borovv is restoring is poorly worded and the "king of the Jews" thing sourced to a religious/political website (which Borovv called a "third-party source") is incredible. Fortunately, as near as I can tell, that material is no longer in the article, but I didn't look to see when or who removed it. Then, there's the infamous edit summary issue with Borovv, accusing the editor of being pro-Jewish and a vandal.

I stopped here as this is very time-consuming. What it shows is non-neutral, disruptive edits with a user who thinks he owns the article and who is devious in his edits and edit summaries. He makes personal attacks on editors who disagree with him and engages in repeated reversions to obtain the results he wishes.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban language

There's no real guidance at WP:BAN on how to word topic bans. I've looked at a few topic bans (the arbcom bans are usually better done) and embellished some based on my own judgment. I've also tacked on the bit about posting it on his user page, mainly because we don't do a good job of keeping track of topic bans. Here it is:

• Based on persistent non-neutral, disruptive edits, User:Borovv is topic-banned from editing Unification Church-related articles, broadly construed, including but not limited to all articles of the Sun Myung Moon family. Borovv shall post the text of the ban and a link to this discussion at the top of his user page.

--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles

LouisPhilippeCharles operating sockpuppets on other language Wikipedias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of LouisPhilippeCharles
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of LouisPhilippeCharles
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles

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

LouisPhilippeCharles ban

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

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

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

The use of the socks is irrelevant - block evasion is block evasion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If the one random sock I looked up was representative, he is using them for pretty much the same thing he got originally blocked for: making large numbers of questionable, undiscussed page moves. So yes, the socks are disruptive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#duc to Duke -- PBS (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment (a non-admin, who came here becasue I was asked to). LPC decided to anglicise French noble titles. I suggested on the page that PBS points to that we needed a policy on this, as it needs to be decided at more than the whim of a few editors (or just one - LPC - the subject of this discussion). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have informed most (all?) the administrators who have been involved in block/unblock requests for LPC and his/her confirmed sockpuppets that this ban discussion is being held. -- PBS (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Riyas202

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

---

(I don't mean to canvass, but I realized that Toddst1 is probably logged out after leaving the following request there)...User's Bio keeps being removed. Stated reasons for removal are a far reach from User page Guidelines of what is not allowed. Content is within norms for Bio info on a User page. Request independent look by respected non involved admin. Also any comments on civility welcomed. (Unable to notify Dave1185 as page is protected) 46.249.56.24 (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Two admins besides Toddst1 have weighed in on this in support of removing that content, and so you bring this to ANI? Don't get hit too hard.

On the subject of the content, a full bio like that is a violation of WP:FAKEARTICLE - so it is a violation of the userpage policy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, it actually seems like something that would be acceptable if information was presented to make it clear that it isn't an article and if it wasn't the primary area of the editor's edits. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As pointed out there, the fact that the editor in question has made precisely three edits, in over a year of time on Wikipedia, that are not to his userpage, it's blatantly obvious that the userpage in question is intended as a WP:FAKEARTICLE for either social networking or advertising (given the rather promiment mention and links to Tata) purposes. That is why it is being removed. As Ryan points out, a well-established user can have a page like that, as it's clear that having a "Wikipedia bio page" is not the only reason they're here.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that with the treatment he has been given to date, he won't be here to edit for long. 70.174.142.77 (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Note that this IP's feeding trough is usually on the talk page of Baseball Bugs and he's been stalking my edits using more than 1 IP, even trouting me for no reasons whatsoever on more than 1 occasion. Other than that, all I can see is that he's just trying to stir up drama here and should be blocked for his disruptive behaviour. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 02:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Consider that he vanished for (exactly) six months, made four edits over three months, then vanished again for three more months — and the instant Dave removed the WP:FAKEARTICLE, the dynamic IP appeared to edit-war to keep it up, using personal attacks in his edit summaries [73]. I'm sorry, but this isn't a case of WP:BITE; the editor who created the userpage in question had had an account for a year, and is very likely no longer even here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting how an administrator, involved in a content dispute would revert and then page protect. Is that the best use of an admin bit? 46.249.56.24 (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting how you toss out a totally false accusation, isn't it? Seeing as no page protection has been applied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Please AGF BM, I am only stating my opinion that I see this [74] as an unwise action to explore. Possibly someone could modify the Bio so that it is acceptable to the community instead of supporting the hammering of newbies that don't meet your idea of how to learn the WP. 46.249.56.24 (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There's also WP:AAGF. If we weren't AGF'ing with you here, that would mean an instant block for you, just saying.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Somebody who has been on Wikipedia for a year, who has made three edits to articlespace versus sixteen to his userpage, who has a userpage that is clearly pushing if not outright breaking WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTFACEBOOK (and could be argued to be WP:SPAMmy as well), and who has not posted in three months, is not a newbie we need to be concerned about WP:BITEing, but rather is quite clearly someone whos status as being here to improve the encyclopedia has to be questioned. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. If he wants to contribute, then contribute, don't build a vanity userpage and then vanish. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Also please note that he was welcomed, and cautioned about Wikipedia not being a social network, in November [75]. He was given seven months to become productive with content or to restructure his userpage in a less vanity-article-ish fashion; that's hardly biting a newbie. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have attempted to adjust the user page so that it will meet the above concerns. Please advise if this is suitable. 46.249.56.24 (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

...not really, no. Adding a "this is a userpage" to the top of spam doesn't make it any less spammy. The page is still a vanity social networking vehicle that smells of promotion. Please restore it to the non-violating status, if Mr. Riyas wants to modify his userpage so that it confirms to Wikipedia policy, then he needs to do it himself (and he's already had, as mentioned above, seven months to do it in). As it is, the page is bait for a speedy deletion tag. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, I believe I'd said my piece and made my position here clear enough, so unless someone else chimes in, I won't be commenting further. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how I'm involved here. It showed up on my talk page and my name is mentioned above. AFAIK, I've never expressed an opinion on this. Toddst1 (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

My fault, I was looking for an uninvolved admin to look at the User page. It seemed that you were offline, so I came here. Possibly you could have a look see, close this thread, and leave the User page of the editor in an agreeable state. I approve of your or any other uninvolved admins decision in advance. The reverts of the involved, including me, are rather locked in their opinions. Thank you. !46.249.56.24 (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is User:Riyas202, as the user posted it. WP:User page says a user page may have "limited autobiographical and personal content", which is what this Indian user's page had. User:Dave1185's block log says he was blocked for calling another user "the Indian boy". Dave1185 also says he's bitten "more than a dozen such individuals". 1185 needs to stop acting so immaturely. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You know, not everyone here actively edits Wikipedia on a regular basis. Many actually use it for (gasp) reading and learning, so the fact that this user had "precisely three edits, in over a year of time on Wikipedia, that are not to his userpage" should not be used as justification for removal of user content. Other things, maybe...and I am not arguing against removing the content necessarily...but the "user is not a regular contributor" argument really gets my goat b/c it's just plain wrong. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 04:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Accounts offer a watchlist which can be used as a sort of bookmarks page. I'm not seeing a valid reason to kick this user. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Riyas202 does not appear to be regular. However, things would be so much easier if we could know if that IP=Riyas202, because if not so I'm not really sure the IP should be editing that userpage. I do agree that admin action is mostly unnecessary here (I don't want it to be necessary) and that ANI is the wrong place for this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is an editor retention problem. Much of it is due to hostility. The IPs on that page seem to have done nothing but restore the user's version. The admin action needful here is WP:BOOMERANG. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Boomerangs don't need admins to hit their targets.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

YMMV. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Dave1185 actually has a HUGE history of insulting IP editors and new editors alike. Check his history even recently and you will see a lot of this kind of activity, and he has had numerous interaction bans due to his inability to be civil. This guy really does put a big black eye on the entire project. This guy threatens, bullies and generally makes life miserable for anyone who isn't part of his cabal. Take heed, right dave? Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You know, it's funny how long-dormant accounts pop up to bash at Dave. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's also bizarre that such an account would give Dave a 3RR warning when no edit war was actually occurring.[76] Edit-warring warnings usually require more than one revert between editors. I'll AGF that when you blanked your talk page, you understood the tip about improper usage of warning templates.

