Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:07, 27 October 2014 view sourceSerialjoepsycho (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers6,247 edits WP:AGF Unblock on BengaliHindu← Previous edit Revision as of 15:10, 27 October 2014 view source SummerPhD (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers91,322 edits False accusations of vandalism: cNext edit →
Line 742: Line 742:
:::::::Yes, it's called "Administrator intervention against vandalism". However, it is routinely used to enforce blocks in cases of block evasion, such as yours. It is also used in cases of clear personal attacks, such as ones you have made. It is sometimes used in cases of edit-warring, such as yours, but that normally goes to 3RR. Hope this clears up the ambiguity. Do you dispute that you have made numerous personal attacks against numerous editors? Do you dispute that you have edit warred? Do you dispute that you have edited in direct defiance of several blocks? If you can answer yes to all three of these, you are deluding yourself. Otherwise, you have been given the instructions for requesting an unblock. Failing that, you will need to ride out six months or deal with occasionally being uncovered, having your block extended and, boo hoo, having edits reverted without need for explanation by anyone who cares to do so. - ] (]) 04:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC) :::::::Yes, it's called "Administrator intervention against vandalism". However, it is routinely used to enforce blocks in cases of block evasion, such as yours. It is also used in cases of clear personal attacks, such as ones you have made. It is sometimes used in cases of edit-warring, such as yours, but that normally goes to 3RR. Hope this clears up the ambiguity. Do you dispute that you have made numerous personal attacks against numerous editors? Do you dispute that you have edit warred? Do you dispute that you have edited in direct defiance of several blocks? If you can answer yes to all three of these, you are deluding yourself. Otherwise, you have been given the instructions for requesting an unblock. Failing that, you will need to ride out six months or deal with occasionally being uncovered, having your block extended and, boo hoo, having edits reverted without need for explanation by anyone who cares to do so. - ] (]) 04:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::There was no "ambiguity" to clear up. The page itself is extremely clear: "''This page is intended for reports about obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only''". There's even a guide to using the page, which says "''Administrator intervention against vandalism is for reporting users currently engaging in persistent, clear vandalism''". ]'s report was a clear and unambiguous accusation of "obvious and persistent" vandalism. ] (]) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC) ::::::::There was no "ambiguity" to clear up. The page itself is extremely clear: "''This page is intended for reports about obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only''". There's even a guide to using the page, which says "''Administrator intervention against vandalism is for reporting users currently engaging in persistent, clear vandalism''". ]'s report was a clear and unambiguous accusation of "obvious and persistent" vandalism. ] (]) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::The ambiguity here is that you seem to think there is a meaningful difference between your repeated vile personal attacks, edit warring, and block evasion and "vandalism". Your behavior is not acceptable. Blocking you and reverting your edits ''without giving any further reason'' while you are evading the blocks that you can't keep track of is perfectly acceptable. It is soooooooooo sad that a gentle soul such as yourself can't get their way every time and has someone hurt their feelings by not labeling your edit warring, personal attacks and block evasion with exactly the right terms. I realize you find that more offensive than being called a "cunt". Too bad. I'd suggest you take a break, curl up with your blankie and cry about it for a bit. After a good 6 months of crying, maybe we'll see the error of our ways and my signature will read "fucking retarded little cunt", "idiot", "retard", "twat", "fucking idiot", etc. - ] (]) 15:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
::It seems to me that the solution suggested by Drmies, making a regular account is the best one. WP is not a bureaucracy, and if our circular process of blocking and ip editing give a poor result, it should not be continued. The easiest way to avoid it without relying on the knowledge of any admin who may happen to come across the account without knowing the history or the discussion here, it is to remove the existing block(s), and I am prepared to do so if Drmies will help identify them. '''if''' the editor will commit themselves to making and using one single named account, and not continue editing as an ip. ''']''' (]) 04:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC) ::It seems to me that the solution suggested by Drmies, making a regular account is the best one. WP is not a bureaucracy, and if our circular process of blocking and ip editing give a poor result, it should not be continued. The easiest way to avoid it without relying on the knowledge of any admin who may happen to come across the account without knowing the history or the discussion here, it is to remove the existing block(s), and I am prepared to do so if Drmies will help identify them. '''if''' the editor will commit themselves to making and using one single named account, and not continue editing as an ip. ''']''' (]) 04:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
::::I'm not going to create an account. ] (]) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC) ::::I'm not going to create an account. ] (]) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::Of course not. - ] (]) 15:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

:::I'm also prepared to unblock, but I have a different condition in mind. The editor is right: we don't forbid IP editing, and nor should we. We need to remain open to people who may wish to try editing here before they register, or may have their own personal reasons for not registering. Rather, I propose the IP undertake to remain civil. (Which includes recognising that even the best editor occasionally makes a mistake, or runs into something on which reasonable people can disagree.) This is the standard we're all supposed to at least aspire to, and his uncivil remarks have contributed greatly to putting him in this mess. I see improvement in that respect but this is the second time I've seen {{U|SummerPhD}} refer on one of these noticeboards to a really nasty epithet that he flung at her. I'd like to help cut this Gordian knot, but that's my requirement. ] (]) 13:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC) :::I'm also prepared to unblock, but I have a different condition in mind. The editor is right: we don't forbid IP editing, and nor should we. We need to remain open to people who may wish to try editing here before they register, or may have their own personal reasons for not registering. Rather, I propose the IP undertake to remain civil. (Which includes recognising that even the best editor occasionally makes a mistake, or runs into something on which reasonable people can disagree.) This is the standard we're all supposed to at least aspire to, and his uncivil remarks have contributed greatly to putting him in this mess. I see improvement in that respect but this is the second time I've seen {{U|SummerPhD}} refer on one of these noticeboards to a really nasty epithet that he flung at her. I'd like to help cut this Gordian knot, but that's my requirement. ] (]) 13:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
::::I always undertake to remain civil. I never set out to initiate or exacerbate any unpleasant situation. I am, however, under constant attack. The reason I started this discussion was that I was falsely accused of vandalism, but of course that got quickly forgotten, a single comment from the accuser failed to explain why he made false claims, and the discussion degenerated into snide attacks on me and several further accusations of vandalism. If you expect me to remain friendly at all times in the face of this kind of behaviour, you expect too much. ::::I always undertake to remain civil. I never set out to initiate or exacerbate any unpleasant situation. I am, however, under constant attack. The reason I started this discussion was that I was falsely accused of vandalism, but of course that got quickly forgotten, a single comment from the accuser failed to explain why he made false claims, and the discussion degenerated into snide attacks on me and several further accusations of vandalism. If you expect me to remain friendly at all times in the face of this kind of behaviour, you expect too much.

Revision as of 15:10, 27 October 2014

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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. (archivessearch)

    Start a new discussion Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166
    1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links



    Request to lift a hastily placed block

    After some days of debate there is, unsurprisingly, no consensus for anything. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

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


    Per this incident, Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs) was accused of violating his interaction ban between himself and the filer of the report MaxBrowne. First, the evidence given for IBAN is this edit . Ihardlythink so was blocked 12 minutes after this incident was reported, and while Ihardlythinkso and MaxBrowne are under an IBAN to be sure, this post doesn't give any indication that Ihardlythinkso is talking about MaxBrowne, although he refers to the IBAN itself. Further, this block is contested by Giano, Ne Ent , GoodDay and myself.

    As there is no credible evidence that Ihardlythinkso was actually referring to MaxBrowne, I would request an unblock. Obviously, no investigation can be made as to whether or not MaxBrowne actually broke the IBAN by actually referring to Ihardlythinkso, since this would be an exception to the ban. I have notified the above mentioned users about this posting, I have also notified blocking sysop Spartaz and closing sysop Chillum. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 20:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

    Nonsense. The posting "doesn't give any indication that Ihardlythinkso is talking about MaxBrowne"? Bollocks. He was talking about him, as was crystal-clear from his description of that specific incident – anybody who remembers the incident knows that it was M.B. who was the other party in it. Whether he names the name is completely irrelevant. People who knew the event (and there are many of them out there) know who he meant. Fut.Perf. 20:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Oppose(I was one of the closers) This was already reviewed and was also closed by 3 different administrators(including myself) with the same conclusion. If the matter is not apparent to you then it is likely because you are not familiar with the case.

      It was not hasty because it was not a ban discussion, it was a case of administrative discretion based on an already existing ban. There is no need to have a protracted debate when the conclusion is obvious to the acting admin.

      There was also a similar incident where IHTS was warned that this sort of gaming would not excuse him. Chillum 20:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

    • I'm no admin and have never claimed to be one. Per IHTS:
    "I am unable to tell any of the abusive treatments because any reference direct or indirect will be interpreted as IBAN violation with the offending user, who filed the AN request for IBAN immediately after the ANI closed where he used the abusive name-calls. So effectively now, I have a sock stuck down my throat, and am unable to voice any complaint about the incidents without receiving an escalated block."
    Who here does not think that the one "who filed the AN request for IBAN immediately after the ANI closed" was Max Browne? Anyone? And is the "immediately" thing meant to throw suspicion on this "offending user" for filing it so quickly? It looks like it to me. Max Browne filed the request for IBAN, did he not? A thread that was then open for 8 days. It's quite obvious that IHTS fully knew he violated the IBAN when he said, "If WP:NPA policy can be ignored, allowing a user to repeatedly be abused with "classic narcissist" name-call, then please tell me a rational/reasonable argument why WP:IBAN policy is to be respected!" This thread is just wikilayering to get a buddy out of the trouble he made for himself. Doc talk 04:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • The IBAN prohibits discussing the other party, either directly or indirectly. You don't have to mention the other guy's name in order to have enforcement come down on you. When it's clear who the guy's talking about, to those familiar with the case, the IBAN has to be enforced. ←Baseball Bugs carrots21:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    I'm aware the Ban prohibits direct or indirect discussion. It's not clear that Max Browne is being discussed. Ihardlythinkso mentions his IBAN, but given no detail, nor really any indication that he's talking about MaxBrowne, bear in mind, I'm currently under a TBAN "Broadly Construed" so I'm well aware that a ban typically means no talk to or talking about whatever the subject of the ban is, anywhere on Misplaced Pages.
    Also, I wasn't the sole user that objected, as I noted three others did as well. Spartaz , I've been down that road before. I've actually spoken with sysops and have had consensus in my favor only for the sysop to just flat ignore it, so I no longer think it's the thing to do, to be honest. I believe in consensus, and if consensus says you're fine, then so be it. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 21:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    I am well aware of how bans go. If it's clear to those "in the know" that the ban was violated, then the violator and his buddies have to accept the block. Trying to wikilawyer around it is not acceptable. ←Baseball Bugs carrots21:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    I think this should be closed, it was already as pointed out by Chillum closed by 2 different admins, 3 after this. I think the WP:STICK should be dropped. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

    The easiest way to "drop the stick" is to stop arguing about the close, which is a practice thing, not any sort of policy. So, anyway, it's not unreasonable to conclude IHTS violated the ban because he mentioned the editor who called him a narcissist. However, the context of the comment was replying a post by Jimbo Wales (also an admin) following up a discussion on Wales' talk page, and the primary thrust of the comment was that an admin not-named-Max-Browne whom IHTS does not have an interaction ban with also called him a narcissist, so I don't see it as a violation, especially as IHTS did not mention MB by name. So perhaps a refactoring could have been asked for, or maybe a shorter block. Anyway, the most important thing is IHTS has not posted any sort of unblock request, so perhaps we should wait and see what he has to say about it. NE Ent 22:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

    There are plenty of ways an editor can slip a hint about another editor hoping to draw attention to that person but thinking that it is not enough to get themselves caught. The point is that MaxBrowne picked something up in it. It could very well be a misunderstanding but seeing the evidence of past things like this that Ihardlythinkso has done It becomes harder to trust the editor. In addition 2 admin have weighed in on the matter and all have considered it a closed discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

    Baseball Bugs I'm hardly one of Ihardlythinkso's buddies. He doesn't know me from a hole in the ground, to be quite honest, so if that comment was directed to me, it's not true and you should strike it. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 23:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

    I don't recall mentioning you by name. ←Baseball Bugs carrots12:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Support unblock - Much has been made of User talk: Jimbo Wales being a "community noticeboard" rather than an individual user talk page. Much like ANI; users go there to air their grievances, demand action, demand justice or otherwise opine for change. Of late, that has involved extensive interaction with Wales himself, subsequent to a demand (here) for an interaction ban between Wales and an editor. IHTS's comments should be seen in that context - ongoing discussion of an interaction ban proposal while he himself was subject to an interaction ban. He tried to give a full account of that ban in the context of that discussion and went as far as to describe certain things. Did he technically breach his ban in doing so? Yes. Does it serve any real purpose to block him for it? No, not really. Does anyone think MB's editing here was impacted by IHTS's giving an account of how the interaction ban came to be (in his view)? I... (sorry for this in advance) ...hardly think so. The issue here was the technical breach - there was no melodrama on MB's part. I don't think MB or the blocking admin were wrong (they called it as they saw it and I don't think it was "hasty") but a broader reading of this suggests a block is fairly pointless and obviously punitive rather than preventative. It also had the unintentional impact of disallowing IHTS's involvement at User talk: Jimbo Wales which, again, editors have come to accept as a legitimate venue for broader discussions. I suggest the block be limited to "time served". St★lwart 23:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    • So you are saying he should get a get out of jail free card for breaking an interaction ban on Jimbo's page? No, it shouldn't be okay and it is not okay. I quote the WP:IBAN policy "make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Misplaced Pages, whether directly or indirectly;". if you want to propose a change to the policy with "With an exception to Jimbo's talkpage" then feel free to do so. Jimbo's talkpage though is a part of Misplaced Pages just like all other user-pages are. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    In fact the IBAN violation was made on IHTS's own talk page Want to think again? Spartaz 04:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, you're absolutely right - it was on his own talk page in response to a comment from Wales which was a continuation of an ongoing discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales. And I'm not suggesting an exemption or a get-out-of-jail free card. Only that it should be looked at in context. From memory, I supported the original IBAN, so I certainly endorse its enforcement. I just wonder what point it serves to enforce what looks like policy wonkery given the intention doesn't seem to have been to break the ban but to explain it. My question, which applies equally regardless of location, is whether he would have been blocked had he posted the same here in asking for the ban to be reviewed? I'm thinking possibly not. St★lwart 07:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Let me ask a silly question. If blocks are supposed to be to prevent disruption (not to punish bad behavior) and the disruption in question is a comment the user made on their own talk page, how is that goal achieved by blocking them from every page on Misplaced Pages, except for the one page where the disruption (allegedly) occurred? --B (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment- I'm not sure why MaxBrowne feels the need to patrol Ihardlythinkso's talk page. Whether or not IHTS's comment amounts to a violation of the topic ban, this continued hostile scrutiny could easily be seen as baiting and I'm not sure we should be rewarding it. Reyk YO! 07:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
      • In any kind of limited ban, it is best to take anything connected with that ban off your watch list. In the case of an interaction ban, it is best to treat the other party like the ebola virus - keep as far away as possible. ←Baseball Bugs carrots12:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Unblock...but this whole thing is bollocks. IHTS remains rather pissed off that someone called them a "classic narcissist". Personally, I don't consider it a violation of WP:NPA (really, so what if I was a narcissist, it's not a horrible thing to be called)..., but IHTS REALLY believes it was an attack on psychological condition - PERCEPTION IS EVERYTHING in this type of situation. However Bushranger apologized for the statement, right here on either AN or ANI. Yes - apologized. Case-closed, one would have thought. I believe I even said at the time "now we won't have to hear about it anymore". So,
    • IHTS perceived the comment to be an attack
    • IHTS does not perceive the apology to have occurred
    • IHTS perceives that an admin got away with a gross personal attack
    This therefore can be easily resolved:
    • Bushranger repeats the apology for one, final time
    • IHTS acknowledges it, and gets unblocked
    • MaxBrowne takes IHTS's talkpage off his fricking watchlist
    • Everyone drops their sticks and goes back to bloody editing
    • Any FUTURE repeat of this stick behavior can lead to whatever else the community wants
    Problem solved. the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    IHTS's failure to acknowledge Bushranger's apology should not require Bushranger to apologize again. As far as this block goes, oppose lifting it early. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of that incident knows exactly where IHTS was going with it. There are two simple facts here. 1. he violated his ban. 2. He needs to let it go. If he can't do the latter, he will continue to do the former, and will continue to get blocked. The solution here is for IHTS to serve his two weeks, drop the stick, and find something productive to do. Resolute 15:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    @Resolute: I concur: failure to acknowledge shouldn't be our issue. But we really could save IHTS and the entire community (obviously) a lot of ridonc pain if Bushranger either a) repeats his apology, or b) someone's wise enough to re-link to where it was, get it confirmed, and move on. IHTS deserves formal closure of what they feel to be a "psychological-wellness-based personal attack" and they and the rest of us deserve to move on once and for all. We're just going to continually get jabs about how admins are immune until it happens the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    Just saying, admins are not immune, there is nothing stopping someone from launching an investigation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

    I am not sure what the fuss is about. There was a consensus that there should be an interaction ban, there was a clear cut violation of that and the community consensus has been enforced. This seems to be a case of some people simply not liking the outcome.