Oh, and if you have an "Early life" section on your user page: it's probably a FAKEARTICLE. If you insist on keeping it that way after three different editors have removed it, you should move it to the main space and see if WP:NOTABILITY finds it acceptable enough to be an article. In this case the notability seems very doubtful. The blocked proxy editor who openly admitted (or was impersonating them - take your pick) that they were Riyas202[77] is wrong, as is the IP that said it was "comparable to Alison's user page"[78] when restoring it. Doc talk 05:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

/Funny/ how Doc9871 shows up in threads I comment in. nb: there /was/ a bit of edit warring: Diff of Kowloon Bay Diff of Kowloon Bay. I'll notify Alison and she may shed some light on the IPs. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A look at that IP's (the now proxyblocked one) edit history is illuminating. If that was a registered user they'd have been indeffed for gross incivility and personal attacks a very long time ago. (Also leaving a message for Sinebot that "you're [blank]ing gay" suggests WP:CIR issues.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, there's problematic behaviour all over the place, here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just because the blocked proxy 128.127.109.41 (talk · contribs) says they are Riyas202, doesn't mean it's true. The edits are not similar in any way -- it could be a joe job. And the IP 46.249.56.24 above geolocates to the Netherlands; Riyas says he is in India; so anyone assuming the IP 46.249.56.24 and Riyas202 are the same person is likely mistaken. Nobody has notified Riyas202 of this thread. I will do so now. -- Dianna (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC) I am logging off now. -- Dianna (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The blocked proxy IP said that he is Riyas202 multiple times. Your guess is as good as mine as to why they did that. I never said anything about 46.249.56.24 being Riyas202: I said that they were as wrong to restore the fake article as the joe job was. Doc talk 06:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The blocked proxy also told a bot "You fuckin' gay". Have a look at the fellow's pic and tell me he would talk to a bot that way; he's just not that kind of guy. And it defeats the whole self-promotional purpose of the userpage. It shouldn't be up to Dave1185 to unilaterally make the decision about the userpage; once his removal of the material was challenged a deletion discussion should have been opened. The userpage should be nominated at MFD and discussed there. I am gonna do that right now. -- Dianna (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned, Dave1185 has a long history of doing this and then threatening users who don't bow down to his purposes. He also seems to lean on a small number of admins, many of whom he asked to join this discussion (just take a look at his recent edit history), that he will then deploy to ban users who don't agree to his demands. This all sounds extreme, but it very plainly happens often if you look at his history. This is especially troubling because you'll note that many newcomers who have been subjected to this treatment do not edit again afterward. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can tell from just from looking at a picture how someone would talk to anyone else, you've got a leg up on all of us. Doc talk 06:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That's why they pay me the big bucks :) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Riyas202 is now in session. Now I am off to bed for real; good night all. -- Dianna (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

And I've restored the page with the MfD tag for clarity during the discussion. /This/ discussion needs to focus on the behaviour of Dave1185 and others going at this page as well as any issues with the IPs. I did notify Allie, and expect that to sort out. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• (Personal attacked removed)
  • I have removed the personal attack by Floquenbeam. -- KTC (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• While I won't go so far as Floquenbeam, I will say that the reaction here is a bit extreme. The userpage does bear a strong resemblance to wikipedia article pages, but that is not at all unusual; there are over 4000 userspace pages which contain a transclusion of {{infobox person}}; are we going to go after all of these people as well? [79] The addition of the disclaimer template at the top is more than sufficient to eliminate the concern of self-promotion, and I really think that some people here need to focus on someone who is actually harming wikipedia. The low number of edits is another factor; if this were someone who was expending an inordinate number of edits on his userpage or on other nonconstructive tasks, that would be one thing, but a total of 25 edits is hardly something that needs to be nipped in the bud. Horologium (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thing is, Floq is /right/. This thread *is* about the harassment of a harmless user by harmful ones. It's about a toxicity that besets this project and drives good people, like Floq, away. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter even if the underlying point Floquenbeam was making regarding this thread is right, there was no need for Floquenbeam to reduce to outright personal attack. -- KTC (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"The rules!" shouted Ralph, "you're breaking the rules!". *Bollocks to the rules!* Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The trouble with breaking rules is it's so subjective. I support KTC's removal. Floq could have easily made his point in a less inflammatory manner. I don't know what it is about Wikipedia that causes people to lose all sense of professionalism (see Dianna's comments below), but I suspect it's partly because some editors are too quick to condone misbehavior when the editor's substantive point, in their view, is correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia neither agrees upon nor effectively deals with low level childish (assholish) stupid behavior. While each instance is minor and not worth making a fuss about frustration builds over time, it's unfortunately easy to reach a point which a particular action becomes the last straw. Nobody Ent 21:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:Persistent Assholery over time is behaviour that should result in an indef. It's Toxic Behaviour that discourages reasonable people. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree, but there's no way it would be consistently applied - just look at the firestorms any time certain people who fit that description, whose names I wont' mention, get blocked for five minutes before the 'DESYSOP THE ABUSING ADMIN!' lynch mob gets them unblocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thinking you're alluding to Mally (who is /not/ an asshole). Lynch mobs need to feel the danger of such approaches, as do genuinely abusive admins. And see below. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You said it, not me, and certain people who 'aren't' sure act as if they were. But c'est la Wiki. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The notification that this user (belatedly) received of this thread directed him to Incidents for some inexplicable reason. I've just given him the correct information. DeCausa (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you DeCausa for fixing the link. It worked properly when I tested it out in the sandbox. Dave1185, you should not be making these calls unilaterally; if you spot user pages like this in the future, you should nominate them for deletion instead of blanking them. The correct place to discuss individual user pages is at MFD; not here at ANI, and not on Bushranger's talk page, where you were directing queries. The person(s) reverting your removal were likely not the guy from India; they geolocated to Wichita, the Netherlands, and Hamilton, and one was an open proxy which has since been blocked. How did all these IPs find the userpage? It strikes me as highly unlikely that all these IPs are the guy from India; it's someone trolling Dave1185. You can avoid this kind of drama-fest in the future by simply nominating stuff for deletion using MFD. Then you have not placed yourself in the position of decider; the community decides, and if random IPs restore it, pages deleted via a deletion discussion can be deleted under a speedy deletion criterion. Normally I am not in favour of bureaucratic this-and-that, but for this type of page, it would have resulted in a lot less drama. The fellow may not have had many edits, but he may have become a contributor some day, but now we have lost him pretty much for sure as a result of the way the discussion about his user page has been mishandled.

Dave1185, you could tone down your remarks as well; referring to people as "anon garbage trucks" only brings you down to their level, and is an unprofessional thing for you to do. We are trying to run a world-class website here. I know people like you see a lot more of the seedier side of the wiki than people like me, but still -- try to rein it in and behave in a professional manner please. -- Dianna (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be good advice for Dave1185 to follow, but he doesn't listen. I warned him last week [80] to leave that page alone. That his editing at User:Riyas202, and his inflammatory remarks elsewhere were not acceptable. Desk Ref (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, it's really odd how these virtual SPAs come out of the woodwork every time the topic is Dave. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You're prolly right about some of the IPs and accounts, but that does not change the fact that 1185 is behaving quite poorly, himself. You should not enable that. The whole "garbage trucks" theme he has going is awful. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This, from an editor who was indef'd and somehow got himself a new account. Meanwhile, Desk Ref (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock who's biding his time until he gets (re-)banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Dave1185 and the user namespace

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

---

It seems Dave1185 has 424 edits to the user namespace, and only 27 of them are to his own. Looking at his edits to userspace, we find a lot of "tagging" with {{BannedMeansBanned}} with edit summaries such as "(you bag'em, we tag'em~!)" and "(tagged~!)". This is immature grave dancing intended to taunt people. It is /why/ the IPs are trolling him. This is a fundamentally an inappropriate approach and a failure to /deny/ recognition.

Accordingly, I believe it appropriate to ban Dave1185 from other accounts' userspace (other than talk, of course). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

"(la la la la la...)". Seems Dave1185 isn't listening. ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of "listening", you had best get out of here before they reinstate your indefinite block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Bzzt ;) Bugs, try intimidating someone else. your opinion matters not one whit to me. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Jack, that's not an opinion, it's just friendly advice. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not friendly (you're not my friend;). You're just trolling as usual — "over 9,000 ANI posts". Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I thought that Merridew character had been banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You thought wrong. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Technically wrong, yes - Merridew was not banned, he was indef'd - and still is:[81] So how you get away with starting anew, under a different account, is hard to figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - most of those BMB tags are the result of serial sockpuppeteers who just don't get it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that these bite-y edit summaries is unprofessional and demeaning towards the users involved. The status of the blocked user is irrelevant; Dave1185 is showing a gleeful attitude about blocking/tagging that is disrepectful and demeaning towards the people involved. It belittles people. Here are some examples and statistics about Dave1185's recent userpage edits:

• June 10, 2012: Diff of User:Riyas202: (removing unencyclopedic/rubbish content; this is not your blog/facebook/personal homepage, please read WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia)
• June 7, 2012: Diff of User:Square iNola: (you bag'em, we tag'em~!)
• May 31, 2012: Diff of User:Jason Collin: (you bag'em, we tag'em~!)
• May 31, 2012: Diff of User:Jason Collin: ‎ (Jason has left the building and is now starring in another Friday the 13th series... woot~!)
• May 20, 2012: Diff of User:Chaosname: ‎ (tagged~!)
• May 7, 2012: Diff of User:Grundle2600: (tagged~!)
• February 27, 2012: Diff of User:Cha2cuttie: (tagged~! Obviously, a very big failure on the part of "Project Outreach:ACIP"...)