    While some people may not like it the fact is that there was an IBAN and it was violated. This issue is resolved. Chillum 17:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

    Not quite - there seems to be consensus that the IBAN was not violated ("consensus" in this case would very much be unofficial, since I started this post) and it looks to be 3 to 1. Unless there are more opposes, I;d say the IBAN wasn't violated and thus, the block needs to be rescinded. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    I am starting to suspect you have not read what others have said. He did refer to the person he was in an IBAN with, anyone familiar with the case can see that. The only way you could not be aware of that is if you are unfamiliar with the case. Drop the stick and let it go, the facts are against you.
    This is not a discussion on if an IBAN should take place, that happened long ago. This is a discussion to see if an admin action was wrong. The facts and policy support the block and most people can see that. There is certainly no consensus that the block was wrong. Chillum 16:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    Agreed, this should be closed now by an uninvolved party. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    I had no idea that you had been blocked for two weeks Baseball Bugs, but I'm glad you found the experience rewarding. However, while I thank you for taking time out from your busy editing schedule to share your experiences with me, my view remains entirely unchanged. Giano (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    You haven't provided any evidence that the topic ban wasent violated. Then again I would be shocked if you did have support for an IBAN here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    @
    Im talking to you, and no you aren't followed as you can see I have been posting in this thread since before you were here. Im not here saying the same about you following-wise. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    I see: Well if you check the history of this block here on this page , you will see that I started the discussion. Now, if I were you, I would shut up now, before you make yourself look even more ridiculous than you managed last night when pointlessly pursuing me. Giano (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    MaxBrowne originally started the discussion on the admin page which I had not taken any part in, I started commenting when it was reviewed by Kosh here. Please stop trying to accuse others off of baseless arguments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Sadly for you, on this page, diffs speak louder than words. Whatever, I'm not inclined to engage with you this evening. We all enjoyed quite enough of your silly inanities last night. I don't see what will be achieved by prolonging this block - other than punitive self gratification on the part of some. That's my view and I will continue to hold it. Giano (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, the consensus is clearly to unblock. Giano (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    Oppose As IHTS shows he not only meant to infer max brown but stated how he believes that IBAN should be violated at will by him. He can always appeal it through proper channels, if he believes that it would be lifted but since he can't stop making comments even now I doubt that is likely. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

    This thread is degrading into nasty comments and wikilawyering. Nobody has refuted the clear evidence that has been presented to support this block, someone please close this one way or another before it festers more. Chillum 20:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

    • No Chillum, you can't have the thread closed because you don't like the consensus. Now I hope you are not in the IRC Admin channel trying to get it closed because I will find out and be very cross if that's the case. Giano (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • No Giano there is no behind the scenes conspiracy. I have not used that channel in years. Chillum 20:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    Common sense is appealing this in the proper place and not intentionally violating an IBAN. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    Consensus says the IBAN wasn't violated to begin with KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    Nonsense. Saying that doesn't make it so. Spartaz 13:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    But it does prevent the appropriate archiving of this thread (the second one concerning the same incident). If consensus were in favor of unblocking due to a falsely levied, "hasty" IBAN violation, a good neutral admin would have noted that and unblocked by now. Right? Close the thread. Doc talk 04:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Oppose. The fact that Jimbo held a conversation with him is no carte blanche to start dredging up a topic from several months back in violation of the interaction ban. The terms of the interaction ban have been made abundantly clear, indeed IHTS was specifically warned to avoid bringing up the "classic narcissist" comment and has been blocked over it once before. Also, the fact that IHTS has decided to employ an extremely hostile tone towards anyone who crosses him, and the commentary post-block is not something that makes me want to unblock at all. If the block were erroneous or abusive I might understand the accusations of bad faith such as "unnecessary and dishonest games" and "clear favoritism/prejudice/inconsistency/unfairness/hypocrisy"; but the block was per policy and so what I see is not legitimate anger that came from prodding or provocation but rather a total lack of willingness to accept the terms of the ban. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    On hastyness

    Interestingly, none of the users accusing me of hastiness have taken time to contact me to establish what due diligence I undertook before making the block. This seems hasty in itself and is yet another example of users assuming bad faith on the part of an admin in favour of stoking drama at a noticeboard but perhaps we can let that slide for the sake or harmony. Just for clarity, I saw the report as it was posted, read the post, the comment and also researched the IBAN and associated discussion as well as IHTS's block log. Only then did I act. Please can someone tell me what part of that sequence is hasty or lacks due diligence? Thanks. Spartaz 06:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

    Nothing hasty at all :-) the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    Assuming bad faith on the part of an admin in favour of stoking drama at a noticeboard is en vogue right now. Chillum 17:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    The discussion will soon be bot archived. This happens, naturally, when a thread has outlived its usefulness; and it's an important part of the cycle. Will it be reopened/re-reported due to the "hastiness" of how these threads are archived? Let's hope not. What a waste of time this is. Doc talk 05:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing on ISIL by User:Gregkaye

    Gregkaye (talk · contribs · logs) has repeatedly reverted or reinserted edits that violate NPOV and talk page consensus. He has been notified of the Syrian Civil War/ISIL sanctions. I warned him on the article talk page the he should not continue to revert, then warned him level on his talk page of 3 for disruptive editing, then level 4 when he did it again. He seems not to get the wp:point. I suggest a block to prevent further disruption.~Technophant (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

    Can you provide diffs for what he has "repeatedly" inserted? I can only see one large insertion. Also, a link to the talk page discussion re the material in question is needed. Thanks, Number 57 17:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    Unsubstantiated warnings have been placed on my talk page as at User talk:Gregkaye#October 2014. Gregkaye 17:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    The editor has ferventaly argued against the use of the word "jihadist" in this thread then continued the same to the point of disruption on this more recent thread. The editor has also reinserted previously reverted criticism section which he original inserted here in the lead. I'll continue to look for more diffs. Keep in mind that this article has a strict 1RR policy.~Technophant (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Summary:
    1. 16:13, 19 October 2014 - inserted paragraph into lead
    2. 22:49, 19 October 2014 - reverted by User:Felino123
    3. 08:19, 20 October 2014 - User warned on talk page and on user page of disruptive behavior level-3
    4. 16:15, 20 October 2014 - material reinserted without edit summary (2 minutes! after 24-hour limit)
    5. 16:21, 20 October 2014 - reverted by myself, user warned level-4

    The editor also won't "drop the stick" and has continued to argue on the talk page despite being warned to drop it. I think this is enough to warrant some action.~Technophant (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

    Like me? I suddenly have a host of "Technophant mentioned you" messages in my notifications. Maybe so. Gregkaye 19:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC) sorry to have placed this out of sequence.
    Gregkaye I do value and respect your contributions. If you can just agree to stop the discussed behaviors perhaps this whole thing can be closed without any further unpleasantries.~Technophant (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    You stick with your values and I'll stick with mine. You made very very blunt interventions on my talk page and when I raised query you could not be bothered to reply. I have not found you to be too consistent with your pleasantries. Gregkaye 21:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    On the face of it, this editor seems to be doing exactly what editors are supposed to do. You and he are both very active on both the article page and the talk page, making countless positive contributions to the article and discussions. You appear to have an issue over two things he has done: a single 1RR >24+ hours of a summary of some article material in the lede, and his strong argumentation on the talk page that "jihadist" is an inappropriate label for this group. His reversion without an edit summary is indeed not optimal, but it was after discussion on the talk page. If he is engaging in a non-technical violation of 1RR then so are you by jumping into a revert. It appears that you and some other editors considered the original insertion (which would seem to be simple BRD editing) to be a problem. Am I missing something? The material appears harmless and appropriately sourced, although if consensus is to keep it out of the lead then so be it. As for arguing that "jihadist" is an inappropriate term, again, on the face of that it looks like a reasonable and perhaps correct opinion — I certainly hope the Arabic Misplaced Pages doesn't use a similarly loaded word, "crusaders", to label every religiously-tinged issue coming from the West. Consensus and sources may fall otherwise, but unless you can show that this has gotten to the point of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and disrupting the orderly flow of discussion I see nothing wrong with discussing the matter on the talk page. If you think that simply continuing the discussion of the point has gotten disruptive, how is that so? - Wikidemon (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    Just to be clear it's more like 1RR=24 hours with a +0.14% margin. Also, Felino123 (an editor whom I've no previous interaction) made the first revert and I made the second so I'm not in violation of the 1RR rule. Also the second insertion (#4) was done after he was given a warning not to reinsert both on tha article talk page and user talk page (#3). It show a certain degree of stubborness an unwillingness to respect consensus. Also, it's BRD, not "BRDRD". ~Technophant (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed, technically neither of you violated 1RR, which is why I called it a non-technical violation, meaning the spirit of things. I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointing out that it's not really clear what the problem is. BR-DDDDDD-RD is probably an acceptable editing pattern even if BRDRR is not: if the intervening discussion establishes either that the revert is for an unexplained or clearly bad reason, or there's consensus for inclusion, then it's fine to re-insert. In this case Felino123 had a well-explained and appropriate reason for rejecting this material in the lede, but I just don't see why Gregkaye was warned against reinserting it, or why any warning not to re-insert it would have any force. Reverting again with the summary "repeted insertion of controversial material" isn't really a good reason, that's saying that BRDRR is preferable BRDR; a second removal based on it being weak content, or against consensus, seems more reasonable. But back to the issue, is Gregkaye really being disruptive here? If so would they agree to take it easy, or is administrative counsel or intervention necessary? I'm not an admin, just passing by. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    The material inserted into the in the lead isn't controversial as I stated. It's a summary of information in the Critism section. The reason for removal (clean precise lead) I agree with. This is more of an issue with "technical" 1RR (presumed intent to keep reinserting every 24 hours despite objections). Another user recently received a 3 month topic ban from an univolved admin for just DDDD with no R's without much (if any) warning.~Technophant (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    Another clear hypocrisy in this AN/I is shown in that nothing was done in response to the following noted and flagrant violation of 1RR Gregkaye 12:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC) this edit was moved: Gregkaye 16:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    I have actually not been involved in the "jihadist debate" at all. I'm on the top contributors on this page however I am mostly involved with gnomish technical issues and participating in discussions. I was just informed of a user problem and did my best to try to deal with it.~Technophant (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    You have recently been the primary mover in the pushing of the use of "Islamic State" terminology which flies in the face of the example set by great swathes of the Islamic community and world governments. Gregkaye 21:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    That's a completely different topic and isn't relevant to this discussion.~Technophant (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    Neither was there any relevance in your preceding comment nor the surprising gush of the self justifying pleasantries above. Gregkaye 05:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    @Gregkaye: That was uncalled for. You are just making yourself look bad.~Technophant (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    In trying to understand your active campaign here mention of "Islamic State" becomes relevant. Jihadism was never your issue. This was.
    All of my comments are justified. Here is a link to the talk page at the time of the AN/I. I am more than happy for editors to take any look they like. Gregkaye 03:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment This is looking more like a dispute resolution issue. Perhaps that is a better way of dealing with a content dispute. Still, the edit warring must stop.~Technophant (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment I have been a regular and active editor on the ISIS page since June this year and have become so concerned about this editor who joined the page recently that I even went to the WP:HD about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2014_October_14#Editing_problem. This outlines my concerns. You will see another request on the Help Desk two above mine from another editor on the ISIS page about this editor and one other, expressing the same concerns. Before I say anything else, let me stress that the specific problems I raise there aside, this is a good editor who has contributed much of value to the page. I haven't had time to sort out any diffs yet, and will confine myself to one issue for the time being, which has caused more grief than any other on the Talk page. The debate over the word "jihadist" has been going on for what seems like weeks, getting nowhere, it has taken up an enormous amount of editorial time, and there are at least four editors who consistently do not agree with the editor that "jihadist" should be kept out of the Lead. The editor rejects WP:RS completely, which WP is supposed to reflect. He disputes the use of the word by Reliable Sources to describe ISIL and sets his own views above theirs, which sounds like WP:OR to me. I have lost count of the number of times he has removed the word from the Lead, against consensus, and warnings lately about editing against consensus have been ignored. My basic objection is that the editor ignores WP:NPOV, which I will give some diffs for tomorrow. I am not very happy about this ANI, but something had to be done to stop the edit-warring and editing against consensus. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Oppose - The only edit warring, disruption, and ganging up is by Technophant and his (very) small local consensus, including P123ct1, most likely via secret e-mails against Gregkaye. Gregkaye is extremely knowledgeable, is doing what is supposed to do, and has tolerated them more than he should. To be fair, this should have a Boomerang effect on them. I no longer edit the article because of the same (very) small consensus that act as if they own the article and drive away editors, but I could not remain silent in the face of this injustice. I will also not get sucked in into this again. All I had to say, I already said it!. Worldedixor (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    Note: Worldedixor has an open (stale) RFC/U with a strong consensus for topic ban on Syrian Civil War/ISIL and a strong dislike for P123ct1 and myself for opening it. It has not yet been formally put in place however.~Technophant (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    Check the link - I fail to see a "strong consensus for a topic ban" - which goes to the OPs credibility in this action. Legacypac (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment I cannot let that biased comment from Worldedixor go unanswered. Please refer to RFC/U and the Talk page in particular. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Comment The RfC/U has been closed because of inactivity (although I think everything that could have been said had been said, so I'm not sure why that was the reason). Worldedixor has been trying to get several editors sanctions/blocked for some time without IMHO grounds. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment - this looks like a thorny question. I see some pages of discussion (which to be honest I didn't read carefully) but I don't see any clear vote where consensus was firmly established. Stronger enforcement is not a good substitute for a better consensus. Put ANI away for at least a week or two and get some third opinions; my thought though is you just say sources X Y Z call them jihadist and I J K disagree, and move on. Sometimes it really is better not to peek at the pig in the poke (not to argue the underlying philosophical point) when making this sort of decision. Wnt (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Support I essentially agree with P123ct1's description above regarding POV and OR. Gregkaye has removed jihadist calling it "terminology as bastardised by western media" in his edit summary. Many of us have shown that reliable sources in all newspapers use this word in a particular sense. He insists that Western sources are wrong and his particular Islamic sources should veto our usage. Stats show that jihadist and extremist are the most used terms. He rejects the former and says he can not "morally" allow its usage. As he has just said above "You stick with your values and I'll stick with mine" when it is a question of applying our common standards and not our personal values. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    I am more than satisfied with that description: http://www.minhaj.org/english/tid/12708/Shaykh-ul-Islam-Dr-Tahir-ul-Qadri-speaks-at-Global-PeaceUnity-Event-gpu-2010-Jihad-The-perception-and-the-reality.html Gregkaye 16:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    Jason from nyc What else is it? You mention a few sound bites and bypass any of the reasoning behind it. Jihad, according to Islamic sources, is a struggle for the ideals of Islam which may cover a has a wide range of meanings but not wide enough to cover many of the activities of a wide range of Islamic extremist groups. The word has deep religious connotations and yet many political and other commentators from around the world have taken up usage of the word to apply it largely to more extreme situations of abuse and violence. One of my comments was: "A further radicalisation of Islam that results from the false endorsement of murderers as being "jihadists" will result in a perpetuation of needless death. Its unqualified and needless use of this westernised wording is not something that I can support. I will not have blood on my hands." One of your comments was, "Jihadists do not follow Misplaced Pages" which completely misses the point and what "stats show" regarding the reach of this encyclopaedia. Misplaced Pages cannot be a soapbox for a the misrepresentative western interpretation of jihad. The "personal values" that I am presenting in reference to this murderous group are seemingly shared by the majority of the Islamic world. They want nothing to do with it. It's also worth comment that Worldedixor is one of the few Arabic users that we have. Gregkaye 05:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    The reasoning is (a) theological and (b) activist. You have an agenda to change the usage of the word jihadist as in jihadism when used in the English language in a restricted sense of armed struggle. We discussed this over and over: words have many meanings, jihad is not jihadism as Islam is not Islamism, etc. After long discussions you remind us of what you just said above, that in your opinion the common usage in English of jihadism leads to the ISIL's violence and it is your "jihad" to fight this usage even if you lose your editing rights. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    I have an agenda for the requirement of qualification for an unjustified justification of unjustified death. My arguments are valid and the cause is just. Gregkaye 03:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    How in the world did this become "your complaint"? You were never involved in the discussion. At most there is a technical 1RR and that wasn't intended. Discussions took place in the context of the talk page. Gregkaye 16:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Support Jason from nyc's comment. He nails it. RS dictate what we write, not a particular POV favored in some region of the world. We use the terms used in RS, mostly English ones (because this is the English Misplaced Pages), and English language sources use "jihadist" all the time, and document that these groups use the term themselves, when they encourage jihad. They identify with the term as their prime motive. Gregkaye may need a topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    In deciding the relevance of the use of Islamic wording in relation to an Islam related topic then Islamic sources may be considered to have some level of reliability - or would you prefer journalists etc. known as they are for the use of a wide variety of sensationalist spins to help them achieve their goals. Gregkaye 05:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    If Gregkaye is to be banned from editing then I would prefer it be a ban on editing the article directly; limited to making suggested edits on the Talk page. This may not stop his POV pushing (which is problematic), however it will prevent disruptive editing of the article.~Technophant (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you for editing back from "he".
    Very politic. Technophant's edit came not long after this constructive edit which somehow wasn't mentioned. Despite misrepresentation above I have not rejected the use of reference to "jihadism" but have stated that it needs qualification and that we cannot speak in Misplaced Pages's voice to sanction them in this way. I am honestly trying to find routes to resolution and, at any stage, would appreciate help. Gregkaye 07:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    Please drop the battleground tactics and consider my proposal above.~Technophant (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    If you dispute anything I have said then feel free to say what. For my part I dispute your claim of "edits that violate NPOV". All I am saying is that the questionable terminology "jihadist" should be given qualification. Above you claimed that a statement with basis was uncalled for and then added "You are just making yourself look bad". Meanwhile this thread is based on weak evidence with regard to which Wikidemon commented, "neither of you violated 1RR, which is why I called it a non-technical violation, meaning the spirit of things." Despite this my notifications indicator began blinking with rapid and prolonged regularity with "Technophant mentioned you" messages. You failed to mention my last edit. Absolutely I think by now I have every right to be wary but no, I don't bear a grudge. Gregkaye 08:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    I have no grudge against you. Have you read the comments from other editors here? There's a problem with your approach to editing and resolving disputes and unless you offer up a solution (and quickly) you will most likely face sanctions. I don't want to see you topic banned but that's what may need to happen.~Technophant (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    In that case I really have to question your motivation: when your last claim talks of need of a topic ban despite the context, as presented just three edits up the page in my 07:46, 21 October entry, you saw a link to a constructive and extremely unobtrusive edit for the page; when you have gone into a mass canvassing mode so as to promote this AN/I; when you have refused to answer my personal questions; when you placed content on my talk page that another editor independently highlighted as badgering which, despite repeated opportunities, you failed to remove; when you have placed prejudging links in connection to this page and when this isn't even your issue. Gregkaye 17:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment I am editing this article since two weeks ago approximately, and I don't know the editors, but I have seen what is happening. It is very clear that Gregkaye is disrupting this article removing the words he doesn't like to read, and messing it up by puting criticism on the Lead, just because of his subjective personal opinion (Jason from nyc nailed it). This is an encyclopedic article and should not be an opinion piece, as Misplaced Pages is not a platform for expressing personal opinions. Gregkaye has been warned several times, and he keeps disrupting this article. So I think something should be done to prevent disruptions. Felino123 (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Support Gregkaye has made positive contributions to the article, which makes it unfortunate that it has come to this, however we have discussed the Jihadist issue at great length and the consensus of other editors is clearly against his stance. Ideally we could all WP:MOVEON, however Gregkaye seems to be taking a very strong POV stance on this word usage which is not appropriate. Gazkthul (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Oppose While Gregkaye and I have disagreed on content, in my experience around ISIL articles he has been quite a positive contributor who works to reach consensus. Technophant on the other hand has been pushing the use of "Islamic State" even after consensus decided to use ISIL for the title and the article. I requested he stop so he put me on the Syria Civil War sanctions warning list in retaliation. The users here trying to keep an mention of criticisms out of the lead are just misguided. Darn near the entire world is upset with ISIL - a huge part of the story. Legacypac (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Comment Legacypac's criticism is based on a false premise. The ISIL/ISIS consensus had nothing to do with the use of "Islamic State". The discussion was over a move from "ISIS" to "ISIL" in the ISIS article's text and nothing more. Secondly, editors have not been against criticisms being in the Lead. The dispute was over what weight to give them and how to present them in the Lead. Sorry to keep chipping in, but there has been some serious misrepresentation in this AN/I. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Quick observation This edit shows that P123ct1 has changed their ANI comment after I, another editor, commented on it below, something that is not permitted by policy. This is not an attack. I am presenting to the closing admin a verifiable pattern of conduct. Worldedixor (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    Keeping a dossier on me again, Worldedixor? Lol! --P123ct1 (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    Both of these editors have made valued and verifiable contributions to Misplaced Pages as its dossier records clearly show. Gregkaye 03:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Support I am here since only two weeks ago, so I don't what contributions has Gregkaye done to this topic overall. If these contributions are important, then I appreciate them. But unfortunately we can not ignore his continuous disruptions of this article. When I criticized him for this, he answered that the opinion of imams about IS has much more value than the facts stated by the UN and Amnesty on their human rights reports on Iraq and Syria, because "Islamic criticisms" are "of more relevance than anything ". After this bizarre response, along with the info stated here by Jason from nyc, I can't believe he's editing objectively and in good faith. He's been warned several times, and he keeps disrupting this article. I think something should be done to prevent disruptions, given the fact that warnings and talking to him doesn't work. Felino123 (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Support Persistent POV-pushing, editing against consensus and disrupting the collaborative work of editors are having a bad effect on this article. all jeopardise the Misplaced Pages project. I have changed my mind about dispute resolution. I don't think it would work and support a topic ban, in order to protect all Syrian War-related articles. However, I am not at all sure what the best solution is here. I now think a topic ban would be too swingeing, as it would stop Gregkaye from making his otherwise valuable contributions to Syrian War-related articles. Some editors on the Help Desk (see my very first comment in this AN/I for the background) thought AN/I may not be the best approach and that some form of dispute resolution should be tried (no details given). --P123ct1 (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Support Gregkaye (talk · contribs · logs) has nothing to support his claims that the islamic state "isn't jihadist" and "isn't caliphate", his only argument about how "the muslims are against the islamic state" (the only point of his "arguments") are wrong from its core from few reasons:
    1. religions like islam has no absolute leadership that can renounce the islamic state in the name of the entire muslims world and islam itself.
    2. there is no islamic text(from the quran and other similar islamic texts) that can seperate the islamic state from other jihadists and caliphates.
    3. the islamic state has its own muslim and muslim scholars supporters.
    he choose which muslim is "authority" and gives him the authority only in what he himself agree about(like al qaradawi renouncing of shia, alawites and the islamic state), gregkaye relies on "authority" which relies on gregkaye himself.
    this is POV, period. and nobody can't deny it even if he ignore other of gregkaye's "arguments" about the islamic state's "morality" as it has anything to do with being jihadist or caliphate.
    gregkaye also have obvious hard feelings about them and i already told him on the argument of me with him that he has too much hate for them and that he can't see them in a neutral way.
    there is nothing that can serve as an excuse for his aggressive pushing of his POV, even if it wasn't aggressive at all cause wikipedia should be neutral at all cost. so what about the ridiculous accusations of "secret e-mails against Gregkaye" and the pointless talking about how much gregkaye has contributed to wikipedia?, do you get points that give you the right to push your POV? even if there was some "secret e-mails against gregkaye" that still doesn't gives him the right to force his POV.
    and by the way i began editing articles only when i joined the discussion(you can see my ip on my first comments to him) and i know gregkaye's opposers as much as i know gregkaye himself, so you can forget from the "secret e-mails" consipracy.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    You say: "1. religions like islam has no absolute leadership..." Thank-you, but when a significant section of Islam worldwide reject this murderous (non-jihad), Muslim killing (non-Jihad), territory hungry (non-jihad) group as being un-Islamic, then that has got to say something.
    You say: "2. there is no islamic text(from the quran and other similar islamic texts) that can seperate the islamic state from other jihadists and caliphates." Thank you. They say you "can prove anything with the Bible". The parallel phrase seems to be given a more limited use with the Quran but this does not necessarily place limits on the "interpretation of the quran". Show me a text that says that a Jihadist can be a murderer, a Muslim killer and territorially ambitious.
    You say: "3. the islamic state has its own muslim and muslim scholars supporters." Agreed. ISIL has its Islamic supporters and yet their view are very far from being contested within the Islamic world. Please look up Islamic interpretations of Jihad in a variety of sources and hopefully you will see the point.
    My conclusion has long been that we can't speak in an unqualified way in Misplaced Pages's voice and sanction this murderous group as being "jihadist". Misplaced Pages, as a neutral source of information, can say that the group is described as being jihadist. We might also put the word in quotes or add a footnote to the text so as to present religiously legitimised alternate views on jihad. The footnote is not intrusive and this is now quite literally a case of "to or not to be" which would be mind meltingly laughable were it not for the fact that, without some form of qualification, we will endorse this most extreme of extremist groups by use of the religious, Islamic terminology "jihadist". We will be unwitting participants in the further illegitimate radicalisation of Islam and people will die. You can claim such a statement as "aggressive pushing" if you like but, please, get some perspective. Gregkaye 08:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    Gregkaye stop writing random mumblings as a comment for what i am saying in order to make it look like you had some argument or anything serious to say:
    1.significant section of islam also consider shia and alawites as "heretics", it doesn't mean that you can use it to rewrite the defenition for jihad and caliphate and add new terms according to your own will. almost every caliphate and jihadist group has fought against other muslim groups and each one of them sought to expand their territory as much as they can.
    2.show me a text about any kind of jihadist/caliphate that didn't commited murder and wasn't "territorially ambitious". you should also show me the text that appoints you to be the supreme authority in islam and gives you the ability to rewrite and add new stuff to islam as you wish.
    3.you already provided an defenition of "jihad" but it has nothing to do with the difference between the islamic state and other caliphates and jihadistic groups, the only "point" in your comments is the new terms that you shove into islam in order to make it fit to your personal feelings on the islamic state organization.
    so how you talk about "conclusion" and "qualified"? who qualified you to rewrite islam? who qualified you to dictate the authority of every muslim over islam? you even rewrites history with the way you ignores some parts of it.
    that line defines gregkaye real point behind his senseless rhetoric: "We will be unwitting participants in the further illegitimate radicalisation of Islam and people will die", he think that wikipedia should join the fight against this organization or else more people will die, and this is obviously not the way wikipedia works and we shouldn't let people to push their POV just cause they think they are helping people by making wikipedia an un-neutral propaganda tool against the IS organization.

    --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

    • Quick Observation: I cannot tolerate injustice especially when I see a pattern of "selective" notification to influence a process. I, for example, was never notified of this ANI even though I was just 'one of the many' witnesses of Gregkaye's insightful contributions and his passionate dedication to the ISIS article. For the record, I am still not convinced of his Jihadist argument, yet I don't have sufficient knowledge or better arguments to convince him otherwise, but I won't just ban editors when I run out of logical arguments or because I don't like their approach to editing, or because he is in the way of my local consensus club of pals. If we want to address perceived disruption, we need to treat all disruptive behavior by all editors equally without any bias, let alone flagrant bias (especially those who bring forth any type of ANI with unclean hands, questionable credibility and a verifiable pattern of falsely asserting consensus and misleading well-meaning admins and editors with half truths).
    Most importantly, I just observed something worrisome that is also compromising the normal consensus decision of this ANI process. As per WP:CANVAS, "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." P123ct1 is one of Technopant's (very small) "Local tagteam consensus" club at the ISIS article, and they clearly intend to influence the outcome of this ANI in order to ban Gregkaye and get him out of their way. One example of her intent is her unsolicited and inappropriate attempt to dismiss Legacypac's comment above. So, I am reporting what I saw which can independntly be verified at (Specific Ref: WP:Votestacking), and I ask the closing admin to take it into consideration objectively. Worldedixor (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    returning edit, which had been moved without explanatory comment, to its original position.
    • Comment Worldedixor should have not been selective in his link. The full link to the exchange between Wheels of Steel0 and I shows that this is not canvassing but a continuation of an attempt made by both us, independently and each without knowledge of either having done so, to bring the very matter raised by this AN/I to the WP:Help Desk to get some guidance on the best way to proceed (their answer was inconclusive). Wheels of Steel0 specifically asks me in that exchange how the matter could be dealt with and I told him an ANI had been started. He is an inexperienced editor, as he said in that exchange, and was asking for help. This is really not the place to digress, but I cannot let these WP:PAs by Worldedixor on Technophant and I pass without comment. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    Had Worldedixor been editing the page (he hasn't for over a month), he would have seen the notice Technophant put on the Talk page about this AN/I. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment Worldedixor, why don't just read gregkaye's "arguments"? he has nothing to say other than giving every muslim he wants an authority that no muslim can have over islam and rewriting islamic terms and islam itself as he wishes. just read our argument her and/or on the talk page in the ISIS article.
    that line defines gregkaye real point behind his senseless rhetoric: "We will be unwitting participants in the further illegitimate radicalisation of Islam and people will die", he think that wikipedia should join the fight against this organization or else more people will die, and this is obviously not the way wikipedia works and we shouldn't let people to push their POV just cause they think they are helping people by making wikipedia an un-neutral propaganda tool against the IS organization.
    so what about stop attacking his opposers as "small group"?, gregkaye(and his one supporter that didn't participated in the discussion and infact has nothing to say on that matter other than blindly backing up gregkaye as a friend) are much smaller group of aggressive and pationate(as other people her has described him) POV pushers that act as if they own that article.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    Response I will gladly assume good faith as I don't have sufficient information to form an opinion of your conduct. I will also correct you. What you stated "gregkaye(and his one supporter that didn't participated in the discussion and infact has nothing to say on that matter other than blindly backing up gregkaye as a friend) are much smaller group of aggressive and pationate(as other people her has described him) POV pushers that act as if they own that article" is non-factual. You cannot lump me as a POV pusher when I clearly oppose his arguments on this particular matter and he has not yet convinced me, just as I oppose this ANI and banning editors who may be more knowledgeable than me in a certain area. I'd rather give them a non-confrontational, comfortable place to think with a clear mind, and give them the chance to improve their arguments, that may or may not influence me to support their contribution.
    The ISIL article is a very controversial and heated article, and I am perplexed that we don't have over a 1,000 new editors contributing their diversified and insightful knowledge to the ISIS article. I have my opinion on this but I will keep it to myself for the time being.Worldedixor (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    response Worldedixor i didn't called you a POV pusher, i talked about Legacypac which sided with gregkaye. and why you think that gregkaye know more than you about the subject? he has no special knowledge, he just pushing his POV aggressivly and count on that that people will just let him do whatever he wants.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    Response Now, your statement is clearer to me. I stand corrected. Worldedixor (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Quick Comment I remember vividly how clueless I was in my first few weeks on Misplaced Pages when I was a new inexperienced editor, eight years ago. I am extremely impressed how well versed Wheels of steel0, an inexperienced editor, is in Misplaced Pages affairs. Kudos.
    Also, P123ct1 has changed the order of Gregkaye's comment in an ANI without his permission . This is neither an attack nor a grudge. This is a statement of a verifiable fact of P123ct1's conduct. Worldedixor (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    Tangential discussion
    Innocent enough. Trying to put three comments in their proper time sequence. Gregkaye informed. Original order restored. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    What's so innocent about your writing "RfC/U - The worm has turned.", PA and WP:CANVAS at ? I have shown a verifiable pattern of your conduct in this ANI and, at this point, not only am I no longer interested in contributing my knowledge to the ISIL article, I will also recuse myself from this ANI because I clearly do not see editors sanctioned equally when it comes to policy violations. I am out of here!... Worldedixor (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Important Observation This edit shows a P123ct1's conduct that is inconsistent with policy in this ANI. This is not an attack, this is a verifiable pattern of P123ct1's conduct.Worldedixor (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    (removed my comment not relevant to AN/I) --P123ct1 (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

    Objections

    In regard to Technophant's summary as presented above, the first edit clearly shows, contrary to the claim, "inserted paragraph into lead", that the edit involved a simple movement of text. The content, which had previously been placed as the second paragraph of the lead, was returned to this position. Technophant's additional claims that I have 'ferventaly argued against the use of the word "jihadist"' are laughable. As he will have read, and as his edit summary shows, this is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. In fact one of the effects of my edit was to take the presentation of Jihadist and to correct the grammar to jihadist,. Technophant also failed to present my actual argument which has always been that a declaration of ISIL as being jihadist should be qualified. The simple fact is that a large portion of the world's Muslim population have a view of Jihad that is far distant from the one held, in or out of Iraq and Syria, by supporters of the ISIL government. As a result I have consistently argued it is in contravention of NPOV to use Misplaced Pages's voice so as to endorse the group as having a religious validation that is in dispute. I have since suggested an extremely unobtrusive format of footnoting that can be used to create a more balanced overall picture. In all my dealings on the talk page I have treated people with relevant respect. There is nothing in Misplaced Pages's guidelines against the presentation of opinion on talk pages and certainly not when a reasoned case is presented. I do not object to accusation of pushing POV (hardly an issue on a talk page) but take serious exception when the accusation comes from an editor who uses a variety of spins to promote his. Gregkaye 10:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

    Gregkaye why can't you understand that the whole way you treat islam as a group with monolithic leadership and guidance is wrong from its core?, you talk about "view" of jihad but don't understand that the muslims you talk about can't realy seperate the jihad of the islamic state from other groups(like caliphates) who claimed to do jihad, their only objection to the islamic state is cause of non-religios factors like social pressure and arab goverments propaganda which obviously would be against a caliphate without any relation to its "religious validation". and for that "religious validation" you gave NOTHING to disprove their religious legitimacy as jihadist or caliphate but only talked on the opinion of some muslims and gave them special authority according to your will, and the main fact that made your rhetoric useless on that matter is not the fact that you give them authority which they can't have but the fact that you want to use it only when it fits to your opinion and obviously wouldn't agree to use that proposed "muslim majority" on articles about islamic factions like shia and alawites.
    i respect your resistance to the islamic state, but you need to understand that you can't use the opinion of some muslims in order to force YOUR opinion on some article. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    Wheels of steel0 why can't you respond appropriately and in relevant locations to the actual content of the thread. None of the above comments apply to the content that followed the emboldened title "Objections".
    I had stated: "The simple fact is that a large portion of the world's Muslim population have a view of Jihad that is far distant from the one held, in or out of Iraq and Syria, by supporters of the ISIL government." Your non-reply fails to address this point.
    Did you place these repetitions of previously mentioned content at this point with intent? Gregkaye 12:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    Gregkaye "Your non-reply fails to address this point" are you even reading my comments to you? like seriously? i commented on your pointless pseudo-arguments over and over and you still don't get it that your rhetoric of mentioning the opinion of some muslims(even as "the majority") as a proof for anything is just stupid and pointless. and it doesn't matter where i comment to you as long as you can see it, now all what you need is to stop with your ridiculous and pointless rhetoric as a defence for your aggressive POV pushing.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    Of course I am. Again: Did you place these repetitions of previously mentioned content at this point with intent? Gregkaye 16:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Support a very, very limited topic ban: where Gregkaye seems to run into to trouble is with attempting to force prescriptive definitions of words. The same thing happened over at Talk:Antisemitism. According to him Jihad (or whatever other word is the subject) originally meant something, and it can never be reappropriated. This is not how languages work, and it is not our role as compilers of an encyclopedia to second-guess the use of terminology by reliable sources. Since Greg does not seem able to get this particular point, I would support a topic ban on all discussions related to the definition or usage of specific words. This would allow Greg to contribute in all the other areas in which he is generally productive. Oppose a broader topic ban, as the level of disruption does not warrant it. VQuakr (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    VQuakr, you are being disingenuous. As you know there was no "attempting to force prescriptive definitions of words" at Talk:Antisemitism. My interventions were to point out the clear weaknesses of "anti-Semitic" terminologies (based, as they are, on a misnomer) and, for instance, stated that, "Sensible terminologies include: Anti-Jewish, Anti-Jewish sentiment, Anti-Jewish racism, Persecution of Jews, Anti-Judaism and Anti-Zionism". As you know I also clearly stated: "yes the word is in exclusive use for the Jews. So is the word "Jews". Why not use terms like Anti-Jewish sentiment when possible. My simple suggestion is, where possible, editors seriously consider the use of terminologies that are not misnomers in preference for terms that give clearer representation of their subject." I have not argued for a redefinition of "anti-Semitic" terminologies but have rather pointed out their clear failings. At no point have I been involved in edit warring and at no point have I said that the terminologies are not exclusive to the jews. However, searches such as on the word "semites" in the talk:Antisemitism archives just goes to illustrate confusions raised by this particularly highly promoted word usage. However, in my view the use of "anti-Semitic" terminologies places less direct threat to human life (not that this topic ever came up) than the threat to human life that I contest is indirectly posed by the unqualified endorsement of ISIL, a widely alleged wayward group, as being "jihadist". This, as far as I am concerned, is the difference.
    Your misrepresentations have previously extended involved edits and an unsubstantiated personal attack. This one remarkably came in the context of your focus on the recognisability aspect of WP:UCRN as displayed in the text of talk:Antisemitism.
    In my dealings with Jewish issues I have always advocated the taking on of responsibility by all sides but, whenever possible, through the minimum of embarrassment. This is born out in that, when I was getting to grips with the issue of the "min threads = 3" archive issue at talk:antisemitism I even contacted you privately to enquire about options. Amendments to archive settings were presented on the talk page and yet, despite your clear knowledge of the talk page content, you failed to give notification when you unilaterally reverted to a setting of three threads. I find it distasteful that your misrepresentations continue here and suspect further motives of curtailing discussion. Gregkaye 11:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    (a) who left this comment? (b) did they read the discussion? It concerned removal of the word "jihadist", not "jihad". Big difference. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    Its a further indication, if it were needed, of the biased and erroneous presentation of this AN/I. Gregkaye 12:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

    User J Greb harassment

    Long version:
    • Harassment -- Valkyrie Red, it is not inappropriate for J Greb to look through your edits if they believe there are repeated issues that need fixing. To quote from the relevant policy, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." The situation would change if it was a bad-faith pursuit of your edits, but there's no immediate evidence that that is so.
    • Deletion process -- J Greb - Ansh666 and Oiyarbepsy are right that deletion of redirects as "unneeded" is not permitted under the CSD criteria. R3 is for implausible typos, and the only other options are the standard G1-3 - some of VR's redirects (for example Highest grossing film) don't fall into any of these and, I believe, should go to RfD for wider discussion.
    • Civility -- Whoever raised the "douchebag" comment in the thread, it was made in 2011 so let's let it go. Valkyrie Red, the September talkpage post was uncivil, I appreciate you were annoyed but please don't do this again.