• 19 x edit summary = (tagged~!) in last 50 userpage edits
• 6 x edit summary = ‎ (you bag'em, we tag'em~!) in last 50 userpage edits

• "tagged" edit summary: 99 out of 424 userpage edits
• "Bag em" edit summary: 41 times out of 424 userpage edits

The following edits look problematic to me. They date from 2010 through 2011:

• Blanked a userpage: Diff of User:Pan Am 103: edit summary: (rmv irrelevant information, please note this is English language Wikipedia!) Result: user quit editing about a week later. User was apparently Portuguese.
• Blanked a userpage: Diff of User:Overclax: edit summary: (rmv rubbish). User continued editing for some months. User self-identified as Greek. I honestly can't see anything problematic about this user page. Was there a discussion somewhere?
• Redirected a userpage: Diff of User:Prashant pardeshi: edit summary: (amended). User was a journalist from Maharashtra, India. Had not edited for a year and a half.
• Redirected a userpage: Diff of User:Pradeepbansal: edit summary: (amended). Had not edited for over a year. Why is it marked "Resolved - Troll"? I don't see any trolling. Looks to be from India; schooled in Singapore at university level.
• Redirected a userpage: Diff of User:Prabu.ravichandran: Provenance: Tamil Nadu, India. User had not edited for a year and a half.

Here are a few that were valid removal of userpage contents:

• Valid removal: Previous revision of User:Groyn88
• Valid removal: Diff of User:Cheeseguy
• Valid removal: Diff of User:Shermantankfan

-- Dianna (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Sock puppeteers are "demeaning" to the entire community. Tagging these socks is a necessary task. If someone has a sense of humor (remember when "Have Fun" was part of the greeting to all new editors) while doing so then I can live with that. These do not violate WP:CIVIL and, considering the kind of edit summaries that are par for the course nowadays these are a positive relief. As to their being "unprofessional" please remember that we are all volunteers and are unpaid. As soon as bi-weekly deposits are made to my checking account then you can demand that I follow one narrow set of guidelines. Until then IAR is just as valid a guideline as any of the numerous other ones that we have. MarnetteD | Talk 03:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  Tagging the socks is not actually a necessary task, or the blocking admin would take it on when they do the block, would they not? And the tagging could be done in a more civilised manner, without the mocking jibe. It doesn't contribute to the kind of environment we should be building here, if we want to attract and retain high-quality editors. Humour should not be at other people's expense; that's just mean. -- Dianna (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose With all due respect, attracting and retaining "high-quality editors" has nothing to do with comments left on the pages of banned editors. Dave1185 is a good faith editor, banned editors are not. With all of the problems Wikipedia has with actual working editors being civil to each other (and the ensuing mess whenever someone is blocked, then rapidly unblocked for civility violations), one editor being questionably rude to banned sockmasters and disruption kings is invisible in the grand scheme of things.

It appears in this section that other Wikipedia editors aren't even in agreement as to whether or not what Dave1185 has done is a policy violation. It doesn't appear he's ever been warned about the matter before, so a topic ban seems unnecessarily harsh. I'd suggest closing this section, and opening an RfC to see if there's actually a problem here. If so, we can suggest to Dave1185 that he should be nicer. Until all of that happens and Dave1185 continues a behavior community consensus finds objectionable, there's no need to try and "fix" his editing patterns. 74.192.253.69 (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

He's actually been warned and banned for his treatment of users. Check his edit history and ban log. He's a repeat offender. It actually goes well beyond these "you bag em" edit summaries. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Anything said by Leontopodium alpinum (talk · contribs) aka "Edewlweiss" should be disregarded, and his history shows why. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, protip: he's never been banned, and there's no such thing as a "ban log". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No surprise that you two, being his go-to accomplices, would be dismissive and rude when I point out the fact (just compare their edit histories to his). Obviously I meant "block log", as he's been blocked for this. Not that it needs defending, but by edit history doesn't show anything that would necessitate blocking my factual statements. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No, but speaking very honestly, your edit history looks very much like that which would be expected of a "bad hand" sock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No offense taken. This is off-topic from the discussion anyway, so I'll let it rest. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't get to decide whether your own behavior is on or off topic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? Do try your best to keep things civil. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You said your own behavior was off-topic. That's not for you to decide. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I said this topic, brought up by The Bushranger, is off topic from the discussion on Dave1185's edits. There's no "deciding" since it very clearly is, and no need for anyone to "decide"-and certainly not you. I can only imagine you are making these comments to create tension or troll, and I'll ask again that you cease. Please try to stay on topic. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And I say again, you don't get to decide what the topic is. Your behavior and that of several other red-links here is very suspicious. So you are indeed part of the topic, whether you like it or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The topic is actually set at the top, so please do try looking at it again. It's "User:Dave1185 and the user namespace". So you're not in any position to say who does or does not to get to decide anything. Again, please stop trolling so that we can get back to the discussion. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong. Everyone's behavior here comes under scrutiny, regardless of what someone happened to put in a section header. Dave's, mine, yours, and your fellow red-links. Everyone's. You don't get to decide what the topic is. And, in fact, to me it looks like it's YOU that's doing the trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarity: Bugs is right. Any participant in an AN/I discussion, regardless of its topic, is open for scrutiny, especially when they become significantly active on one (any) side of an issue. This happens to everyone, and happens all the time at AN/I; sometimes WP:BOOMERANGs fly in surprising directions. And, to be completely honest, repeated insistence that you should not be scrutinized makes you look more suspicious. If you really are a good-faith editor, then the best thing to do is to good-faith edit, scrutiny will find nothing. And now I should sleep before the clowns get me.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and likewise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Socking is far meaner and far more damaging to the community. Tagging them is necessary if you want to keep track of the persistent ones and not doing so only lets them get away with more down the road. Some blocking admins add the tag and others don't. That is another example of what volunteers do and don't do. An inherent part of humor is that much of it comes at other people's expense. In this case I see no "mocking jibe" in the edit summaries just a statement of fact. Moreover I can't understand why people who have violated the communities trust and been blocked for it should be treated with kid gloves. They have already torn down the structure of the kind of environment we might build here and they have proved they have no desire to do so. I admire your idealism and more power to you for having it but I can tell you this - the way the "Five Pillars" are set up they practically preclude a collegial environment. MarnetteD | Talk 04:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary I object to is "you bag'em, we tag'em~!" It's dehumanising; treats real people like they are targets in a video game. Civility is actually one of the five pillars, and that doesn't look civil to me.-- Dianna (talk) 05:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

So is anonymity and as long as that is one of the pillars you will always have socking and incivility. I do not find the words dehumanizing. BTW the socks put the target on themselves by violating the communities trust and you have yet to address why they should be treated better than they have treated us. MarnetteD | Talk 05:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Plus, I wouldn't put fake / sock accounts of humans that do not represent their own self (or even the anonymous image of themselves) precisely in the human category. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? Socks, the banned, vandals, and trolls are still human. Assholes, idiots, paedophiles, racists, rapists, murders, and those who comment genocide are still human. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No, socks are mere imitation of an alternate behaviour. Dealing with the sock master would be different than dealing with a sock as sock accounts do not actually represent that individual (read human). --lTopGunl (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, right ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Socks being "human" is only technically true. From the wikipedia standpoint, they are indeed garbage. All they accomplish is to waste editors' time and further diminish the public perception of wikipedia's unreliability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

STFU, Bugs. Prolly time to revisit banning you from ANI. You and 1185 calling people "garbage" is toxix-wiki-shit. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Or "prolly" time to revisit your slippery escape from indefinite block, Jack - as well as your typically egregious muck-wallowing vulgarity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