    Short version:

    • Nothing here requiring admin tools, just some tedious advice:
      • Some of Valkyrie Red's redirects were unlikely and some were misdirected - Valkyrie Red, please review future redirects to avoid these issues recurring.
      • Some of J Greb's deletions seem out of process - J Greb, please consider RfD instead of CSD for technically valid but potentially unneeded redirects. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

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


    The user: J Greb has constantly been reverting any edits I do simply because they were done by me. An example is I created a redirect for the Caitlin Snow version of Killer Frost, like we do with all alter egos of most other comic book characters (Clark Kent being a prominent exception). And he deleted it, the reasoning being "sigh" (here). I seriously hope that isn't considered a proper justification by Misplaced Pages standards. Also note that there is no other Misplaced Pages page called Caitlin Snow, so there was no unstated disambiguation reasoning.

    Another example is I created a redirect to The Flash (2014 TV Series) page called Flash 2014, and he deleted that. My reasoning behind it was that not many fans would want to type such a long title to search for the show, so I thought this would be helpful. But he didn't even talk with me about it- just deleted it right off the bat.

    Now, I might as well talk about what I posted on his talk page since it'll no doubt be brought up. I was going through a tough time and I happened to see we'd had a conflict of interest in the past on my own talk page. I regret doing this, but I posted on his talk page that I hated him and that no doubt convinced him to start watching my edits. He looked through my edit history reverted a bunch of redirects I had created. I'm not complaining about those b/c he did post on my talk page why they violated the rules, but it does add to the point of harassment.

    I'm not complaining about all the decisions he does because some of them are reasonable, like when he told me I had messed up changing the Dances with Wolves and General Zod page pictures.

    I doubt I'll be successful in this since he's an administrator, but let me just say this. All the edits I do as of late are done in good faith. I hope you don't see these minor additions/redirects as vandalism because I swear that is not my intent. And I do make mistakes like every other user, but that doesn't mean I deserve a watchdog who just deletes anything I do, and only occasionally talks about it. I beg you not to see this as vandalism and assume good faith. Thank you for your time.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

    You give a single example of a reversion (indeed, deletion) that you don't like: having "Caitlin snow" (small "s") redirect to one part of a longish article. If I understand right, "Caitlin Snow" (large "S") appears in two issues of one comic, so it's not obvious that the name is very important, though I'll grant that "sigh" is an inadequate comment for the redirect's deletion. Anyway, without the redirect, looking for the name shows people where to go. How about your creation of, say, The bike thief (a redirect to Bicycle Thieves, subsequently deleted); why did you create it? -- Hoary (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    Not being able to see deleted contributions, I can't judge all of VR's created redirects (J Greb's log - I can see the titles, but not where they linked to, nor who created them, I'm assuming they're all VR's until told otherwise). The two given as examples here make sense, as well as many of those in the log, and I would likely have made some of them had I thought of them first. R3 certainly does not apply to many of them - IIRC from a prior discussion about it, generally if at least one person genuinely thinks it's "obvious", R3 shouldn't be used (WP:CHEAP and all). The deletion rationales aren't exactly good, either: R3: Recently created, implausible redirect: Not so much "implausible" but thourolghy unneeded (which isn't R3 at all); Unneeded implausable redirect (doesn't mention R3, but that's nitpicking, I know); Really? Again?, Sigh, Same, and a blank one, which only make sense when viewing the user logs. Just my take on the situation, as an outsider. ansh666 07:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    @Ansh666: here is a list of all VR's pages, including deleted redirects. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 14:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    Without being able to see where they used to link to, it's still kind of useless. I mean, most of them are guessable, but still. ansh666 16:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    • For whatever reason the link given by GS Palmer doesn't actually have ALL Valkyrie's deleted redirects, and is missing such gems as Harry potter 7 1. Having looked at the deleted redirects and spot-checked a few, they appear to be pretty illogical and unhelpful to say the least. For example, Twilight 1 to Twilight (2008 film) (the movie, not the book, which would have made at least some sense). Since there are dozens of redirects of similar quality, some going back years, I can understand some exasperation on J Greb's part in having to deal with this, especially as your actions toward them range from sniping to all-out personal attacks, the latter of which occurred on an IP's talk page! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
      • You say pretty illogical and unhelpful, but I disagree. I think many of them (the two you mentioned, for example, though the point about book vs movie is valid) make sense. ansh666 19:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
        • You've every right to disagree, but I'm not seeing it. Being a moderate fan of Harry Potter I've never seen the 7th movie referred to as "Harry potter 7 1", and a quick Google doesn't show this as a common name for it either. Besides, I think you're (possibly deliberately) ignoring the point, in that Valkyrie Red's personal attacks on J Greb are completely unacceptable. Maybe you're on some Bizarro World version of Misplaced Pages where it's totally okay to call an editor a "big fat douche bag" and then run to ANI claiming they're harassing you, but the rest of us aren't. That isn't going to fly here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Most of the redirects VR creates are search related. This covers the fan-think redirects, the malformed capitalization, and the niche fan acronyms. While CHEAP - short essay that it is - makes a good point about keeping most redirects, the intent of those is primary for in article use, either creating links without including pipes or preserving links for pages that have been moved or merged. What VR creates will almost never be used that way (I think I came across a grand total of one). This has been brought up to them, and brushed off. While I do believe they sees what they're doing as a service, it isn't. It's a mess. It's for the most part creation of useless pages that spam the search window and makes it harder to find things. And no, that is not vandalism thorough maliciousness, but it is thoughtless.

      Now there is something to be said in favor of redirects for the alter egos for characters that are likely to be used. But the editor(s) creating them should think through what they're doing. Using the correct title format for the redirect is one. "Caitlin Snow", "Caitlin snow", "caitlin Snow", and "caitlin snow" generate one hit in the search box. That is with two of the versions currently up as a redirect. So, the benefit of keeping the mangled version is what exactly? Beyond that, the mangled version has no links aisde from this ANI. And the correctly formatted one has a worse problem. That is unless fictional characters are now competing in real world events. Maybe if VR or NE2 had looked first that wouldn't be an issue.

      The reasoning for having the above though doesn't translate to fan-shorthand for films or TV or for getting rid of portions of the proper title. "The Flash 2014" generates the search result VR wants, there isn't a reason to remove the "The". And Starblind already point out the problem with cases of one shorthanding being valid for two or more articles.

      Last thing since VR brought it up. their changing of infobox images tend to be in the vein of editing the file that is already there, rather than uploading under a new name. They do this without updating the FUR and general using image sized well beyond what is acceptable. Without thinking they create a situation where not only the image they add, but the entire file page becomes a valid target of removal. It also seems to be a method to avoid discussing the change - editors watching the article will see the change in their watch list if the filename is changed, they won't if the file us just uploaded over.

      - J Greb (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

    -->With regards to the personal attacks, I was blocked for those a long time ago so I have served my time. And I also admitted that I messed up with the images, so I don't know why that's being used against me. And using absolute statements like "never" reflects more on your own personal thinking than the general public.Valkyrie Red (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

    Just popping in as an uninvolved outsider - Not a single redirect that has been mentioned here should have been deleted without discussion. None, period. These deletions are not only wrong, they are wronger than wrong. I suggest that Greb take a voluntary break from speedy deletions for a month, and learns more about redirects for discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

    Thank you Mr. Oiyarbepsy.Valkyrie Red (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    outing and disruption by Ips

    There are IPs following me around, outing me and another uses background and claiming we are "anti-Semites"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Birthright_Unplugged&action=history

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ein_Qiniyye&action=history

    --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

    How exactly are they "outing" you? Number 57 15:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    I assume it's the IPs statement that they are from Syria, seen in edit summaries on both pages. I don't give IPs a lot of credibility, though, and Supreme, it seems, has kinda outted themself by confirming the IPs comment. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    Yeah. Supreme is digging himself a hole here.... Epicgenius (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    Unless it's true that you are an anti-Semite from Syria, it is just pure IP vandalism/trolling. Don't dwell on it. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    The same troll is now attacking me as an " anti-Semitic self-hating communist" (not true, needless to say), and clearly has a large supply of IPs to edit from. RolandR (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    More WP:OR immediately following a block

    Kkm010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Following this discussion only two weeks ago, Kkm was blocked for edit-warring and for unapologetically adding his own original research and "analysis" to various corporate articles. Even while the discussion was ongoing, Kkm continued to make the same sort of edits. He was blocked for that and for edit-warring to keep his original research in various articles.

    Immediately following his return to editing, he added exactly the same type of original research (raw financial data, disingenuously cited with his own interpretations) to two different articles. I reverted both edits and warned him for those. My reverts were reverted, but with the addition of slightly better sources. But Kkm is at it again, adding the same Google Finance data, calling it an "annual report" and using the raw data to extrapolate year-on-year financial results.

    There was a commitment from Kkm during the last ANI discussion that he would discontinue his OR spree. That commitment was obviously as disingenuous as his sourcing. I really don't know what else to do - I've tried warning, discussing, reverting, discussing again, discussing here (for which he was blocked) and more warning. What is it going to take for this disruptive behaviour to be stopped? St★lwart 10:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

    It's pretty well established that adding (or subtracting ) numbers together isn't OR. He can show where he got the numbers from, and unless the contention is that google's unreliable, he's doing nothing more that basic addition or subtraction. This doesn't appear to be OR. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    You've lost me. It was established that what he was adding was original research in the last ANI discussion and he agreed to stop doing it. The block was for original research. But he's back at it. It's not simply a matter of "adding (or subtracting) numbers". He's posting raw financial data, extrapolating results and claiming the data is in fact an annual report from the company in question. Completely false. The reliability of Google isn't in question - it's not a source published by Google at all; it's the raw search results Kkm got when he plugged the stock exchange code into Google. The issue here is not the acceptability of the edits themselves (it was established they were completely unacceptable and even Kkm agreed as much while at the same time pleading ignorance). The issue is that the IDHT attitude has continued beyond the original block. St★lwart 11:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    Stalwart111, looking at the page he linked to shows the numbers he says are there, and where he says increase or decrease, it's obvious that that indeed is what it is. He's not making up numbers, nor is he comparing source a to source b and coming up with C. He's reporting the numbers on the website (which is google finance) and stating if it's an increase or a decrease. That portion is not OR. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Perhaps this shouldn't be qualifies as the "Annual Report" which is an actual document likely produced by the company and Google Finance does not (as far as I saw) claim to be directly reproducing that report. There may be an issue of if Google Finance is an RS for this type of thing, but assuming it is, the increase/decrease stuff clearly falls within WP:CALC Gaijin42 (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    • As Gaijin42 said, it is also disingenuous to call the Google finance search an Annual Report. Anyone who is familiar with financial parlance would know that an Annual Report is released by the company and includes far more than just the numerical data for cash flow, etc. As it is now, the labeling is misleading to the reader as to the true provenance of that source. Blackmane (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    • As I said on Kosh's talk page - I have no real interest in re-prosecuting the case against Kkm. That was well established in the last thread about exactly the same behaviour. There is no "annual report" - that's an invention of Kkm's who is trying to pass his interpretation (or calculation) of financial results off as the work of the company itself or Google Finance. The sources in question are not either of those things. The issue here is an editor returning after a block and thumbing his nose at the community by immediately re-starting the same sort of editing that got him blocked in the first place. If consensus has changed in the last two weeks and Kkm's actions are no longer a blockable offence (which seems strange without considerable community discussion) then I'll move on and stop putting effort into stopping what is obviously disruptive behaviour. St★lwart 22:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    Err, "There is no annual report...." What's the link he's referring to ? The link shows a report on google finance for that company. It's not an invention by Kkm , unless you want to claim that he put together an OR report, then somehow got google finance to carry it ? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    What? Where is the report? Annual report means something specific - something a long way away from that which Kkm calls, "2014 Annual Report". ZTE. Retrieved 2014-03-19. Besides the obviously wrong date and wrong attribution, the link isn't to an "Annual Report" at all - it's to a set of google search results - a raw Google Finance data sheet for the company that you get by plugging the relevant stock exchange code into google and hitting "search". It's not an "Annual Report" by any stretch of the imagination (it's not even a published "report" in any sense of the word) and includes specific disclaimers (from Google) that it's not what Kkm claims it to be. You'd get the same data by walking into a stock exchange and copying down the numbers from the board. There is not a single part of that citation which is honest and genuine - every part of it is false. Kkm knows this, has been warned about this and has edit-warred to keep this sort of thing in article to the point where he was blocked. And he's at it again. St★lwart 12:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    That link actually has the quarterly and annual data for that particular company, and he's accurately reporting what the numbers say in that annual report without any calculations. Time to drop it Stalwart, there's no OR here. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 13:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    As with his editing, your calling it a "report" doesn't make it one and search results with not hint of WP:RS doesn't qualify as a "source". As on your talk page, I genuinely can't work out whether you're just trolling to get a rise out of people or whether you don't understand what's going on. Right now, your are the ONLY person suggesting these are acceptable sources and edits (even Kkm has given up on that ridiculous line). Do you actually think Kkm's conduct (which even he has vowed to discontinue) and editing (which even he has reverted) is acceptable? St★lwart 00:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    As with his editing, your calling it a "report" doesn't make it one and search results with not hint of WP:RS doesn't qualify as a "source" ' Stalwart, I'm hardly trolling. On the page in question I see a link to google finance, which is not some fringe blog, nor is it a forum, nor is it a user-supplied reference, it appears to be reliable as well. I also see KKM reporting what the page says, without attempting to combine source and with source b to create c, nor do I see him attempting to analyze data, he accurately reports what the annual numbers are (they're actually there on google finance ) , whether it's advancing or declining is obvious, so no, there is no OR. You've offered no evidence of such, so , once again, time to drop it and move on, it's not OR KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    Just. Plain. Wrong. Nobody suggested it was a "blog" or a "forum" and that's a pointless straw-man. Calling it a "link to Google Finance" is disingenuous - they are just raw search results. Of course its user-generated - you get the same by plugging any stock exchange code into Google or any other word into Google and copy-pasting the URL after hitting "search". It's not even a "source", let alone a reliable one. Google didn't "publish" the content - a search engine tool automatically extracts the data and presents it in that format. If I type "Harry Potter" into Amazon's search engine, the results wouldn't constitute a "report" or a "source, published by Amazon". And again, you're the only person here who thinks its a legitimate source - you're still digging; alone in your hole. Even Google warns against using the results in the way you're advocating. St★lwart 12:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    Stalwart, that corpse is beginning to stink, please back away from it. |google finance is not user-contributed data, it's the financial data available in any 8K report (I work in the fiance industry ). It's not a search engine, it's a report. Yes it's reliable , if you believe otherwise prove it otherwise stop beating the horse, it died a long time ago. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    That's not even... you just don't... Facepalm Facepalm. Your capacity and willingness to argue in the face of overwhelming (like... 0% support for your position) consensus is astonishing. I don't know what you're trying to achieve here but I'm starting to gain an understanding of how the extensive note on the top of your talk page came about. St★lwart 21:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    • As with the last thread, Kkm has refused to explain himself either here or on his talk page (last time we got broken English contributions demanding we explain what he had done wrong, even while he undid his own edits). Nothing here at all. But again, Kkm has quietly acknowledged the issue, reverting himself and replacing the "source". Surely fortnightly ANI reports is an inefficient way of preventing disruption? Can we get some admin action here? Dare I ping DP whose warnings Kkm is ignoring? St★lwart 13:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, you made that commitment "earlier" and then you were blocked. And you've done it 3 times since your block. We obviously shouldn't have believed you last time. Why should we believe you now? St★lwart 04:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    That is why I need your help. Just remind me where I have failed to put original source I will immediately replace it. Don't worry to much about it, just relax take it easy brother.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 06:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    The problem is, nobody should need to remind you. You've been blocked for it before, isn't that reminder enough? (I don't have firsthand experience, though, so maybe not...) ansh666 06:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

    Stalwart, you appear to be the only person arguing that his postings are OR. You further claim (up a bit higher in this same area) that Google finance is somehow unreliable and is user-generated. You mentioned the disclaimer - and you're right to do so, google doesn't verify the numbers. However, did you see the first part Data is provided by financial exchanges . It's not user generated, and thus reliable. You claim it isn't, I am stating that it is reliable and that no OR is being done on this , he's posting what the numbers say and the "increase " and "decrease" is obvious, and not OR per WP:CALC. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

    • Financial data and analysis for annual reports most definitely do not fall under WP:CALC. Google results are not reliable sources, annual reports are either from the company or from a 3rd party financial reliable source. Perhaps there should be a discussion on the article Talk pages on how best to update corporate financial numbers. Dave Dial (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • KoshVorlon, his block was for original research so your claim is patently false. He returned after his block to do the same thing. You're free to call it something else (believing that it falls within the confined of CALC, though it clearly doesn't) but that doesn't make it any less disruptive, unrepentant, and blatant. St★lwart 02:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

    "Virtual" range block

    Hi there, I would like to bring up a case of user blocking whose circumstances or implications may have been overlooked by the blocking admins. Please note, this is not necessarily an appeal to the block. I'd just like to hear your views, if there are any precedents and hopefully work towards a solution.

    The company in question (250,000 employees) has a policy of somehow having all outgoing web traffic from all employees' browsers spoofed as one single IP address, 171.161.160.10. As a result, inevitably, some rotten apples gave all other users a bad name. I would argue that, given the scale, blocking this IP address is tantamount to a range block.

    Thanks for your kind attention. 31.185.133.188 (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

    Seems to be a long term issue with this IP. The rule is not to avoid range blocks but to use them carefully.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    It's standard procedure at large companies to have a single outward-facing IP address. As pointed out on the talk page for 171.161.160.10 (talk · contribs), the solution is to create a registered user ID. The user's refusal to do so does not inspire good faith. ←Baseball Bugs carrots12:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    I think this line of thinking is missing the point. This is not a one-user problem. The fact that one user cannot or doesn't want to register is immaterial. We are talking about 250,000 potential contributors being blocked, and Misplaced Pages missing out as a result. Why do we have to be careful with range blocks? Same kind of considerations should apply here, that's all I'm saying. Currently the account is on a 2-year block from editing and account creation. 31.185.133.188 (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    Is it impacting you or anyone you know? ←Baseball Bugs carrots20:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    This has happened before, when we blocked an entire country by blocking a single IP. The conclusion was to block for short amounts of time and allow for registered accounts. https://en.wikipedia.org/User:82.148.97.69/header <- The IP of Qatar (no joke). Tutelary (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    This isn't Qatar. This is a corporate IP. It seems to be having problems off wikipedia as well. They can register an account and the problem for them is gone.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    OK, so there are both good eggs and bad apples that edit under that IP address. The IP address gets blocked because of the bad apples. The IP address will continue to get blocked because of the bad apples. This will not change.
    As far as I can see, the only solution to this problem is just what Bugs and Serialjoe have already said: the "250,000 potential contributors" should create accounts and ask for Misplaced Pages:IP block exemption. It really is just that simple. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    The original position that this is a corporate proxy funneling multiple users is likely correct. Similar IPs are blocked regularly based on the frequency of problematic editing. These blocks are almost always 'anonymous-only' and have no impact on accounts who choose to edit from school/work. There seems to be some hand-waving over the potential pool of editors behind the IP in this instance under the presumption that BoA is funneling every one of their 250k employees across the world to this one choke point. This is not the case; there are hundreds of IPs allocated BoA, many of which draw large numbers of edits without incident, and some of which get blocked in a similar fashion (ex: 171.159.194.11 (talk · contribs), 199.43.32.99 (talk · contribs), 171.159.194.10 (talk · contribs)). The segmentation strategy for those IPs is unknown, but I've seen some companies allocate pools to public facing terminals that can be used by anyone (see Best Buy) which may explain the odd distribution of problematic edits. I respect that the original requester has a hang-up about registering an account which would instantly solve his issue. Another option may be to request your IT/corporate communications contacts to swap you to another outgoing IP which has less of a history of abuse. Kuru (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    Disruptive editing by user Mayasutra

    This user recently edited a talk page comment about him/her-self from another user (happens to be an admin) to refer to another editor . S/he has been warned for edit-warring on his talk page and continues to pile comments in talk page with no progress. Four editors have tried to address his/her concerns with me being the latest one. Talk page section where s/he explicitly refuses to engage in discussion. S/he made edit that changed content while noting explicitly in the edit summary "No change in content." S/he says Admin Bgwhite has assigned Joshua Jonathan to handle this. Mayasutra notified. @Joshua Jonathan, Bladesmulti, and Abecedare: ping. --AmritasyaPutra 13:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

    I was already wondering; I thought I'd changed my comment, but it was reverted (or so) by Mayasutra. By the way, Bgwhite only wrote "follow JJ's advice"; he didn't assign me any "task". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think that it is actually actionable, lets hear from Mayasutra first. Commenting on the current situation, I would give this a few days before deciding anything. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    Better to have a look at what AmritasyaPutra kept repeating. This is already being resolved by Joshua Jonathan (handling issues pointwise). Am sorry I misunderstood BgWhite's instruction. Anyways, moving on, hoping Blade and Abe provide sources for the remaining issues. JJ, your advice on India talk page is well taken.--Mayasutra (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

    Wooeyparks repetitively reverting and readding their own edits

    Wooeyparks (talk · contribs) has been adding, deleting or reverting "Gakuen Basara (Yukimura Sanada)" (and sometimes other lines, or subheading names) over and over again. For example there's maybe 50 edits like these a, b, c in the Hiro Shimono page history. It almost looks like an automated process, except that some edits are mobile edits? The only reason I can think they might be doing this is to try and increase their edit count.

    I've identified at least 5 other articles where there is this similar repetitive editing pattern by Wooeyparks: Mamoru Miyano, Nobuhiko Okamoto and (perhaps less extensively) Junichi Suwabe, Kazuyuki Okitsu and Katsuyuki Konishi. I suspect there are more, less-easy-to-identify examples (These ones were either on my watchlist, or I recognised "Gakuen Basara" or "Vomics" being changed). The gaps between edits sometimes span days, and Wooeyparks' contributions show that they alternate between articles, and Wooeyparks often contributes legitimate edits as well as these strange repetitive ones.

    I contacted Wooeyparks on their talk page and they deleted my first post . I then contacted them again, and a 3rd time after 3 weeks. They deleted those posts along with others .

    Apologies if this request is in the wrong place. I don't know if their edits are necessarily against guidelines. It's edit warring I guess? But with themselves? Given that they haven't responded to me, I thought Misplaced Pages:Third Opinion might not be suitable. I don't know. Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Please advise—Msmarmalade (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    Possible conflict of interest regarding Coodie & Chike

    I am being very careful about this notice. I'm not sure how to handle it myself so I'm posting it here.
    Coodie Rock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been active since July 2013. Since than has done 6 edits, all of them related to a filmmaker named Coodie. All of the changes were marked as minor though they are obviously not so.
    I think the single issue this user is dealing with, together with the similarity of the username, warrants further looking into by an experienced editor in order to rule out conflict of interest.
    Thank you. Ehudzel (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

    You could just ask them, explain our guidelines on COI editing and then use the WP:COIN board if there is no/negative response. The article is really in need of a lot of work but seems to pass notability and should be reasonably easy to further reference since the “Window Seat” video did get a lot of news coverage and seems to pass notability for mention in the article and is one of the artist's major works I believe.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

    A deletion spree by an user

    Why should I have a User Name? (talk · contribs) has been on a deleting spree for quite some months now. His AfD stats are troublesome (see here). 49 Delete votes as opposed to 1 keep vote. 75 AfD nominations in a matter of two months. The AfD results were mostly kept. Shouldn't there be some oversight for such activity? Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

    Shouldn't you post an ANI notification on their talk page?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    What's actually wrong with this users AfD's? I can't see an issue with them voting to delete articles 500 times and voting to keep only once. I also don't see an issue with one user posting 500 articles to AfD in two month and the results being mostly to keep. Do you see an actual issue with their nominations besides the sheer number of them?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    On the surface, I disagree with User:EtienneDolet. Stats do not prove there is a problem. The average person participating in AFD is going to !vote delete because most people who nom at AFD aren't doing it for spurious reasons. That said, reading through WSIHAUN's contributions there, I am seeing a lot of "per <name>" rationales and just a lot of laziness. Some of the comments by WSIHAUN show a lack of competence. Frankly, I think it's reasonable to ask WSIHAUN to participate somewhere else for awhile.--TP (alt) 00:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    The wikitool EtienneDolet posted isn't loading for me. I went to the contributions but very few. If the greater amount of AfD's are like this then it might be best if they choose to slowdown for a while. A user 'Speednat' eventually told what the the duplicate article was. I'm not sure I would have found that article. It also seems as if this AfD might have been a duplicate AfD. Also he asks that the duplicate article be deleted as well without actually offering a reason.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    The mentioned user boasted: "I PROD or AfD anybody whose article is undersourced and make no distinction about their nationalities or anything else", as if it were a good thing. With that said, I just don't find the user's aim on Misplaced Pages constructive, it's quite the opposite. His insistence on having articles as many articles deleted without attempting to improve them or by merely placing constructive and often times necessary tags is quite troubling. The articles he nominates are often times easily savable (i.e. Haroutioun Hovanes Chakmakjian). For example, I've done my utmost to have this one article saved, but what about the rest? As TParis (talk · contribs) mentioned, a lot of these nominations are not only laziness but incompetent. Some troubling AfDs that come into my mind are Hotel_Føroyar, Nick Baird, Bashir III. At Nick Baird, his attitude is particularly concerning. He was quite aggressive towards an user who simply wanted to userify an article:

    Troutman, how are you going to rehab it? Do you know the gentleman personally? Did you work with him, as a diplomat or a journalist and you know how he achieved outstanding notability?

    @Serialjoepsycho: that website is helpful, but it takes awhile to load. However, it will load eventually. It's a really bad server. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • The statistics themselves are not really an issue. WSIHAUN's opinion in deletion discussions is, according to those statistics, consistent with community consensus about 72% of the time. That's reasonably high. The majority of the outliers are where he voted to delete something that was ultimately kept. But many users consider themselves either "deletionist" or "inclusionist" and that record would be consistent with the former. While there might be some concerning examples, we should be careful not to cherry-pick. There are also several examples where he was "brought around" and withdrew his nomination - eg. 1 and 2. Believing that things should be deleted is not a punishable offence and the nominations (while defended/argued strongly) don't seem to be pointy or pointless. St★lwart 07:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    • As an example, Étienne Dolet, your AFD contributions are consistent with community consensus only 53% of the time. St★lwart 07:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

    User:Levente 2

    I hate to do this, and I hope this is the best place, but User:Levente 2 is being a bit of a drain. The problem is he's apparently young, Hungarian, and cannot speak English. But he doesn't see that as an impediment to creating new articles in English or adding to existing articles - I think he's just using Google Translate or something similar. Nyiregyháza-Záhony railway (which I've proposed for deletion) is by far his best contribution, but it's largely incomprehensible - everything else is already deleted or reverted. Another problem is that he inserts low-quality photos that don't really add anything - his latest was replacing a higher-quality photo with a lower-quality one. I've tried to talk to him, but he can't understand what I'm saying - and I can't understand what he's saying either. He's wasting people's time, he's wasting his own time, and is simply incapable of contributing in English right now. Ideally if anyone can speak Hungarian they might be able to persuade him to go away and stick to the Hungarian Misplaced Pages, but I think he really does need to be stopped here. Neatsfoot (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

    WP:COMPETENCE is required. Their English is too poor to write an article. Their English also too poor to effectively communicate what they are trying to say so other editors can assist them. Unfortunately this makes their activity disruptive.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    His current English is defo. way below even the average level of Hungarian students at his age. I've politely explained him what's going on and what's wrong with his edits – hope that will help. I also offered my help for him and would do the same here: if he ignores the advices or makes something utterly wrong, or you just want to make a thing clear, drop me a line. I'm happy to translate it to Hungarian. Thehoboclown (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    That's great, thanks! Neatsfoot (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    Patrol forty

    P40 blocked, unblock request declined. I think we can all move on. → Call me Hahc21 04:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

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


    Patrol forty (talk · contribs). Come on, folks, this is getting silly now. The competence of this new contributor is astonishing, the frequency with which they are able to refer to backstories is equally so. I don't see a report at SPI but I'm sure that this is no newbie, as they have claimed. They are trolling left, right and centre, as most recently evidenced here. Can we not put a stop to it? We're drifting from AGF to WP:PACT, in my opinion. I have an idea of who it may be but there is no way I have enough evidence to take it to SPI; I just hope that common sense can prevail. - Sitush (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    • I'm concerned about this user with 13 article space edits - total - and 35% of their total edits to Jimbo's talk page is doing on Misplaced Pages. 58% of their edits are to user talk pages. 14 of their edits, more than their article edits, are to Arbitration. I'm concerned twofolds: 1) That there is more noise than anything else from this users, and 2) that there are all of the signs of a previous account with this user. Their primary contributions are to pursue disputes with DangerousPanda and Eric Corbett.--TP (alt) 00:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • It's pretty simple←all we have to do is make a list of all editors who have lost an argument with Eric, then work out which one is P40. That should take no more than a year or two? Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • This editor does seem to know their stay will be short, and they have spent all their time trying to create the maximum amount of friction possible. To me, that is just glorified trolling. I tried to leave a thoughtful and informative warning to the user, you can see the reply for yourself. At this point, I have to support blocking. Dennis - 00:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Is there anyone who thinks that Patrol forty is not a sock account?! Don't know if that is sufficient to block, or if we need to guess at the puppet-master's identity and run a CU for confirmation. Abecedare (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I seem to recall an ANI recently brought here about Jimbo. Apparently Jimbo was discussing someone on his talk page that he asked to stay off of his talk page. I can't remember whom that individual was. Was it this user called Eric? I'm just wondering if these reverberations here date back to what ever the hell that was?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Jimbo has banned all sorts from his talk page, aside from (seemingly) some people who are sitebanned. His sometimes seems like one of the less FriendlySpaces. - Sitush (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Unlike last ANI where I was the lone dissenter regarding a possible trolling attempt (finally read that wiki article about it) and socking, I think this is a bit more unambiguous than the last. Someone should start an SPI and try to figure out if he's got any glorified socks or sleepers. Tutelary (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
      • An SPI can be filed, but we are short of CUs, and CUs don't prove socks, just connections. Any smart sock can do so where a CU can't connect them. 99% of all determinations at SPI are purely behavioral comparisons, which trumps CU data every time. This is based on my making 1600 of those blocks at SPI when I patrolled there. This case falls under the "sock of an unknown master" type of cases. These aren't determinations we make lightly, but when backed up but a number of people who agree, I'm very confident we get it right much more than we get it wrong. Knowing the master is handy, but not required in some cases. Dennis - 01:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    This person has already posted (massively overlong) evidence in the ongoing ArbCom proceeding in which Eric Corbett is, not accidentally, a party. All Arbs have CheckUser tools and they don't need to file any paperwork to use them (as we have recently learned on WPO in reference to Jimmy Wales checkusering somebody or other...) so unless not a single one of them is curious about this (unlikely) we can assume that some sort of rudimentary check on sock accounts will be made. My sense is that this is a Northern English person (as self-described) with a bone to pick with Northern English person Mr. Corbett. I don't understand the helicopter obsession, that's a mystery. But I'm personally 100% sure this is an alternate account of somebody. Carrite (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    Response

    Right, so someone has decided to kick off the witch hunt. Let's get it over with then. I've explained why I think the various allegations about me not being a new user are nonsense time and again on my talk page. I don't care if people don't believe it, but I do expect those explanations to be given due consideration here. Frankly, I really don't care how hard some people seem to think it is to find User talk:Jimbo Wales, or how long it took you to understand simple page like GNG or NPA, you're not me. I didn't find/learn/do these things in hours or even days, as some people are trying to claim, I've been here for several weeks, and I've been reading (if not editing) almost every day. Even so, if these things are so unusual, then I make no apologies for apparently being far smarter than the average new user.

    My disapproval of Eric's behaviour and involvement in GGTG arbitration has an entirely innocent explanation, one which nobody seems to have even considered - that a new user like me, someone who actually reads pages like Misplaced Pages:Contributing to Misplaced Pages and is not jaded or otherwise biased toward the status quo, is of course going to be horrified to learn what I learned about on User talk:Jimbo Wales about him, which he summarised quite well here. What some administrators want to ignore is that he thinks there is an existential threat to Misplaced Pages, and he's using Eric as a prime example of it (which is different from engaging in a personal grudge). I've yet to see a single good reason why he's not 100% right. Every single attack and troll from an advocate of Eric that has subsequently come my way, has only confirmed it. And I want to make it absolutely clear, I'd never even heard of Eric until reading that talk page. I make no apologies for getting involved in that, and if anyone wants to claim I've engaged in any trolling or disruption in this matter, then it's me who's going to demand evidence. Real evidence.

    Sitush knows what I mean by that. Because while I was wasting my time getting diffs that he requested over at User talk:Epipelagic, he was apparently over here making all sorts of claims about me, with no diffs at all. I want real evidence of trolling, just like everybody I criticise demands reams of evidence from me (which I've always provided). Like it or not, saying things you disagree with, is not trolling. If you want to know what trolling looks like, check Giano's posts to User talk:Jimbo Wales. If you don't have a problem with those, as it appears you don't, then I'm entitled to think there should be a real good reason why you think anything I've ever said anywhere on Misplaced Pages, is trolling. Because unlike Giano, I don't purposely go to any page to mock any user.