See previous. You're just trying to change the subject off your low calibre friend's poor behaviour. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it's time for you to get blocked for making personal attacks on this very thread. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

don't make me laugh. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Dave1185 not only rudely comments in his edit summaries, but is also over-the-top disrespectful to new users and IP users alike. He constantly refers to them in derogatory manners on the talk pages of other users and admins. He bullies and threatens and is a huge detriment to the project. I don't support banning him outright since he makes some good contributions to articles, but he should dfintiely be kept far away from users. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Your entire edit history fits on less than a page, so you're in no position to know anything about who or what is a "detriment to the project". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• • • This is exactly the kind of rash judgement regarding new users that is very unhelpful. Please try to refrain from making ad hominem attacks for which you have no justifiable rational other than your own bias. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      • The classic non-denial denial, typically uttered by bad-faith users. True, good-faith newbies don't get attacked. Only the ones who invite it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have ever heard such overdeterministic bull before. No one ever gets attacked who doesn't deserve it? Seriously? Read that crap back to yourself a few times. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You've only been a registered user since December, so you really don't know what you're talking about. If you're still here 5 years from now, you might go, "Oh, yeh. Now I get it." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • That's a false dichotomy, and very convenient for you since you're the one attacking a new user simply for disagreeing with your position. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
          • If you're a newbie, I'm the man in the moon. Newbies don't appear out of nowhere and start calling for the banning of other editors. Good-faith newbies focus on improving article content, and that includes defending articles against bad-faith users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Although I would advise Dave to temper his enthusiasm when a bad-faith, useless editor is sent to the phantom zone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per [[ MarnetteD ]]. When did we start asking for and getting blocks or bans for that very small amount of incivility (and I don't even agree with you that it violates WP:CIVIL)? Half the dramamongers/"content creators" who get dragged here on a regular basis for incivility far exceeding this often times don't get so much as a trout for their behavior and yet you want a formal community ban for this user? Is this whole thing drawn along party lines from a larger discussion that the rest of us are unaware of?Heiro 05:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record Leontopodium alpinum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has a brief editing history, placed their support comment in the middle of IP's 74.192.253.69 post as can be seen here [82] thus it looks like part of the IPs comment was written by La. Also La you need to look up the difference between being blocked and being banned. MarnetteD | Talk 05:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean blocked. Sorry for the mix-up with terminology and thanks for correcting the formatting. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the misaligned comments. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) x2 @Heironymous Row, the proposal was to restrict him from posting on other people's user pages, not for a formal community ban. And there is no hidden agenda here or party lines, not to my knowledge. Note I have not actually supported or opposed the proposal at this point, just presented information. -- Dianna (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Fully support ban from userspace This sort of thing is utterly unacceptable. Dave has clearly shown that he cannot properly edit in other people's userspace and this has nothing to do with sock-puppeteers. He is completely out of line. Silverseren^C 05:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • So, writing foreign language gibberish on one's user page IS acceptable??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Gibberish to you, perhaps, but it clearly had some point to the editor in question and it also certainly broke none of the rules in WP:UPNOT and Dave had no right to remove it. I know you like to defend your friends, Bugs, but maybe both you and Dave should go and actually write some articles. Silverseren^C 06:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Edelweiss has been here since December and has worked on like 3 articles, so direct your lectures to more appropriate targets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

One can very easily find much more egregious violations of civility than even this in Dave1185's edit history. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's a clearly unacceptable edit. It's also almost a year old, and isn't necessarily malevolent, it may very well just be uninformed. Was he warned for that edit? Was he informed as to the policy, and did he continue to edit against it? You can't show us a year-old edit and use that as evidence for a topic ban. 74.192.253.69 (talk) 06:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - per MarnetteD. Socks are certainly people, but it doesn't mean that we have to bend over backwards to be nice to them, since their behavior is inherently disruptive and disrepectful to the community. This issue has nothing whatsoever to do with "editor retention" which is starting to feellike Wikipedia's version of "Think of the children." Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  The issue isn't the socks, but the other users Dave has likely driven away and the incivility toward users who were not sockpuppets, but are gone and he has no reason to be messing with their user pages. Silverseren^C 06:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Good-faith users will focus on article content, and need not fear being banned or otherwise driven away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment/Semi-Support On the one hand one can say that it's only socks getting what they deserve and "real" editors aren't generall affected. In some ways I sympathise with that. But the issue, I think, is that this sort of pointlessly agressive adolescent bahaviour ispretty typical of a significant part of WP culture - and that's what drives away "real" editors. What's disappointing, but not surprising, in many of the oppose comments is that they don't say yes his behaviour is not what we want but he should just be warned and told to stop it. There's clearly no consensus that his behaviour is frankly childish. DeCausa (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The adolescent nonsense is mostly just annoying (although it can get out of hand); it's the rather more viscious adult misbehavior which creates the toxic atmosphere. That, I think, is much more of a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you be sure that all take as robust a view as you of "just annoying" adolescent beaviour? Really, my main point about WP culture (and how this thread is indicative of a poor aspect of it) is that most of the opposers appear to find nothing wrong with his behaviour - not that they find something wrong with it but it's not serious enough for sanctions. I think that's a problem. DeCausa (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Dave's behavior at its worst is better than the typical sock or vandal's behavior at its best. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That's beyond irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

So you think vandals should be kissed up to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

sigh...you must have time on your hands.DeCausa (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll take that as "Yes". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course you should. I think we should have a vandalism barnstar and "vandal of the month" competition. Why would you possibly think otherwise. Surely all right minded Wikipedians support vandalism. Goes without saying doesn't it. You really know how to shine a light on a subject. Excellent. well done. Standing on the shoulders of giants, penetrating intellect. DeCausa (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Merridew is allowed to continue his typical behavior here, after a long block and a promise to reform so that the arbcom would let him edit again, equates to that barnstar you're talking about. Another goes to the multitude of single-purpose accounts that have popped up here like mushrooms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, I wish to express my annoyance at people who go around antagonising vandals, sockpuppets, good-faith contributors, and others through mindlessly bureaucratic userspace edits, baiting, and snarky remarks. It is disruptive, it drives away good editors, and it does cause vandalism. It subsequently unnecessarily wastes a lot of admin time. Most of the long term vandals around here are people that people like Dave have pissed off. Particularly Dave should ignore his assertion that "BITE applies only to article edits". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  Wait, did Dave seriously make that statement? Seriously? Silverseren^C 09:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: all he's doing is tagging banned users. How about you first go and get a consensus against such tags? --lTopGunl (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  He's not just tagging banned users. Read again. Silverseren^C 09:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you, I've read the discussion already (in context to the basis of the proposal) and it didn't change my opinion. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Editor is doing unnecessary work in a mean-spirited way. Per broken windows, what we allow experienced editors to do to "unworthy" others models acceptable behavior in general and affects the overall tone of Wikipedia. The fact that worse behavior exists unsanctioned is lame other stuff rhetoric. Their is no downside to Dave1185 ceasing to tag banned user accounts and there is always an upside in increasing the net civility of Wikipedia.Nobody Ent 11:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah right, so we presume good faith on the part of disruptive editors, whilst at the same time presuming a productive long term experienced editor is acting in a "mean spiritied way". I think you have forgotten the presumption of good faith aka WP:AGF completely. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Diffs don't lie; Diannaa has laid the case out quite clearly above. Nobody Ent 15:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support We need to treat everybody with dignity and respect, even people who are breaking the rules. It's not the tagging that's the problem; it's the way he's doing it; it's the hostile edit summaries. This kind of low-level hostility percolates throughout the wiki and does cost us long-term valuable content contributors and administrators. This notion that sockpuppets or banned users need not be treated with dignity is just plain wrong; it's not the kind of culture we should be striving for; blanking people's user pages because they are in a foreign language is wrong; this is not rubbish -- Dianna (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever happened to treating long term editors with dignity and respect? If perhaps there was something done about long term abusive editors there would be less hostility. Instead we have a long term disruptive editor given a break, in order to make a mean spirited motion and getting support from people who should know better. And yet we wonder why we have a problem in retaining productive editors who can't be arsed with the drama boards. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I try to treat everybody with dignity and respect, Wee Curry Monster. Dave does not. -- Dianna (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