    As for Dennis, he didn't try to leave me a "thoughtful and informative" anything, he left an entirely deceitful bit of 'advice' which he knew fine well was not going to be received well (you could even call it attempted trolling - read my reply for the reason). If there is any Misplaced Pages rule that demands any specific article edit to non-article edit ratio, then I want to see it, because I think I already know this is a fiction, an entirely made up rule presented here only to manufacture a reason to get rid of me, apparently because you can't prove for sure that I'm not a sock, yet don't want to accept you could just be wrong. Patrol forty (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    Also, how am I engaging in a dispute with DangerousPanda? I made one comment after I noticed that linked from User talk:Jimbo Wales, and if anything, I was backing him up as an example of a good admin. How on Earth is that one edit evidence that my "primary contributions are to pursue disputes with DangerousPanda and Eric Corbett". Seriously, if neutrals can't even get stuff like that right, what hope have I got of any kind of fair treatment, given this complaint is soon going to be flooded with comments from all sorts of people who will no doubt make no effort at all to differentiate whether they're neutrals or not. I'd wager that there's several administrators here who don't know the names of every user who has gone against Mr Wales or has been strongly advocating for Eric during in this dispute (because let's be honest, that's the only reason this complain was filed - if I had just 13 article edits but had been largely commenting about something entirely unrelated to this apparent touchstone of a topic, then I'd wager I wouldn't even be here being subjected to some made up signal/noise rule). Patrol forty (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    Other's comments continued

    he was apparently over here making all sorts of claims about me, with no diffs at all I gave a diff (a link, actually) in my opening of this thread. I'm still waiting for your evidence at Epipelagic's talk page. - Sitush (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not really worried about the evidence. My experience tells me now, particularly after this exchange and the recent exchange on your talk page, that you are a sockpuppet of someone. The kind of vitriol and even knowledge you are showing clearly demonstrates you have had some issues festering for a long time, likely years, and whoever you are, this is just your latest incarnation to express it. This particular brand of bitterness only comes from bad experience here, and Patrol, you obviously have plenty of previous experience here. Your behavior couldn't scream "sock" any louder than it is. Dennis - 01:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


    Of course you're not worried about the evidence, you have your own reasons to get rid of me that have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I am a sock, therefore any need to back these claims up with anything but your Jedi skills, would be extremely inconvenient to you. I particularly love the fact that me turning up here to defend myself is held up as proof. What's the typical behaviour of editors you accuse of being socks - put their hands up and claim it's a fair cop? Why you're continuing to pretend I haven't been critical of you and therefore have every reason not to approach this objectively (or even stay out of it completely, as would happen in any other scenario like this), is beyond me. It's borderline corrupt, it really is (feel free to add that to your evidence of a past life - I can at least believe you've been accused of corruption before). Patrol forty (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment - You will note the word "TROLL" in "Patrol." Just sayin'. I've deconstructed this English editor's early edit history on WPO in the "Another civility shitstorm hits the hypocrisy factory" thread, if anyone cares. Clearly and obviously not a first account of anyone. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. That is all. Carrite (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Clearly not neutral in the matter either. Patrol forty (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Could the other people involved perhaps take a six month break from diving into similar topics, e.g. Jimbo and how important they don't think he is, themselves and how important they think they are, how they are pursued by evil people off-wiki and need to retaliate by pursuing existing editors off-wiki? And all the rest of it? I just think it's bizarre that supposedly responsible people are repeatedly engaging in this nonsense. I think if everyone took a step back and just disengaged from it all (I mean for a long period of time, not just this month and next month), there were be a great benefit for us all. Thoughts? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    I'm really not following whom you are asking to do what... I'd rather you ask that Wikipedians not use alternate accounts and to spare us all the drama created when purported transexual 15-year olds from Florida and all-too-adept "newbies" trying to kneecap established editors are given the inevitable heave-ho. That's really what would save us all a lot of drama, if people who should know better didn't keep pulling this kind of crap. Carrite (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Give me a break... Banners like these on @Dr. Blofeld:'s talkpage? It is clear that this is approaching harassment levels. I am also sure that there is something in WP:USER about it as well . - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    What, a user is not allowed to post a Wales banner on his own talk page? ←Baseball Bugs carrots04:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Do you see Jimmy posting a Dr.Blofield banner on his mocking him? It has come down to this childish mudslinging. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    BLPN Legal threats

    Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ariel_Fernandez Legal threats about some tag or another.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    It qualifies, but does he have a valid complaint? ←Baseball Bugs carrots03:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    The IPs and account(s) have been blocked, so there's not much more to do. The article, subject and associates have a long history of disruption, sockpuppetry and ownership so this was more of the same. I handled the thing from the OTRS side, and it looks like it's over for now. §FreeRangeFrog 04:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Which complaint Bugs? There are a few.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    I was thinking of the one objecting to the claim that it looks like the article was written by the subject and/or his pals. That might well be true, but it requires sufficient supporting evidence that the guy can't reasonably complain. ←Baseball Bugs carrots05:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    I don't really make much of that but it seems the individual that the IP says made those claims is also the individual that banned that IP.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    Warning: Tutelary is a member of Wikipediocracy

    Closing as "no one cares." -- Euryalus (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

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


    I just want to bring to the attention of administrators that Tutelary is a member of Wikipedioracy, is criticism site of Misplaced Pages. Be cautious of any further approach. 172.56.6.43 (talk) 06:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    There are administrators here that are also on that site. No editor can be automatically discredited simply for having an account there. Doc talk 06:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Warning: The IP is from Dallas, where the first American ebola victim succumbed. Be cautious of any further approach. ←Baseball Bugs carrots07:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    And the Cowboys have been known to make an appearance in those parts. <shudders>--v/r - TP 07:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Tarc is engaging in open abuse. As requested by Dreadstar, I am posting the incident here.

    ArmyLine topic-banned for one year from edits and discussion regarding GamerGate, broadly construed. Agent Chieftain indefinitely blocked. Nothing else to be expected from this section. → Call me Hahc21 01:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

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


    Requested here

    I also requested Tarc cease this behavior here. He has responded by claiming that me "and my associates are not welcome on this page". I'd appreciate if this was dealt with.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    Nothing to be done here, he has every right to ask you to not post on his talkpage whether you are right or he is. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Does he have the right to curse at me too or make false claims about me working in a group?--ArmyLine (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    His single use of the word bullshit is likewise not actionable. If he is accusing you without any evidence or a good reason then alleging you are working with another group is assuming bad faith but if he has cause to say it that's why we have WP:SOCKPUPPETS and WP:MEATPUPPET guidelines. Piece of advice though if you aren't either one just ignore it, Tarc isn't the most pleasant individual and it's easier to ignore it then the resulting stress afterwards. I would point out though that he has been here a while so he probably has a reason why he thinks you are connected with someone else. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    He's also condoned death threats and harassment, claiming that such actions were "defending others from harassment". And if he thinks I'm connected with someone else, he can go through the proper channels to have it investigated. The likely reason he hasn't is because we both know that is a lie.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Actually there is times we don't need to run an investigation to determine that. I am not sure he is condoning any death threats or harassment here on wiki and would have to have you provide diffs of where he has done that but as is this is not something that any admin will act on. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    "Defending oneself and others from harassment is not in itself a harassing act." - condoning actions like this. To quote, "but ethics". I'll add that this "blowback" was such things as threats of sexual violence against female Gamergate supporters.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Condoning death threats? Who does that? Hello?! "ArmyLine" is an incompetent troll. Yeeks! Doc talk 07:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    That "condoning actions like" link cause my IE to flake out. Bevare! ←Baseball Bugs carrots07:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry to hear that. Basically someone was harassing this man and threatening to kill him and his family for supporting gamergate. So he found out who was doing this and called her mother. He explained what happened and the mother made her daughter get on the phone and apologize.--ArmyLine (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    “Just last night I deleted a youtube comment from a user who posted my home address and said he’d kill my wife and leave me to mourn.”"- from one of the articles. Kind of confused where all of these bad faith assumptions have come from...--ArmyLine (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    This contributer has been here since at least 2012. The nature of the edits seem to be subject oriented but unless we're saying this is a long term sockpuppet I think we can sum it up to Tarc acting like an asshole. We can not block people for just being unpleasant. Bugs what did you internet explorer do? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    It wasn't horrible, but it did leave me suspicious. It went to that page, which had a weird illustration and possibly some nonsense comments, but it basically froze. It wouldn't let me click on anything, even the X in the upper right. So I killed the window, and then it popped up a second time, so I killed it a second time and it disappeared for good. To feel safe, I ran malwarebytes and nothing turned up. So it seems not to be a malware site, just poorly coded. ←Baseball Bugs carrots14:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    A note on that Tumblr theme; if the flaking out was visual, IIRC, the theme doesn't display right if your version of IE is behind (like, majorly, numbers-wise, or possibly if your browser emulates an older version or compatibility views it). I checked the page's code, though, and I found nothing malicious (and Tumblr disallows a good portion of potentially malicious things from being added to theme code/executed from a post anyway). - Purplewowies (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    I don't see them condoning death threats. Have you considered staying off their talk page, ArmyLine?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • This thread shows that ArmyLine (talk · contribs) should be topic banned from the Gamergate area. The original post is harmless but misguided because it shows nothing sanctionable. However, the eccentric claim that Tarc condoned death threats is an extraordinary and totally false assertion—that would would not be so bad because anyone can make a mistake, but the diffs posted by ArmyLine to support their claims indicate that the user cannot understand simple statements in discussions concerning a very controversial topic where an army of SPAs is attempting to use Misplaced Pages to tell the world the truth. ArmyLine made 20 edits in 2012, 23 edits in 2013, and 3 edits to Gynocentrism in February and June 2014. Since 28 September 2014, ArmyLine has made 104 edits relating to Gamergate. The cluelessness shown here, combined with an SPA's dedication, mean that ArmyLine should work in other areas for the forseeable future. Johnuniq (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Yes this display here seems to be some Mickey Mouse... Well I wouldn't want to offend.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Agree. This whole thread is an example of not having a clue and POV pushing. Condoning death threats? This editor should be topic banned at the very least. Dave Dial (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    I have made two edits to the Gamergate article. Once again, curious why people are so quick to excuse Tarc's bad behavior but assume bad faith concerning me.--ArmyLine (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    On the topic of "POV pushing", look at the talk page. Tarc has stated: "Was this a serious question? A leading female figure in gaming circles who as subjected to the same misogynist crap that the rest of them have been. This is what the primary narrative of Gamergate is becoming." Why is it that one side has been allowed to openly attack the subject of the article on the talk page while there is even a discussion about topic banning me for "POV pushing"? Once again, I don't even care if I get banned at this point. I just want to know what universal standard, if any, is being applied here.--ArmyLine (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not going to get involved on those pages, I'm not involved with those subjects or issues. But I'm not naive and know the 4chan/8chan/reddit/MRA agenda driven SPA and new accounts have a goal. One that's tendentious and frustrating to regular Wiki editors. The whole GG/MRA group now have 'wiki' pages with directions to advocates to come to Misplaced Pages to push their POV. With a list of 'hostile to GG' editors and 'friends of GG' editors. Admins should try to take control of the situation to ensure further disruption is limited. Dave Dial (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    And yet it's the "GG/MRA group" which is being openly attacked on the talk page, not vice versa. Which doesn't give the impression that their POV is the one which holds weight here. It's like a claim that's repeated without any relevance to the underlying facts. Also, GG is unrelated to MRAs. There are feminists who are members of GG and radical MRA groups have been disassociated from the movement (rightly so IMO).--ArmyLine (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    "Herein is the problem; one side decries the misogynistic harassment that Quinn et all have suffered, while the other side essentially lies and says they're just arguing the ethics angle, and that the harassment is unfortunate but unconnected. It's like Obama and the birthers all over again; only the birthers saw themselves as noble patriots fighting for freedom and truth, while the rest of the universe dismissed them as loons." - Tarc
    Just thought I'd add this. Oh, and here's the completely unrelated first sentence of the article as of now: "In video game culture, Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #GamerGate) is an online movement which emerged around false allegations of unethical conduct levied against indie game developer Zoe Quinn in August 2014."
    <<redacted - BLP>>--ArmyLine (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Facepalm Facepalm. First off, the "normal exceptions" clause of this Arbcom ruling is now invoked, as I have been named in an ANI filing. Now that that's out of the way, this is crap. So...profanity in an of itself is not uncivil, this has been borne out time and time again on this and other venues. I have made a conscious effort lately to not be explicitly profane on-project, but at times a little steam-releasing is warranted, and all this was was me beginning a post to a user's talk page with "Eh, bullshit".
    As to the meat (though it is about as meaty as a can of Spam) of the complaint here, no, I do not "condone death threats", but I'm not surprised if (and that is a sizable "if") some starts to go the other way. The context of my "That some of those types got a smidgen of blowback is at best a footnote" quote was from this thread. Anonymous people online who have been harassing and demeaning women, Zoe Quinn & Anita Sarkeesian in particular, for several months now under the auspices of "Gamergate" these anons claim they are getting some gruff in return. In my universe, that's called the Threefold Law, so, I have no sympathy. We also have the fact that the misogynist harassment against the women named above, and several others is sources to reliable sources. The other side? Well as you see above, sourced to tumblr, the playground of 14 yr old boys who aren't edgy enough for 8chan.
    The result here should be a sizable WP:BOOMERANG hitting this armyline person in the head. Every single-purpose non-editor who has come to the Gamergate article like a moth to a flame that in the last month or so that can be removed will only make the editing process run more smoothly. Tarc (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    All I can say is that if you and Ryulong are allowed to continue to edit the article while I, who have made a grand total of two edits to it, am topic banned, then Misplaced Pages clearly isn't the place for me. That much I'm sure we can agree on.--ArmyLine (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    I arrived at this article out of concerns for WP:BLP policy, I am not a regular editor of gaming-related articles. SPAs, like you, have come here to ensure that your minority point-of-view is jammed down the reader's throat. Fortunately, this isn't reddit or somethingawful or wherever you came from; we have standards and rules here to uphold. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Right. Well, I arrived on this article as it interested me, and I have stated this twice now (once when I was on Ryulong's list) but my work makes it logistically impossible for me to edit wikipedia for continuous stretches at a time. I don't appreciate this disingenuous behavior from you. You and I both know I have gone away from wikipedia for similar stretches at a time, to return when logistics and interest allow. A simple check will confirm this. Add another false accusation to the list of my ANI complaints.--ArmyLine (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Addendum. For those here who may not have had much to do the whole Gamergate topic lately, this is the kind of stuff we have to deal with day in and day out. Whether it is freshly-created accounts or ones that have been years-dormant, it is all part of the same off-wiki organized agenda-pushing. This is exactly what Talk:Barack Obama was like, circa 2009. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Exactly. ←Baseball Bugs carrots14:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Check my history. I've left and returned before. Why are you giving Tarc every benefit of the doubt and consistently assuming bad faith for me, even when easily obtained facts prove otherwise?--ArmyLine (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    "Agenda pushing". I'm not the one openly attacking the subject of the article on Talk:Gamergate_controversy. Seriously, what's the universal standard here? I get told, by an admin, to go through ANI and now people are acting like I'm the one pushing an agenda here. Just wow.--ArmyLine (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Maybe that admin figured on you launching a boomerang. Admins weren't born yesterday, you know. ←Baseball Bugs carrots14:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    I'd like to image that admins of Misplaced Pages do not openly engage in deception against other users to get their way. Is this really how you think this website should work? Open deception?--ArmyLine (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Open deception is better than hidden deception, don't you think? No, he sent you here because here is where this issue belongs, at least for now. ←Baseball Bugs carrots15:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Okay, well one post over you were saying he sent me here because it would get me banned and he deliberately withheld that knowledge from me.--ArmyLine (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    You missed the prefix "Maybe". ←Baseball Bugs carrots15:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Tarc's conduct is reprehensible in insulting and asserting other unsubstanciated assertions towards editors, a lack of good faith, and bitey conduct. Comments even on this WP:ANI focus on solely degrading ArmyLine as if he's some object worthy of being broken. SPAs, like you, have come here to ensure that your minority point-of-view is jammed down the reader's throat. How is that in any sense of the word -not- a personal attack? If Tarc cannot respond to these users without using insults or attempting to degrade or depreciate their arguments, then I believe that a sanction should be imposed. Whether that be a block or a topic ban. Tutelary (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    @Tutelary, assume good faith is not a suicide pact. ArmyLine may not technically be a SPA but is pretty close to it, it seems by looking at contribution list, just saying. --Malerooster (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Malerooster, are you trying to imply that SPAs are not deserving of the WP:BITE and WP:AGF and should actively be pushed out of Misplaced Pages, insulted and berated for simply being SPAs? (even giving you that) That's the notion that I'm seeing. Tarc gets a free pass to essentially and euphemize insults towards other users because apparently, they're just Pro-GG scum and don't deserve any civility. To Armyline, I feel that copying and quoting (make sure to attribute CC BY SA 3.0 of course) all of Tarc's abuse towards you will be the only way that people see that Tarc has committed personal attacks. One diff doesn't do it unfortunately. Tutelary (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    TBQH, I don't think even that would be enough. Ryulong was allowed to continue editing after a huge list of cursing and personal attacks was posted. Not even a warning. He also claimed he would leave for a while and three days later he's back, the first paragraph is written like a slap in the face to "gaters", and nobody has anything to say about it.--ArmyLine (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    A few things: (1) The original complaint is groundless, as the initial respondent said; (2) The stuff about "condoning death threats" is also groundless; (3) An ANI poster's own history is also subject to scrutiny, and the poster looks to be a single-purpose account with an agenda. ←Baseball Bugs carrots15:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think the initial claim is groundless. Tarc has been attacking and insulting me right here in the talk page. Perhaps you'll find some time to respond to my rebuttals of your accusations as well.--ArmyLine (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    The items you cited are nothing. Groundless. As for the "condoning death threats" stuff, how about you post a quote here that indicates such, because I'm not seeing it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots15:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    I never condoned them, explained in the rebuttal above, but I'm not overly-sympathetic either if it is happening...whether it is happening at all is questionable, though. Against Quinn, et al, We have verifiable threats of death, rapes, and mass shooting documented by authorities and covered by reliable sources. On the other "side" we have people like Yiannopoulos who assert things that are unverified. Tarc (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Certainly. I would just like to see a quote from you that the OP alleges "condones death threats". So far, he's got nothing. ←Baseball Bugs carrots15:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    And an hour and a half has passed, and no response from the OP. Surprise, surprise. He's got nothing. This thread should be closed; and maybe the OP should be put on ice for a while. ←Baseball Bugs carrots17:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Here's your quote: "No longer really matters, given the continuing shift away from the "but ethics" sham. Defending oneself and others from harassment is not in itself a harassing act." The linked articles contained death threats. Writing off death threats as "defending oneself and others from harassment" condones them.
    Is it normal for Bugs to assume bad faith after someone leaves for an hour and a half on a Sunday morning, by the way?--ArmyLine (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Whatever. You have still not shown us any evidence that Tarc "condones death threats". You've got an overactive imagination. Like the way you jumped to some false conclusions and extrapolations when I said "Maybe..." such and such. ←Baseball Bugs carrots17:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    Addendum: grossly uncivil BLP transgression

    Earlier today, above, I made an off-hand reference to one of the newest single-purpose accounts, User:Agent Chieftain as an example of the type of new user that is plaguing the article. Would the admins pls evaluate this comment and take necessary actions to curb that? Tarc (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    Yes, while they deal with that it would also be nice if they fixed the lie on the first sentence of the article and banned whoever added it. Cheating is unethical conduct, or is that up for dispute too? That first sentence claims that the ex-boyfriend lied about Zoe's unethical actions. That should be a BLP violation as well. To the best of my knowledge, none of his claims have been "proven false". Some of the accusations levied by others have, but his have not.---ArmyLine (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    You really do not understand the concept of "false allegations" and you only have the word of someone whose very words themselves are a strange rambling attack. Not to mention you're making this whole thing about a woman's sex life when that's what GamerGate claims it isn't about. GG.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Did unethical conduct occur? Was it proven false? I'm not going to jump around, it's a very simple question with a very simple answer.--ArmyLine (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    Here is the exact first sentence: "In video game culture, Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #GamerGate) is an online movement which emerged around false allegations of unethical conduct levied against indie game developer Zoe Quinn in August 2014.". :::::<redacted>. So there's a big fat lie right in the first sentence of the article - unethical conduct did occur. So the first sentence of the article is a lie. I can see there's a group of bullies and single-purpose accounts pushing people around to get their way, that much we can agree on. --ArmyLine (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    Perhaps you should re-read that Kotaku link, as it says the exact opposite of what you claim. You statement of "unethical conduct did occur" is quite plainly contradicted by "...our leadership team finds no compelling evidence that any of that is true". This is really here nor there, though; this Chieftain person needs to be removed from the sandbox. Tarc (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    Requesting topic ban on both Gamergate and BLPs in general for User:ArmyLine, who has been posting unfounded claims of ethical violations by a BLP subject left, right and center today. This is not the place to gossip about strangers' sex lives. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    All I've been saying is<redacted> which is unethical conduct, so the first sentence of the article was a BLP issue about the ex-boyfriend. If you don't like it when lies are dragged out into the light, your camp shouldn't tell them. Curious how you ran across this, by the way, Tara.--ArmyLine (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    <Redacted> Your 'confirmation has not been published in anything approaching the kinds of reliable sources which would be required for negative information about a BLP subject, and is only 'confirmation' that the two had 'a relationship' of some sort: we have nothing about its nature or the status of other relationships at the time. Repeating gossip as if it proves unethical behavior is a BLP violation. But by all means keep digging. And you do know this isn't some super secret forum that nobody's allowed to read unless they're expressly invited, right? -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    Armyline, you are moving the goal posts to get your way and you know it. "Unethical conduct" is a reference to the actions on behalf of Nathan Grayson, and nothing to do with anything Zoe Quinn may or may not have done. You're showing your true colors here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    Note that ArmyLine has reinstated the potentially libelous accusations against Zoe Quinn which I had redacted. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    It's unfounded gossip based on a melodramatic screed by a bitter ex. That is the only libel on here. I'd like to request a WP:Boomerang against User:TaraInDC for making libelous and unfounded claims against the ex-boyfriend.--ArmyLine (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    ArmyLine is topic-banned. Acroterion (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:AGF Unblock on BengaliHindu

    BengaliHindu he been editing for nearly 5 years with over 5600 Edits with no previous blocks .He has been blocked as per this Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/BengaliHindu. Now 5 of the 10 edits of Abhijit4law are clear copyright violations whereas BengaliHindu has no history of copyright violations as far I can see.The Nirmalya1234 has has only 3 edits 2 reverts and 3rd one copy paste text on the article Talk page which an established editor will not do .But feel here BengaliHindu needed to be given WP:AGF as the behavioral evidence is not clear and the Checkuser report was inconclusive.The User has requested an unblock and I had posted on the talk page of the Checkuser Salvio giuliano but he appears to be away.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    I feel only an established editor knows about SPI rules and how to avoid behavioral match by making edits which do not match with his own edits.--MehulWB (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    Honestly the case does look weak. Also isn't it generally standard that you contact the user when you post an SPI so that they can defend themselves?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    It may be good form but I will say there is times I don't. Honestly sometimes I think it's better because all you do is list all the reasons you think they are a sockpuppet, which in cases of legitamte socks it can be used to modiofy their behavior and elminate the tells. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Agreed. Also, why wasn't User:Berean Hunter notified? User:Pharaoh of the Wizards, He's the one who blocked, not Salvio. Salvio said "Technically speaking, this is just a Possible match. I'm afraid the connection will have to mainly be based on behavioural evidence". I don't think he's going to say anything different now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs) 09:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    A sockpmaster with sufficient wit to change their editing style and avoid "tells" is surely going to see their own SPI at some point. Avoiding talkpage notification just has a delaying effect (unless the sockmaster is stalking the reporter's contributions). That delaying effect does have some value in the case of more persistent sockmasters, as it can delay the sudden onset of disruptive/deceptive editing on the SPI page. That's the only real benefit of non-notification. bobrayner (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    I apologies if it is a standard to inform but I didn't find about this on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations and I filed the case after this message: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:BengaliHindu&diff=625584066&oldid=625546685 from another editor. --MehulWB (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    Dougweller I have notified User:Berean Hunter. But wanted to check with the CU first was there any update as he had last posted on September 22nd and the block was done on October 25th Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    Here is the page protection request they opened after making their last edit to that page . Here is the BLPN that they opened on the matter before the first supposed sock made a revert on the article . You'll also find that they discussed this on the talk page. I wonder what would have happened if they were informed an active socketpuppet investigation was opened against them. Perhaps they could have defended themselves. All 3 should be unblocked.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    • I am supporting unblock. There is no reason to believe that it was one person. If BengaliHindu is living in a populated city, definitely there will be many people who may have shared similar thought, and I cannot see any abuse of multiple accounts. I had a suspicion before, that BengaliHindu might be socking on an AFD, but none of those accounts seemed to be related with him, and each of it edited the same subjects for ages. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Further the issue the dispute was over one page Ahmed Hassan Imran with MehulWB most of whose 73 edits are over this page and this sock case.BengaliHindu said he would stop eidting the page and it was semi protected and hence user Nirmalya1234 could not post and posted on talk.That appears to be resolved and do see a need to block after a month.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • It's not screamingly obvious, it may be slightly off base but I think that AGF was being extended by the relatively short block. It's a toss up to whether it's a sock or not so a lot can be done here and have a wait and see approach and give a little WP:ROPE. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    Serialjoepsycho, when an editor use your username then you get notification at the top of the page beside your username. I have mentioned the username in SPI and this will surely notify him. The case was filed on 15 Sept. and closed on 26 Oct. which I think was enough time to defend. Plus, the user filed the unblock request where he can defend himself. --MehulWB (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    We still require the actual notification to the talkpage as well. Sometimes a person isn't online to see that and the resulting email from the message tells them to log in. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Okay, I got it but honestly I didn't find this notify thing in the instruction of How to open an investigation on SPI page. And if notification is a standard then the user have filed vandalism reports against me but didn't notify me.--MehulWB (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    The WP:AIV board is different from any of the other boards, that is a straightforward set amount of warnigns whereas these boards are more complicated and can't just be summarized in diffs. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    @MehulWB:, You today made this post . It seems to me that you are implying that because they contacted Jayanta Nath that proves that he contacted the others, but then you offer no proof that contacted Jayanta Nath. Do you have any proof? If not that really goes to show the ridiculousness of your claims. Nirmalya1234 reverted the information twice. There protected edit request suggests they are a new user . They could have kept on reverting but didn't. Abhijit4law, didn't revert. They added other content in that was deleted. And Mehlu you didn't post it on their talk page. You might have pinged them but after your personal attacks it's reasonable that they ignored them. That message that was on your screen before you clicked save while filling out the SPI told you to contact them on the talk page. It even gave you a template to use.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    Further Ahmed Hassan Imran is a Member of the Parliament and has been in severe controversy and any one can edit his page to say only BengaliHindu will edit his page is not assuming good faith.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't know why Pharaoh contacted me rather than the blocking admin (and then came here before I had a chance to reply), but as Dougweller correctly points out, I merely said that the technical evidence I got made it possible the three accounts were operated by the same person. It was the closing admin who made the final call and it's him you should contact to have the block lifted. As anyone who has ever been involved in SPIs knows, "possible" is a very low threshold and, in such cases, in order to call sock puppetry the closing admin has to also examine the behavioural evidence. As a result, I can only repeat what I already wrote: technically speaking, a connection is possible, but before doing anything it's necessary to consider behaviour. Salvio 10:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • My apologies Salvio the block was done on Oct 25th over a month later after your posting on September 22nd and hence wanted to confirm that no other issue was involved .BengaliHindu posted an unblock request hence brought it here thinking you were away .My apologies for any misunderstanding.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    @Serialjoepsycho:, I thought you're an experienced editor but your message asking me of proofs is really ridiculous. Firstly, I said that I just guessed which mean I am not 100% sure and secondly, another experienced editor user: Titodutta echoed that too so why don't you ask him too? It needs basic logic to understand why I guessed. Now, I missed the message at SPI and the thing you're keep referring to is at the end which states "You may wish to notify the accused with {{subst:uw-socksuspect|casename}} which clears that it is not mandatory to notify and which personal attacks I made? --MehulWB (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    • Behavioral evidence certainly suggests puppetry. Nirmalya1234's first edit was to engage in the exact same edit as the master in an ongoing edit war where Mehul was pulling material on a BLP rationale and BengaliHindu was restoring it and incorrectly calling the removal vandalism. Bengal exaggerated in his report to AIV stating that Mehul was "consistently blanking out" the article. A commenting admin stated that they would take Mehul's pov in this matter. And then the first sock/meat stepped in to precisely take up the edit war that Bengali was undertaking. As Hell in a Bucket pointed out, my AGF was to block for only 72 hours. If you notice the SPI report also had another admin/CU who stated "Likely as not to be meatpuppetry...".
    Looking at Nirmalya1234 and Abhijit4law, their contribs do look odd from a purely technical stand. The first two edits of Nirm were to restore edits by BengaliHindu ] that someone else had reverted out. Abhijit4law's first edit to that same article was (admin only, as the BLP violation forced RevDeling the edit) but was consistent with the previous edits, only less verbose. This leads us to one of a few possibilities: 1. These are socks of the same person, to which the block is fine. 2. This is meatpuppetry and the other accounts are SPAs here to force a POV, in which the block is fine. 3. These are three different people that don't know each other, and two just happened to get involved in this article exactly after the master was reverted, which is remarkable timing.
    The patterns in their editing and supporting make option 3 exceedingly unlikely, as the patterns of the edits and methods strongly support previous examples of POV socking. That BengaliHindu is an established editor doesn't make socking less likely. Established editors frequently use socks to do the dirty work, as to not tarnish their "good hand" account. Not all editors who do this are "evil", and often they do it out of an attempt to "right great wrongs", which appears to be the exact case here. BengaliHindu and MehulWB were on the cusp of an edit war when these two new accounts showed up, a point that shouldn't be lost as it gives us a motivation for creating the accounts.
    As for the CU finding of "possible". There is no singular definition of what that means, but I could guess that means "They are in the same city or area, but one uses a computer and the other uses a cell phone, so the user agents and ISP don't match". There are other possible explanations. This is not uncommon for sockpuppetry, although obviously it isn't a foolproof method to get away with it. All it really says is "it is possible", meaning the persons aren't on different continents, so it can't be ruled out. This is why behavior is always the means of which we connect sockpuppets, not CU.
    In short, I think the conclusions that Berean Hunter came to are reasonable and within expectations, and I can see that many other admin would have come to the same conclusion. The master is only blocked for 72 hours, which is actually less than average for a first time offense (1-2 weeks), so perhaps Berean Hunter was cutting him a little slack because he is an established editor. Whether this is meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry doesn't matter because the blocks could justifiably be the same, although it is more likely sockpuppetry. Is it 100% guaranteed? No, but SPI doesn't work that way. Is it considerably likely that BH got it right? Yes, based on the evidence here, and other behavioral evidence. Dennis - 15:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    @Dennis Brown The CU actually last posted in September 22 and block was given on October 25 and the article Ahmed Hassan Imran had semi protected on September 23 and no one really edited for a month but for a one minor edit on Oct 12th Further no established Editor will Copy paste the article text on the Talk page. after the article had been semi protected it is absolutely pointless. BengaliHindu has no previous blocks for the last 5 years and hence WP:AGF should have given to him and unblocked the page has not been edited for a month and behavioral evidence is not clear. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • All we can do here is decide if Berean Hunter used good judgement, and if that judgement falls within the range of what is acceptable and reasonable. There is no Truth®. You've provided your insight, I've provided mine. Debating the minutia of an admin board that is perpetually a month backlogged doesn't change whether or not his actions were within community norms. Dennis - 20:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    @Dennis Brown I posted here only to request for an Unblock the user has also requested in his talk page.Admin Berean Hunter is well within his discretion to take call here.This request is only for an Unblock as per WP:AGF .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Then you have shot yourself in the foot. Once you open the ANI, most admin are going to avoid the talk page case, as once here, it is up to the community, not so much individual admin. No admin wants to rush in, just to find out the community disagrees with them, so they (we) do the safe thing: nothing. The problem is, in his request for unblock, he is saying he didn't sock, while the evidence I looked at says he very likely did. No admin is going to unblock him unless they think Berean Hunter either 1. made a mistake connecting the dots, 2. blocked for too long, or 3. abused his authority. Once you file it here, it is pretty much going to be a consensus to unblock, or Berean himself, we don't have a lot of choices. Had the person said "Look, I screwed up, I shouldn't have socked but that was a month ago and I haven't socked since", then any number of admin might have just unblocked. As long as the story doesn't match the evidence, the status quo tends to be the default position. Dennis - 21:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Pharoah, my block of 72 hours was given on AGF...an experienced user is often given longer blocks because they ought to know better. Calling the other user's edits vandalism when they are clearly trying to cite BLP comes across as disingenuous and lacking in good faith itself. BengaliHindu should be experienced enough to know what vandalism means. The less-than-AGF version would be that he used the vandalism claim as a tactic where he didn't have a good rebuttal for the BLP claim and simply wanted to revert to his version of the article. The moral of the story is don't sock and don't recruit friends/editors to come to your aid.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Clear BLP case? MehulWB talked thru talk page revisions until . The vandalism report came before Mehulwb was remotely clear. BengaliHindu was the first person to take this to the talk page. BengaliHindu even took it to the BLPN as suggested by EdJohnston. It sure looks a whole lot like BengaliHindu was trying to handle this dispute in a responsible consensus seeking manner. There's little actual evidence to suggest that these other users were sockpuppets or meat puppets (Great Band BTW. I've always wondered if the band influenced the phrase meat puppet). What there was, a news story that seems to have been national. Both of the two alleged socks could have been brought here due that news story. Malapati, another alleged sock, could have been brought here due to said story. Now if it's felt there's a need to ban him because of his Vandalism report have at it. It's actually ridiculous to ban him for sockpuppetry in the absence of any legitimate evidence supporting it.-Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    You are wrong. It was me who first notifed BengaliHindu which he just posted on the articles talk page and since then all my comments were in the articles talk page. The BLPN direct us to abide by BLPCRIME rule but again BengaliHindu denied that and started tagging my edis as vandalism. I didnt know another admin supported my edits. It is ridiculous of what you are accusing me of. I tried my best to explain him but he distracted the talk and didnt reaponse and then came the socks. I have nothing personal with you nor even with BengaliHindu so please, stop accusing me and my edits. MehulWB (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

    You posted on Bengalihindu's talk page. I'm talking about the articles talk page. Pretty quickly after you contacted BH he stopped reverting you. You have provided extremely weak evidence of sock puppetry. He took it to BLPN. He took it to the articles talk page. I'm wondering why an individual would cease editing when it's starting to becoming an edit war, take discussion to the talk page, and open a BLPN, while using meatpuppets. Doesn't sound reasonable and there is no actual evidence that BengaliHindu did that. This is a bad block.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

    MehulWB

    I think it's reasonable if it's asked if MehulWB own behavior should be discussed. MehulWB seems to be a single purpose user account. Most of their edits are about or can be tied back to Ahmed Hassan Imran's article. Before today their last edit was September 23. Someone posts on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/BengaliHindu to defend BengaliHindu and they magically appear a month later. They comeback to make unsupported accusations . I also feel the need to point to their first comment here. Those comments to me suggest, "So what if the evidence is weak. Experienced users know how to fake it." Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    I agree with you that he appears to fail WP:DUCK for 78 edits with the sole focus being on Controversial Member of Parliament Ahmed Hassan Imran and in getting involved in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/BengaliHindu and defending his block. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, WP:DUCK. Sole focus on one article, out of 78 edits most of it in an3, blpn, spi, rpp, ani for this article. --AmritasyaPutra 13:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    "they magically appear a month later" - I posted in SPI and if it seem to you a magic then sorry as I do not know how to do magics. But as per you isn't it magic that another user Malapati suddenly made edits on the same article echoing summery of BengaliHindu's edits after over a year? User Malapati's last edit was on 15 January 2013 before he just made edits on the same page on 22 September 2014. Also, isn't it magic that after the block sudden users started defending him at the very same time? A user came to SPI posting that BengaliHindu is personally known to him for which I just guessed that the other two accounts might be his familiar persons which is also guessed by another experienced editor Titodutta and you just concluded that I am giving unproven accusations then the other experienced editor did the same like me. Actually, you're directly accusing me without proofs. --MehulWB (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    Again the accusation on me that my sole purpose it to block BengaliHindu is a direct accusation without proofs. Again the rule "Innocent until proven guilty" applies to me also. As I said earlier that I filed SPI after another editor's comment on user BengaliHindu's page and it wasn't me who blocked him so please be more focused.--MehulWB (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    Malapati wasn't banned for being a sock. He made a post on the 22nd. Bengalihindu's last edit was the 14th and they last touched the talk page on the 16th. There's no connection between the two besides your assumption of bad faith. Your actions are more suspicious than that of anyone that was involved. Magic? No, and if you asked the users who have moved could probably explain how exactly they came to find out about Bengalihindu's ban. There really wasn't anything suspicious about your SPI. Your return a month later and constant accusations without evidence is suspicious. Seems like you have an Axe to grind.-Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    Really, I am amazed by the height of your ilogic and constant accisations against me even without proofs. I am a reader of Misplaced Pages and just ask the admins to show you how many times I logged into Misplaced Pages and for which pages I got notifications. It is laughable that my so called return after a month is suspicious yet user Malapati's return after a year to make a short edit for a while is not suspicious? I am requesting you again please do not blatantly accusme me of which I am not. MehulWB (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

    False accusations of vandalism

    These are, I hope you would agree, a grievous personal attack, and are highly damaging to the encyclopaedia. You are probably not aware that anonymous editors will always be accused of vandalism, and the time it will take for someone to slander them in this way is usually very short. For this IP address, it's taken less than two days.