In your opinion, there is a difference between being forthright and being mean spirited. Did you look at the talk page of the editor you just referenced above? I take it you didn't as there are numerous polite warnings from Dave about that editor before they were blocked. Could you also explain how you came to the conclusion the page you reference was blanked for it being in a foreign language? I just don't see it. Finally, to be brutally frank, I don't see you treating Dave with respect in your concern for the sensitivities of editors who are a poison to wikipedia. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at the edit summary: (rmv irrelevant information, please note this is English language Wikipedia!) The user page translates to "Portuguese - Interested in airplanes - Intelligent" -- Dianna (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And? BTW the link in your comment above is not the same one. What exactly is the issue here? I do however note you appear to have a long term editing relationship with User:Jack Merridew aka User:Br'er Rabbit and if we take a random selection of editors whose diffs you posted above and look at the talk pages, you'll find a track record in each case of Dave making polite comments long before any of those editors were banned or left. Did you also check out their contribution histories, I did and they were no loss to the project. Someone here said "diffs don't lie", perhaps not, but they can certainly mislead when they're taken out of context - and the full context is certainly lacking here. I certainly don't see you out to treat Dave with either dignity or respect. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Dave is being treated with respect. He's engaging in unproductive behavior and we're proposing a limited, specific remedy that will in no way interfere with his ability to contribute to the the project. Saying "It's okay to be incivil to those editors" isn't respect, it's pandering. To save you the trouble, here's my relationship with BR. Nobody Ent 16:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It is quite noticable that a majority of those coming out in support have a relationship with that editor. And no, I don't see respect here, quite the opposite. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It's also an odd coincidence that so many of these attack accounts began in December or so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose A suggestion made in bad faith by an editor with a long history of problematic editing and out to settle old scores. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • That's out of line. N419BH 19:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Of course it is. This whole thread is awash with out-of-line editors seeking to draw a line in the sand that over-the-line behaviour be tolerated. It shouldn't be; that's the issue. If one out-of-line editor is restrained, it will make it easier to rein in the others (and they don't want that;). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support In total agreement with above comments by Dianna, Nobody Ent and others People should understand the limits of civility and act accordingly. Such disgusting edit summaries are neither of any help to the community nor the blocked users. In fact such comments add a sense of grudge which leads the blocked person to do more wikisins thereby hampering the Project. This also sets a bad example by an experienced editor. Besides Dave has a history of pushing the limits of civility while dealing with other editors. This seems to be a good proposal, which of course can be removed later on , if there are signs of improvement.--DBigXray 15:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Your one valid point is the risk that bad-faith users will use a funny/sarcastic comment as an excuse for further damage to wikipedia. In fact, when I revert a redlink or an IP's vandalism on one of the hundreds of articles I watch, generally I do it with minimal or no comment, for exactly that reason. If they keep doing it, then I warn and/or report them. There's no reason why established editors should cower before one-shot, bad-faith users. But sometimes it seems necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • What we see here is not some one who is cowering but someone who is making ridiculous and unhelpful edit summaries--DBigXray 17:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      • That's precisely the point. Enablers of socks and vandals expect established editors to cower before them rather than standing up to them. Maybe that's the European way. It's not the American way, nor the way of much of the world. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  Wee Curry Monster got much of it right, editors don't really like to disclose everything when an apparent old score seems to have been there. DBigXray has received a few (quite civil) conduct warnings by Dave too. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• The person who is about to be blocked/banned on Thread#1 and whose block log explains everything is trying to "mislead the discussion", what else can be expected. Topic is Dave not me, some people cant really make out what the subject is. --DBigXray 17:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that's not even remotely decided. Your comment is further indicative of WP:BATTLE while I pointed out a mere relationship. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Obviously, edit-warring is not good and has to be dealt with. Now, has he been blocked for sockpuppetry at any point? Or has he stood firm with his user identity, for better or worse? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose give him a warning - some editors he has had to deal with are bad faith editors who do not listen well and can test one's patience.Mugginsx (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment, would someone please strike through or indent the "semi-support" as a comment? It is not a vote but a comment. Also comments are usually shown indented with two astericks.Mugginsx (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose: Oh, for pity's sake. I can name any number of editors who are habitually uncivil to productive and active editors, some who are even mentioned here ... but few can be exercised to give a damn. I certainly can't be exercised to give a damn about someone's alleged rudeness to indef blocked/banned vandals. "Immature grave dancing?" Seriously? With all the trolls, vandals, brawlers and edit warriors on Wikipedia, this is what you choose to get hot under the collar over? Seriously? Ravenswing 17:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• CommentWhy did several editors mess with this comment before it got deleted? I don't see the problem with the users remark? 91.121.86.69 (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  Because it was a sock vandal, as evident from the contribs. And I've also blocked your open proxy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - As per Dianna's reasoning. This remedy stops nothing except the unprofessional behaviour. I'm not sure why others think it's ok for someone to act that way, or why stopping someone from doing something that's obviously demeaning is a problem for us. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 19:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • How does kissing up to vandals remedy anything? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: I am not particularly supportive of Dave's way to deal with things (which can be seen as rude), but I really do not care much for what he writes on the user pages of people who actually have been found as knowingly breaking the rules (ie, creating puppet accounts). Along those lines, I find it absurd that certain "puppeteers" get second chances while others do not; this multiple-account business should be handled with a strong indefinite ban for all perpetrators. However, this second point is beyond the concept of the current discussion. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Dave1185's got a grand total of one block in over 4 years and over 23,000 edits. One would expect someone as purportedly toxic as Dave to have fared far worse than that, right? To lay at his feet the vast and intangible editor retention issue is really a bit much. And topic banning him from user pages when that is less than 2% of his overall contributions will not make any difference whatsoever in preventing editors from leaving. Nothing preventative in this to protect the wiki, and I agree with those below that it's time to close this thing. Doc talk 23:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't know about anyone else, but, to me, this discussion on Dave has a bad smell to it. A one month old editor (or, in the alternative, a sock) commenting like he thinks he knows what he is talking about; a long time banned user (I think a banned former administrator) trying to oust him; others participating that are themselves under scruity; examples given for his misconduct are, in some cases, almost too silly to mention anywhere, much less here, that is how it appears to this veteran editor. I think a Senior Administrator should be brought in to investigate and/or close this. It seems to me to be a witch hunt by some people and that there really are more important things to do like (edit conflict) fighting vandalism which is rampant on Wikipedia. Mugginsx (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree, shut it down. It's a series of single-purpose attack editors, probably one or more escapees from Wide Receiver. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Indeed close it now, has anyone else noticed that the discussion about a disruptive editor has been hijacked into a witch hunt against a productive editor. Pls close this drama fest and deal with the real problem! Wee Curry Monster talk 23:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Please close this. Nothing's coming of it except more drama. Using an edit summary of "bag em and tag em" against a banned editor isn't any more rude or dismissive than using one of "Bzzzt" against an editor in good standing. If we're not going to ask for or enforce civility against actual editors, trying to punish an editor for being quasi-rude to editor who've been banned is just splitting hairs. 70.249.242.135 (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• And, in what really is not a surprising development, it's been admitted by an IP that the whole thing was a setup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  It rather validates that 1185 is doing a lot of troll feeding. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  The discussion is about whether gravedancing over the accounts of people blocked as SPs is acceptable to the community. I strive to stay clear of discussions here (not always successfully) because the first time I posted here an SPI was opened. One duck call from an administrator and I would have been blocked indefinitely. I would probably have been tagged with some bullshit comment as someone I wasn't by some hanger-on and I would have been pissed. Back to the point of user:The Bushranger, I wonder which wp:duck you figure that IPv6 is, because none of them have been really active in this discussion. - UnbelievableError (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• You might want to take a closer look at your own role in this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Nah; I don't have anything to do with those IPs; they're 1185's work. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Yeh, we feed the trolls. Specifically, we feed them to the lions. Or sometimes we bake them inside Troll House Cookies. Yum! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

    If I was flabbergasted before, I'm incredulous now. Boy, do I hate the eternal "He has an agenda!!!!" nonsense that goes around, but Br'er Rabbit is sailing into the vendetta zone at flank speed. What the hell? An IP admits that the whole thing was a setup, and Br'er's response is "it validates that he's doing a lot of troll feeding???" Talk about blame-the-victim. This ought to be shut down at once, and frankly, I'd look very favorably on Rabbit getting slapped with an interaction ban to 1185. Ravenswing 05:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  • 1185 throws petrol on things. like that's helpful. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  • When you abandoned your indef'd account Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) (and various socks) and reincarnated under this Uncle Remus character, you asked for "no drama". Then you started a rant against another user. So how's that "no drama" thing workin' for ya? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment gaming. Penyulap ☏ 04:24, 18 Jun 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not really familiar with Merridew except for the peripheral knowledge that he was constantly in trouble. Does "gaming the system" fit within the realm of his normal behavior? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  no, you just make up the jokes and bad faith as you go. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  On your user page, you claim to be the still-indef'd user Merridew. Are you actually not Merridew, but just an impersonator? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• • actually, I'm Jimmy's good-hand accounts ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, just don't jimmy up the works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support...as one who was a hair's-breadth away from being treated to "You bag 'em. We tag 'em". I've got zero FA, GA, DYK but I still do stuff here and elsewhere. Bag and tag me if you want, but it won't help the encyclopedia. - UnbelievableError (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You complained Dave's talk page was "unfriendly". In addition to lacking a sense of humor, you're also yet another of those complainants that's only been here since December. Wait till you run into user pages that advocate Neo-Nazism or violence against women or the destruction of [fill in hated ethnic group here]. Then you'll start to get some perspective. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I believe his talk page is unfriendly because messages he doesn't want to be associated with are reverted rather than archived (see mine, for instance). BTW, I've been here since November, but if you don't believe Wikipedia needs any users users who registered a name in November, 2011, please let me know. I might give a crap. - UnbelievableError (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

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

COMMENT: This discussion was closed on June 17 by an uninvolved Administrator and modified after that CLOSURE I am reporting all those who had the audacity to comment and vote after it was closed and asked that they be blocked. Mugginsx (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep your pantyhose on (The Abyss, dir James Cameron). If a number of editors revert a close, maybe the close was a bit early?? In any case, no-one is going to get blocked at this point. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Danceking5: Not learning.

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

---

• On the 2nd of June, following this incident discussion the user in question was blocked for 1 week.
• Not featured in that complaint was an additional accusation of "stalking" that was made in the same time frame.
• The user returned to wikipedia last night and one of his first contributions was another bad faith accusation.
• I have been patient with this user regarding the stalking allegations and encouraged him to clarify his understanding of the watch-list facility, but to no avail.
• My main issue with this user is an apparent disregard for appropriate sourcing. Essentially, he believes that life experience qualifies as content. Additionally, the user views a talk page as equivalent to a forum.
• Perhaps someone could have a quiet word? Semitransgenic _talk. 12:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  If you wanted to keep this quiet, posting it to ANI was not really the best choice. Is it possible you could just ignore him for a few days, and see if perhaps the user was just still pissed off about the block, and needed to get it off his chest? Maybe he'll go away if you just ignore him and don't respond. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 14:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  Not to be a total dick here, but if you are neither familiar with the backstory nor interested in educating yourself, you really shouldn't be commenting. This sort of accusation and nonsense from this user has been going on for over a year now. → ROUX ₪ 18:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• I hate to say I told you so, but--wait, no I really don't. I told you so. I was slightly off on the timeframe, but here we are again, 14 days later. The bottom line here is that Danceking5 is simply utterly incompetent to edit Wikipedia, and an indefinite block is required until he demonstrates that he actually understands how Wikipedia works. → ROUX ₪ 18:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, you seem to revel in saying "I told you so". As to the links provided above, this is not a justification to indef block someone. Just as I said on my talk page when asked prior to this (I had blocked Danceking5 last go around), this looks like normal heated conversation to me. I understand you are both frustrated, but I'm personally not willing to block someone indefinitely for this. I think giving it a few days and seeing what happens is prudent, as Quinn has wisely suggested. I've also notified Danceking5, as this conversation is already 6 hours in and no one was kind enough to do so, and it is required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  That would be precisely why I said "wait, no I really don't." This is emphatically not 'normal heated conversation.' Danceking5 is incompetent and/or unwilling to listen. → ROUX ₪ 18:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  apologies, I should have left notification on Dancekings talk page when I opened the discussion. At the very least someone in an administrative position might perhaps take the time to set a few things straight regarding AGF etc. implying that other editors are "stalkers" (when they are simply using a watch-list) is inappropriate and should not continue, but I agree an indef block is unwarranted at this stage. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  Danceking5 has been told multiple times by both admins and non-admins (Qwyrixian, Dennis Brown, me, others) that accusations of stalking are completely unacceptable. He is either unwilling to listen to or unable to comprehend what he is being told. → ROUX ₪ 19:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  Well, I see his recent comment that was "RE:stalking" and he gave an opinion, in reply to earlier comments by others. I see recently Danceking was called a tool and told he sounded like a clown, and he took that rather well. Then DK says "By the way, if you stop bugging me, i'll stop annoying you.", which I took as a very good proposal. Then I see a pretty reasonable thread where everyone is talking about a name change. What I see is normal spirited debate, followed by a real and seemingly productive discussion. You all need to avoid each other when possible, as you do bring out the worst in each other. Danceking5 isn't getting blocked today, I suggest we all go back to writing articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to say, I will have no problem blocking this user for longer than a week if this stalking nonsense continues. Semitransgenic has already tried enough times to explain to him what a watchlist is for, last time he did so leaving a comment on his talk page he deleted it, so I will assume for now this means he's read the linked page and finally understands, but this user is close to exhausting patience of people who actually edit these articles, it's clear that his vision for how they should be written is incompatible with Wikipedia's RS policy. - filelakeshoe 12:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• And if behavior exceeds the limits of "spirited debate", I will block him longer than my last block, or someone else will. At the same time, when behavior is not truly over the line, it would be disruptive and unfair for me (or other admins) to interfere. WP:DRN is always the venue of choice for disagreements on content or style of the actual article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

@Dennis re:"By the way, if you stop bugging me, i'll stop annoying you." You appear to be endorsing the inference that I have been "bugging" this user.

Can I ask, do you, or Danceking5, have any diffs that can be used to support this accusation?

You also seem to think it is acceptable to ignore a pattern of behaviour that multiple users have seen.You also appear to accept that inane BS should take the place of discussion relating directly to what sources say, rather than what some user thinks (and based solely on personal recollection).

Just because an article subject is unimportant doesn't mean that those editors who choose to work on such topics should have to put up with the kind of BS DK5 has to offer.-- Semitransgenic _talk. 13:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

First, no article is unimportant or it wouldn't be here. I've already blocked DK previously, I'm only looking at behavior since then and have to give him the chance. You guys are in a content dispute, which is beyond the scope of ANI. If you think his arguments are BS, form a consensus otherwise on the talk page or at WP:DRN and that is the end of it. If you have a clear consensus that can be seen at the talk page, and he were to keep reverting against this consensus, then he would get blocked for disruptive editing, period. Put the changes up to a !vote to add clarity to the situation and make it easy for all concerned if a block is needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I think there are crossed wires here, this has nothing to do with a dispute over content, that's an aside. The primary issue is with the users general attitude to our guidleines on OR and VER, we are dealing with someone who is largely indifferent to best practice. This is someone who has exclaimed: "I AM THE CITATION." This is not an attitude that should be tolerated. If it's the case that reversion of non RS content is now viewed as "bugging" someone, there is a problem. -- Semitransgenic _talk. 14:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And OR and V are handled at DRN, not ANI, that is my point. I understand there are larger issues, but I'm trying to actually help you here. As it stands, I can't block him because he is supporting OR on the talk page. Get a consensus that is enforceable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, sorry, yes, you are correct, this was the wrong noticeboard to begin with. Will wait and see how things pan out.-- Semitransgenic _talk. 14:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Possible SPA to be aware of

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

---

Just wanted to inform people of a new account that is showing indications of being an WP:SPA. This user's only contributions include a single agenda item pasted to his talk page, user page, and a wikiproject page. I have tried to head him off at the pass with a stern reply, but I wanted to get the word out to an audience that can intervene if necessary. This matter does not merit any administrative intervention at this time. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 04:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You may notice that at the top of this page there is a notice that This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. This report clearly states that it is not appropriate for this page and seems to be here solely to intimidate and upset a new user -- this is taking biting a newcomer to the level of harassment. Perhaps User:Vanisaac should be given some time away from the project to review his own conduct? Recapitulation theory (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

A user's second edit is to call for someone being blocked. There seems to be a lot of that kind of thing going on here today. Meanwhile, I'd recommend that Vanisaac keep an eye on the editor in question and see if he does anything other than use his page for self-promotion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That is weird and kind of creepy that it's his second edit - ok, it's obviously a sock or alternate account. But anyway, my plan was to try to keep an eye on him, but I wanted people to know what was going on if you start getting random non-standard transliterations in articles with Sinhala/Tamil/etc. terms and proper nouns, so I guess it's out there. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 07:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, an account that was created seemingly for the express purpose of making the above edit is...well, not exactly inspiring confidence. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And when you try to make a new section in WP:AN, it says "If your post is about a specific problem you have" to post to ANI, which this definitely is. I was faced with two guidelines that contradicted each other given the situation, so I chose to follow one of them and ignore the other, and I freely acknowledged the guideline I ignored. If the consensus is that my actions were overly WP:BITEy, I will happily revert or amend myself, and gladly welcome others doing so as well. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 07:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Vanisaac fails to follow his own logic. If he finds that his posting is not suitable for WP:AN or for WP:ANI then the conclusion is not that the guidelines are inconsistent, the conclusion is that he should not be making the posting at all. He is reporting User:Brmanjunath for things he thinks they might be about to do. There is no evidence that the user reported is doing anything wrong, no evidence that dispute resolution has failed, or been attempted, or even that there is any kind of dispute here at all. In fact, there is nothing at all here to say, see or do. Why is he wasting everyone's time like this? Recapitulation theory (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Editor attempting to promote non-notable minority group

TheRealtalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been creating or editing numerous articles, seemingly in an attempt to promote a non-notable minority group of which they're a part of. Some of these edits have included replacing sourced information with unsourced and replacing the infobox of a page with non-English text. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

We already have an article on this group, Macedonian Muslims. I notice he's also adding a pp template to them also, he's clearly a bit confused. Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Has anyone tried speaking to this editor? I'm not convinced that they're editing in bad faith and all I can see on their talkpage is a wall of templates. Perhaps someone could write a personal message advising them how to improve. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually Torbeši (Našinci) seems to be a pov fork, as it says in the lead "The Torbeši are Not Macedonians (ethnic group" whereas Macedonian Muslims (some of the material from that article was copied to Torbeši (Našinci)) says they are. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Zippy is spot on. I don't know enough about the topic or I would do it myself, but someone needs to step up and try to speak to him on his talk page in a personalized manner first, please. Optimally, this is done before coming to boards, as this might be a pov fork, but that doesn't mean it is bad faith. It could simply be that he doesn't understand how we prefer to do things here. Volunteers? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Bullying by Dominus Vobisdu

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

---

User Dominus Vobisdu gave me a "formal warning for disruptive editing" on my talk page here, threatening me with a topic ban. This appears to be a clear violation of wp:noedit. I am certain enough of this to take the risk of reporting this incident, and may the chips fall where they may. If Dominus Vobisdu is correct in his claim that I am guilty of "disruptive editing," then I will have to learn my lesson.

I tried to talk to Dominus Vobisdu about this incident on his talk page here. His answer was simply a reaffirmation of his judgment that I was guilty of "disruptive editing," which in my mind was simply the pretext for his bullying. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dominus_Vobisdu#Stop_bullying

The relevant discussion on the talk page is at Talk:Astrology#astrology_.22the_oldest_of_the_sciences.22 I initiated this talk at the same time that I reverted Dominus Vobisdu's reversion of Polisher of Cobwebs' reversion of my initial post. At the exact moment I opened this discussion, Saedon reverted my reversion. Under the presumption that if Saedon had seen my talk he would have responded before reverting (and might have actually agreed with my basic reasoning), I reverted him and invited him to revert me if he disagreed. My intention there was to indicate to Saedon (and everybody else) that I wasn't going any further with the reverting.

For whatever it's worth, the initial discussion that preceeded all of the above starts at Talk:Astrology#NPOV_in_the_.22modern_scientific_appraisal.22_section_and_the_lede --Other Choices (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Gee, after 247 edits to article space and 324 edits to Talk pages, how did you get to ANI so quickly? It looks to me like more experienced editors are trying to educate you but you refuse to listen. Instead, you push the envelope in a manner that suits you but not per Wikipedia practices, standards, etc. Plus, the one edit you seem so intent on making is wrong, and you apparently have no consensus for adding it. So stop doing so, even with an invitation to revert (needless edit war). As for WP:NOEDIT, that is an essay and I don't see any "violation" of it by anyone. There's nothing to be done here except to counsel you to conduct yourself differently.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Bbb23: You aren't being bullied here, what you are being is disruptive. Please slow down, stop editing tendentiously, and start working better with others. Understand that, sometimes, the article is not going to say what you want it to say. --Jayron32 19:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Being warned that you may be blocked or banned is just that, a warning that actions can have consequences. DV can't block of ban you. I see someone upset that DV wrote 'fuck' in an edit summary, but that isn't bullying. The article was just out of a week's full protection and straight to edit warring, so I've protected it for another week. Dougweller (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I have placed a discretionary sanctions warning on the user's talk page so that s/he is aware that Astrology has a history at ARBCOM. Obviously I concur with the above sentiments by Bbb and Jayron; what we have here is a case of a user attempting to push an extremely WP:FRINGE POV. One ruling principle in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final_decision that needs to be considered is "Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work." Another important facet was a quote of Jimbo used in the decision: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Understanding these two concepts, it should be fairly obvious why Other Choices cannot make the edits s/he is making. SÆdon^talk 20:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

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

New User:8HGasma might need a warning

New June 9 user 8HGasma (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) I met when they started an edit war ([83] [84]). es's are not inviting. I contacted [85], but got rebuked without remorse [86]. Same user behaved similar in other edits, unrelated to me: [87] including the es: Before making controversial editions, take a break and discuss it on the talk page, and touching or maybe grabbing 3RR. I propose this user receives the standard ARBPIA warning first. According to another revert in another page, 8HGasma might be eligible for a sockpuppet check [88]. Notified [89] -DePiep (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• I left a notice that he was on the cusp of 3RR on his and your talkpage, and also left him a notice about this ANI, since you neglected to do so. Please note that at the top of this page it clearly says you must notify the other party, and please do so in the future. My mistake, glasses in other room... I suggest you both stop reverting and take it to the talk page and discuss it more than you already have first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not feel addressed by this botlike contribution. If you cannot add a base for your remark on my talkpage, I'll throw it away. -DePiep (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)-DePiep (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• • I addressed it evenly because you have reverted twice, him 3x, and my goal isn't blocking anyone or interfere in the discussion, but instead to get both parties to go to the talk page and hammer it out, making any action unneeded. I could have chosen to protect the page, but feel you are likely to work it out without protection being necessary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The diffs please for me doing even a 2RR. And note that my question here is ignored. -DePiep (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why has no admin done the Warning yet? -DePiep (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I've corrected myself on your talk page, you were not close to 3RR and it was a silly mistake on my part, but it is still a slow edit war that needs to be dealt with with fewer reverts. I see there is a conversation on the talk page, which should continue until a resolution is found or if one can't be, taken to WP:DRN. If you think they are sockpuppeting, then WP:SPI is the proper venue to take it to. ANI is not equipped to handle sockpuppets. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone who cares should file an SPI report or deal with it directly without the SPI red tape. The sockmaster is AndresHerutJaim. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim/Archive. AndresHerutJaim is a dedicated advocate for the State of Israel and he promised here to not stop socking.

Stalker results

• http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/stalker/?db=enwiki_p&user1=Jabotito48&user2=8HGasma
• http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/stalker/?db=enwiki_p&user1=Tutangamon&user2=8HGasma
• http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/stalker/?db=enwiki_p&user1=Sebinisra91&user2=8HGasma
• http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/stalker/?db=enwiki_p&user1=AndresHerutJaim&user2=8HGasma

Sean.hoyland - talk 05:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• WP:DUCK suggests sockpuppet. Compare this by Jabotito48 to this edit today by the named editor. I think his comment on the talkpage clarifies his POV intentions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

CheckUser does too. Sock blocked, not much more to do here I'd say. Relist this at SPI if it resurfaces. WilliamH (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Bowei Huang 2‎;

Resolved

 – user page protected indefinitely--Cailil ^talk 14:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Bowei Huang 2‎ (talk · contribs) What should be done, if anything, to prevent the user from blanking his unblock requests? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Revoking talk page access would be one way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Clearly. Since he's done it twice this evening, perhaps an admin will want to take action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why would you need to do anything? Everything is in the history. Bielle (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Blanking unblock requests is bad form, that is why. --Mollskman (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

More preciesly, it's against the rules. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It's also apt. One of the many things he used to do to disrupt the site was to remove evidence of his own misbehaviour from talk and other pages. He's swearing up and down like a parrot that he won't misbehave again, and now he's playing the same stupid game with his own talk page. I've always felt that people who act as though they want to be banned should be banned with extra force, just to show that it's a stupid game to play. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

New Page Patrol and inappropriate communications

User:LongLiveMusic incorrectly tagged nine different articles belonging to the same user, User:Rivatphil. LLM's first piece of CSD work since February, I found it problematic and approached him to seek an explanation as to how he felt the tagging was appropriate; I'd be perfectly happy with a "doh, it wasn't, I'll learn" (indeed, "I'll learn" is the ideal). Instead, LLM removed my message, which is not in itself a problem - except he also did the same with my subsequent message seeking to verify he'd read and acknowledged the earlier issue. I'm here looking for wider consensus on what needs to be done - a restriction on patrolling? Assume he's just being uncommunicative and has acknowledged the messages, and that we should hold off unless he does it again? Only right now I'm looking at one editor who probably won't edit again and another who approaches the situation he's caused with a poker face; I don't want to see another newbie scared off before something is done. Ironholds (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

What needs to be done is Ironholds need to learn Wikipedia policy: Removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it. The user has not performed any CSDs since the first message, and Ironholds repeated posting is uncalled for. Nobody Ent 09:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Look out for that boomerang. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent, I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but your comment came off as rather hostile :). I'm fully aware of the relevant policies, as evidenced by the fact that I linked to them in the comment you were responding to.

Both of you; my intention when bringing this here was to gauge (a) what action should be taken (and none is fine! If I wasn't fine with it I wouldn't have listed it) and (b) whether my actions or proposed ways forward were appropriate. In other words, to seek review of my actions. This is something we should encourage editors to do - jokey comments about boomerangs aside (is it a boomerang if you were intending to risk shooting yourself in the foot?) approaching such situations with blunt dismissal is likely to lead editors to refer their actions to the community less often, not more. I think we'd all agree that increasing the degree of oversight is something we should be encouraging rather than dissuading. Ironholds (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Non sequitur. If you're familiar with policy, why would you leave a second message in the absence of continuing behavior by the editor?

2. I agree with you about "boomerang." I consider it rude and incivil; however prudence dictates understanding mine is a minority view and it's not something I'm going to fix. Nobody Ent 10:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Fact remains, LLM tagged highly inappropriately. That is not the way to keep prospective new content contributors. The blanking is within policy, of course, but does not bode well. To top it off, they left the hapless new editor a warning--that is also inappropriate. I de-archived this, by the way, since I don't think we were done here. Drmies (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Editor screws up. Admin deals with by leaving message, user acknowledges by removing message (per standard Wikipedia practice), user hasn't CSD'd again. What's left to do? Nobody Ent 10:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, Ironholds. If "none" is a fine answer to the question of what action should be taken, then good. None is what action should be taken if LLM didn't make any more CSD tags after the first message was removed. On your side, you get a minnow - not even a trout - for making the extra posts on LLM's talk page, but good on you for bringing your actions for review. We all good here? Good. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Close. However, I'm fine with Ironholds second post on LLM's talk page requesting a dialog with LLM, and that is where it should have ended regarding LLM. This AN post elevated things too much since we were asked to look at LLM's actions even though LLM has not performed any CSDs since Ironholds first message on Ironholds talk page. Ironholds, you might want to clarify the situation for User:Rivatphil, which is something I recently did here regarding a similar situation. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible legal threat on Jimbo's talk page

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

---

User:Ajnem has put what is possibly a legal threat at User_talk:Jimbo Wales[90]. Dmcq (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"Am I to understand that your putting above into your archiv not bothering to answer my post or my e-mail means that you don't think it necessary to take any action, and that you want me to take it to court?" sounded like a legal threat to me so I have indef-blocked the user until they can clarify they are not thinking of taking legal action in this case. --John (talk) 10:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Reads as 'if you don't respond to me I will take it to court.' The user's isn't legally obligated to respond, so urging them to respond or else the matter goes to court includes elements of coersion as well. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Unsourced additions/fringe etymological theories

The contributions of Bksatyanarayana (talk · contribs) (cf. sandbox statement) consist entirely of unusual/fringe/unsound and unsourced etymological theories. I assume they are good faith edits, but the editor continues the edits (diff), does not understand Wikipedia principles (e.g. signing contributions in article space), and appears to be unreachable via his/her user talk page. Wareh (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• User doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, in spite of proper welcome templates and messages informing them that their edits are not in compliance with the guidelines. May have to short term block if they continue after this notice to ANI, to prevent the disruptive behavior, and hopefully give them a chance to read up a bit on how to properly contribute. Good faith or not, disruption is disruption, particularly when they won't engage in discussion on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat in article?

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

---

This diff appears, to my eyes, to be a legal threat ("All citations and changes made on here will be registered and monitored by legal representatives and used in evidence at a later date.") It was originally added by User:86.159.104.206, which may be User:Shamdrummer editing whilst logged out. I've warned both Shamdrummer and the IP, removed the text from the article, and will now drop an ANI notice to both of them. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. WilliamH (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Abusive Admin Arthur Rubin - Please help

Arthur Rubin randomly deletes articles without respecting deletion policies and accused me of vandalism. Further information here: [Arthur Rubin, Abusive Admin on Wikipedia. Contact Wikipedia Directly] --Anthrophilos (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you make that video? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Having watched it, I don't see any actual evidence presented in that video, just a rant from someone who's been offended in a dispute. Since the video does nothing but encourages others to contact the WMF to complain about Arthur, is this not just an attack post? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• All I see are articles that, as Arthur Rubin rightly pointed out, should either not exist or only be categories, that Arthur Rubin deleted. For instance, how could you possibly have "List of potential Nobel Prize winners?" when they don't publish the candidate list for a given year until 50 years later? As Arthur Rubin points out, that's obviously original research. The others are all in the same vein. Don't bandy about "abusive administrators" so lightly, that's a serious accusation and you really need to back that up; I'm not seeing it here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• I, for one, am not going to watch a YouTube video for something that can be explained on-wiki, with ordinary diffs. Make your case on-wiki, with ordinary diffs. And stop putting the URL of that YouTube video in edit summaries. Edit summaries are supposed to summarize edits. Uncle G (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Somebody needs to step up to the plate and help put an end to the harassment Arthur has been dealing with. There has been a slew of various IP's and now this garbage...MONGO 17:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Yep, absolutely. Block Anthrophilos (talk · contribs) until at least he pulls that defamatory video from youtube. This is pure harassment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Struck for the time being, until Anthrophilos' involvement with the video has been clarified; see below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Fut.Perf.! A rational voice among false accusations. --Anthrophilos (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Just a point: The video could been seen as an outing attempt, since pretty specific info is given about who he "thinks" AR is in real life, though I'm not seeing anything on the Libertarian party website to back up his claims. But still, if he is posting this video in multiple places across WP, I think some clean up is going to be required. I'm admittedly not an expert on the policy of such things, but attempts at real life outing, even if subtlefrivolous, should be removed, right? Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 18:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Anthrophilos is pushing that video around Wikipedia. I've rev/del'd it from an edit summary. Because I have been involved with him today I'm not blocking him, but if he continues this harassment (particularly adding the video to edit summaries or simply to his edits, as he also did at [91] he probably should be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*Another point - before anyone shoots off about the video being an outing attempt or whatever, I'm not entirely certain Anthrophilos actually made that video. It may well have been made by some other troll and Anthro fell for it hook, line and sinker. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

He says he didn't, and I from the content I don't think he did, it talks about going to arbitration. He's also at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion where the video has now been removed. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

True, now that I looked more closely into it, the description of the video author clearly points towards him being XB70Valyrie (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought too. Perhaps one of you guys could say something to him too? Seems like he's got just as much of a chip on his shoulder, and it's not helping anyone. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not expect being accused and even threatened to be blocked. What a community! And for those who do not know it, I did NOT post the video on Arthur Rubin on Youtube. It merely illustrates the experience I am having with him, and apparently I am not the only one. I have no problem in accepting that the "List of potential Nobel Prize in Literature winners" be deleted IF it cannot be backed up by adequate sources. What bothers me, however, is the extremely rude attitude in deleting articles prior to its PROD deadline so that the proposed deletion can neither be challenged nor factual evidence established in time. --Anthrophilos (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Notified XB70Valyri. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Anthrophilos used the wrong template to notify me. Do I need to comment on my actions in regard Anthrophilos's edits at this time? I decline comment on the video; anything I say would only encourage the author. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Anthrophilos, what you say was a threat to block you was a statement that if you continued to post that video you might be blocked. You seem to have stopped now, so hopefully there will be no reason to block you. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Anthrophilos, there is a very well known principle at ANI called WP:BOOMERANG. Succinctly put, the behaviors of ALL contributors to ANI are up for review, and it's normal practice to examine that of any accuser. It's likewise common for accusers to react angrily when people focus attention on their own actions, but that doesn't do them much good. That being said, you have failed to provide any evidence that Arthur called you a vandal; kindly do so. (And beyond THAT, are you sure you want to go the route of inferring you had nothing to do with a video you're urging us to see?)

I did, however, find a diff of you accusing Arthur of vandalism [92]. I also see that you're canvassing XB70 [93]. Ravenswing 19:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Have interacted with Arthur Rubin at several articles and consider them to be the best. The title of this looks like a personal attack, labeling them as an "abusive admin". And Anthrophilos not only presented the informationless attack video as "information", but as the only information when posting this complaint. North8000 (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Remember: 99% of the time, when someone yells "admin abuse", it is indeed the admin being abused. This one meets the 99% rule (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)