    • Edits with very clear summaries: ,
    • Reverts with false accusations: ,
    • Threatening message left:
    • Further spread of false allegations:

    Is anyone bothered by this, and if so, what are you prepared to do about it? 190.163.4.132 (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    Please be aware that this user is the so-called Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP user, as has been noted by a statement on this user's talk page by someone else. I would suggest having a look at the edit history of BBC Canada and CBC News Network, which both show a history of edit-warring on this particular point by this user. I would argue that the vandalism designation is now appropriate given that vandalism is a deliberate attempt to disrupt Misplaced Pages, which is exactly what I would argue this user has now been doing. I would suggest a lengthy block of this IP address (definitely for the edit warring regardless of the validity of the vandalism designation), given that this user has previously been blocked for 3 months after doing exactly the same thing (see User:187.17.57.15). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Also note that the IP is operating whilst his block under another IP is still in force. Not entirely unusual for this individual. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages". It is obvious that my edits were an attempt to improve the articles. Even if you considered making necessary edits with clear summaries to be disruptive, that is specifically described as not being vandalism. Your ignorance of the policy is troubling. False accusations of vandalism are highly damaging to the project, and in my opinion they should be met with a block if made and not retracted. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    You mean a block that one can ignore, and just pop up immediately under a different IP? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    I guess you think false accusations of vandalism are not a problem then. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    They are a problem, and admins will decide how to call this, bearing in mind both sides of the story. Is it a "grievous personal attack"? Biggest laugh I've had all day, considering what you've called me in the past, let alone others. Do I think you're in a good position to decide what's "damaging to the project", "troubling" or "slander"? No. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    If you like to see a particular person attacked, that's up to you. It doesn't mean that the attack is not an attack. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    I don't like to see anyone attacked, which is why I find your behaviour over the years so obnoxious. Do I feel this is an "attack"? No. He's criticising your editing, as far as I can see, and it's up to the admins whether or not he's accurately doing so or not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Haha, "criticising"? No. He's making an obviously untrue claim. One could, conceivably, use the word "vandalism" as criticism. Journalistic reviews of works of architecture and such have certainly done that. But that would not be accompanied by a "final warning" and the reporting of the architect to the authorities, would it? 190.163.4.132 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    The IP apparently wants the "offending" editor to stop using their user name an edit as an ever-changing IP. Brilliant. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    I've got absolutely no idea what you mean by this. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    The primary remedy here is blocking editors. In your world, that means the editor is supposed to continue editing, changing their IP every time they are blocked for evading their block. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    You're not making any sense.186.37.203.20 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    Pretty much. The IP is editing in direct defiance of a block. Again. Repeated claims of being the victim based on wikilawyering ("It's not socking because I've never had an account", "How dare you undo my edits made in defiance of a block", "No, I'm not 'banned', I'm merely ignoring every block ever placed on me", "It's not 'vandalism', it's just more of the edit-warring that I've been blocked for", "Calling my edit-warring 'vandalism' is a 'grievous personal attack', which I won't stand for"). I'd suggest a nice boomerang, but I'm just a "fucking retarded little cunt", so what do I know?
    Let's try this: Start with the earliest block evasion we can find for this editor. For each evasion after that, make the next block longer and extend the previous block. Then, if the editor waits out the block, we can let them try again in 2020 or so. Or let them continue to edit war, make personal attacks and ignore all blocks and edit all of our policies and guidelines to reflect their special status. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Are you accusing me of sock puppetry again? It does amuse me how a complaint about false claims just leads to more false claims. And indeed, I've been blocked several times in the past for no reason other than having complained about false claims being made. Sock puppetry is the act of pretending to be more than one person. A puppet has to be animated by a puppeteer. Perhaps you can point out where I ever pretended to be more than one person. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    I am accusing you of block evasion. You have been repeatedly blocked for edit-warring, personal attacks and block evasion. Hell, you were blocked yesterday for a personal attack. You have also falsely claimed to not be the same editor.
    And obviously, you have to trot out yet more false claims. Nowhere in the diff you provide did I claim to be or not to be anyone. I never attempted in any way to conceal my identity. The diff you post is an interesting case, in which you undid a swathe of my edits for no good reason, with no explanation, and clearly to the detriment of the encyclopaedia (for example, restoring peacock words and undefined acronyms). I complained, obviously. I got blocked because of who I am. here. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    You claimed you were not evading a block: "...the block log it claims block evasion. Neither of these are true." As you were blocked at the time, the only reasonable way to read that is as a claim that you are not who you are. You might wikilawyer this into some other explanation, but the obvious intended meaning is as I read it. It is also the reading the declining admin had. I did not undo a swathe of your edits "for no good reason". WP:EVADE, as has been repeatedly explained to you, allows any editor to undo any or all of your edits, without giving any further reason. You were blocked because of who you are: a disruptive, edit-warring, block evading editor who is unable and/or unwilling to control their tendency to make vile personal attacks. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    I was not blocked at the time. You posted a diff showing that the administrator said on 5 September that I was "obviously the same user as 190.162.219.249". That IP address had indeed been blocked, and the block had expired on 2 August. You did indeed undo a swathe of my edits for no good reason. There is no policy that allows you to undo any or all of someone's edits simply because you've developed a grudge against them. 186.37.203.20 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    Poor you. You've been blocked so many times that you can't even keep track of the blocks. You were still blocked at the time. I undid your edits because you were evading a block. Boo hoo. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    • We can always let positive edits stand, and not revert them for no good reason besides either desire for righteousness or bureaucratic adherence to a guideline that does not itself require we follow it. Or, we can go ahead and indef-block their current IP address, and feel much better about ourselves. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    In effect, you are saying the editor in question is untouchable. They can make personal attacks, edit war and ignore any blocks, so long as they are willing to restart their modem. (They have repeatedly stated that they have repeatedly done so to avoid the numerous blocks.) Thus, they were blocked for 3 hours yesterday for calling me an idiot, but only because they chose to ride it out. They were not blocked for any of their other repeated personal attacks (including "fucking retarded little cunt"), edit warring and block evasion. Would you care to clarify Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy? It seems it should read, "Blocked users can continue to access Misplaced Pages, but cannot edit any page (including their own user pages), except (in most cases) their own user talk pages or if they are willing to restart their modem and make edits Drmies feels are an improvement. In that case, do whatever the fuck you want at all times." - SummerPhD (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    It would be useful to find out if the IP's sockmaster is a banned user. If so, all edits by that user are revertible on-sight, regardless of their alleged quality. ←Baseball Bugs carrots17:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Ah great, another ridiculous false accusation of sock puppetry. You think you're being helpful? 190.163.4.132 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    If you want to be helpful, you could give us a list of other IP's and/or registered users you've edited under. ←Baseball Bugs carrots17:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    You're calling for the revert of all my edits, based on a claim you've decided to make on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. And this despite us never, to the best of my knowledge, having ever interacted in any way. Again I'll ask: you think you're being helpful? 190.163.4.132 (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Where did I unequivocally call for your edits to be revoked? Or did you just confess to being a banned user? ←Baseball Bugs carrots18:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Obviously not. 186.37.203.20 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    (outdent) IP has been blocked for 6 months for block evasion. OhNoitsJamie 18:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Well done OhNoitsJamie. I don't know why we waste so much hot air on trolls, vandals etc. Just nail them down and move on. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Jamie, Jim, for reasons noted above this is not going to achieve anything (and we are not dealing with a "troll, vandal, etc."). Note that the editor is not banned--a discussion on AN did not deliver the result some were hoping for. Note also that "LTA" is not some admin- or community-approved page: that they "have" an LTA file does not mean they are a longterm abuser, it means that someone wrote it up. The choice term the IP slung at SummerPhD, that was in March. That doesn't mean it's nothing, of course, but I am not the first one to notice that their abuse follows being reverted time and time and time again. (This does not mean I think it's OK for them to have said that--note that I blocked them for saying "idiot".) The way I see it, we have two options.
      • We block every IP we run into, and revert every one of their edits we run into. The effect of that is that we block a lot of IPs, and revert a lot of good edits in main space; the other effect is that this just keeps going on and on. (I don't see how it can escalate much further; it's pretty much out of control already.)
      • We do not revert their mainspace edits on sight, just because an IP made them, just because this IP editor made them. The effect of that is that many articles will improve; another effect is that a lot of editors will have to swallow their pride and not revert. I don't know if this can be done, but not reverting edits on sight, not reverting their edits with "rv banned ip" (incorrect since they're not banned) or "rvv" (incorrect since not vandalism), well, that would stave off many an edit war, wouldn't it, and many an insult back and forth ("vandal" is an insult, if the person addressed is not a vandal).
      • There is a third option: if the IP got an account, I doubt they'd be reverted as often and as quickly as they are. Of course they're riding hard on this point of principle, which is both admirable and foolish. If they could swallow their pride, though, on this point, well, we could make progress.
    • But option two and three can't happen now, and Jamie, I assume you knew that that would be the effect of a six-month block: every time they edit they're block evading in the next six months, and every single time they do simply adds to the notion that the IP editor is a longterm abuser and block evader. I do not believe this is a good thing to do, and if you look into the history here you may realize this too. Basically, the IP keeps getting blocked and reverted because they've been getting blocked and reverted. It's a crazy situation, exacerbated by both sides' increasing antagonism, with a schmuck like me in the middle. What to do? We have chosen the easiest and worst solution: an LTA file, a series of blocks and now a really long one, and an adherence to procedure. And yes, the recurring problem of IP editing where, in this case, an IP editor has too frequently gotten reverted because they didn't have an account. And don't tell me "I reverted them because they're the abusive IP"--the way I see it, they became the abusive IP because they kept getting reverted. But I rest my case: it's hopeless given the intransigence on both sides. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    I would suggest this to the IP: find an IP address that you haven't used before; create a named account, and resist the temptation to undo your own undone edits so as not to raise red flags. Continue making constructive edits, and avoid incivility and edit-warring. If the IP user does this, I'm fairly certain they could continue editing Misplaced Pages without incident. The "avoiding incivility and edit-warring" is going to be the biggest challenge for this user, given their history. OhNoitsJamie 21:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Jamie, I certainly appreciate the spirit with which you are making this suggestion, but of course a. it remains block evasion for the next six months (unless you lower the block) and b. they're going to have to...what's the word...pretend they're not them, so to speak. I don't know if they're willing to do that. It would be the easiest way out of this mess, no doubt--and yeah, of course they're going to have to keep the cussing down. But I don't know if you've ever been slumming as an IP: the speed with which one gets reverted (and blocked!) sometimes is very disheartening. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    I don't doubt that IPs (and redlink named accounts) are sometimes wrongly "profiled"; that's why I suggested that the user create a named account from a non-blocked IP. OhNoitsJamie 22:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    So the solution to being falsely accused of disruption, vandalism and sock puppetry is to start sock puppeting. Hilarious.
    • find an IP address that you haven't used before - easy enough
    • create a named account - no
    • resist the temptation to undo your own undone edits so as not to raise red flags - if reinstating edits that have been reverted for absolutely no reason raises "red flags" for you or anyone else, you should consider what your intentions are here. It does not appear that improving the encyclopaedia is among them if reverting for no reason is fine, but re-reverting raises "red flags" for you.
    • Continue making constructive edits - as if I ever did anything else.
    • avoid incivility and edit-warring - impossible to avoid them - people who love them both are too numerous. I edited for a matter of a couple of hours on the previous IP address before someone reverted an edit of mine for no reason, and it wasn't much longer before someone falsely accused me of vandalism. Just up above here someone entirely unrelated to the conversation blundered in and described me as a vandal and a troll. These are vile personal attacks. If I could be bothered, I could very easily find you 50 editors who've falsely accused me of vandalism. Not one of them was ever blocked. I don't need all the fingers on one hand to count the number who were even warned. Many of them have been explicitly praised by other editors.
    • If the IP user does this, I'm fairly certain they could continue editing Misplaced Pages without incident - you have been enthusiastically blocking me for months, whenever anyone runs to you requesting that you do so. You've blocked leaving dishonest messages every single time, and you've improperly judged my unblock requests for your own blocks. When pressed to give a reason other than the false one you always begin with, you link to the attack page that was created some months ago, the existence of which obviously does not justify a block. You've almost invariably followed that up by removing my talk page access. You've made edits whose only possible intentions could be either or both of a) provoking me, and b) harming the encyclopaedia. And after all this you have the gall to come up with this, having just blocked me for no less than six months. Try to be less ridiculous with your next suggestion.
    Here's a simpler way of avoiding problems. Don't revert for no reason. Don't lie about me. And don't ever, ever accuse me of vandalism. Pretty simple, isn't it? But people, including you, prefer harassing and attacking anonymous editors, and they have the explicit encouragement of the community. It's been repeatedly demonstrated that calling someone a liar for making a false accusation of vandalism is considered worth blocking for, but making a false accusation of vandalism isn't. Until people take serious steps to counteract the poisonously discriminatory culture that's developed, you'll continue to see hard working contributors getting angry when repeatedly, endlessly provoked. You yourself have enjoyed taking part in the provocation. I'm sure you got just the result you were looking for. 186.37.203.15 (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    You are evading a block right now. Until you take that fact seriously, nothing you say here will have any merit. ←Baseball Bugs carrots01:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    Ah, you and your helpful comments. Where would we be without you? And with this, you demonstrate that you have no real idea what vandalism is. My new empirical rule of Misplaced Pages which you have amply confirmed here is that any complaint about a false accusation of vandalism will trigger at least three further false claims of vandalism. 186.37.203.120 (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, it's called "Administrator intervention against vandalism". However, it is routinely used to enforce blocks in cases of block evasion, such as yours. It is also used in cases of clear personal attacks, such as ones you have made. It is sometimes used in cases of edit-warring, such as yours, but that normally goes to 3RR. Hope this clears up the ambiguity. Do you dispute that you have made numerous personal attacks against numerous editors? Do you dispute that you have edit warred? Do you dispute that you have edited in direct defiance of several blocks? If you can answer yes to all three of these, you are deluding yourself. Otherwise, you have been given the instructions for requesting an unblock. Failing that, you will need to ride out six months or deal with occasionally being uncovered, having your block extended and, boo hoo, having edits reverted without need for explanation by anyone who cares to do so. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    There was no "ambiguity" to clear up. The page itself is extremely clear: "This page is intended for reports about obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only". There's even a guide to using the page, which says "Administrator intervention against vandalism is for reporting users currently engaging in persistent, clear vandalism". User:Baseball Bugs's report was a clear and unambiguous accusation of "obvious and persistent" vandalism. 186.37.203.20 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    The ambiguity here is that you seem to think there is a meaningful difference between your repeated vile personal attacks, edit warring, and block evasion and "vandalism". Your behavior is not acceptable. Blocking you and reverting your edits without giving any further reason while you are evading the blocks that you can't keep track of is perfectly acceptable. It is soooooooooo sad that a gentle soul such as yourself can't get their way every time and has someone hurt their feelings by not labeling your edit warring, personal attacks and block evasion with exactly the right terms. I realize you find that more offensive than being called a "cunt". Too bad. I'd suggest you take a break, curl up with your blankie and cry about it for a bit. After a good 6 months of crying, maybe we'll see the error of our ways and my signature will read "fucking retarded little cunt", "idiot", "retard", "twat", "fucking idiot", etc. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    It seems to me that the solution suggested by Drmies, making a regular account is the best one. WP is not a bureaucracy, and if our circular process of blocking and ip editing give a poor result, it should not be continued. The easiest way to avoid it without relying on the knowledge of any admin who may happen to come across the account without knowing the history or the discussion here, it is to remove the existing block(s), and I am prepared to do so if Drmies will help identify them. if the editor will commit themselves to making and using one single named account, and not continue editing as an ip. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not going to create an account. 186.37.203.20 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    Of course not. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    I'm also prepared to unblock, but I have a different condition in mind. The editor is right: we don't forbid IP editing, and nor should we. We need to remain open to people who may wish to try editing here before they register, or may have their own personal reasons for not registering. Rather, I propose the IP undertake to remain civil. (Which includes recognising that even the best editor occasionally makes a mistake, or runs into something on which reasonable people can disagree.) This is the standard we're all supposed to at least aspire to, and his uncivil remarks have contributed greatly to putting him in this mess. I see improvement in that respect but this is the second time I've seen SummerPhD refer on one of these noticeboards to a really nasty epithet that he flung at her. I'd like to help cut this Gordian knot, but that's my requirement. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    I always undertake to remain civil. I never set out to initiate or exacerbate any unpleasant situation. I am, however, under constant attack. The reason I started this discussion was that I was falsely accused of vandalism, but of course that got quickly forgotten, a single comment from the accuser failed to explain why he made false claims, and the discussion degenerated into snide attacks on me and several further accusations of vandalism. If you expect me to remain friendly at all times in the face of this kind of behaviour, you expect too much.
    If someone repeatedly pokes me in the eye, and I eventually stab them in the chest, then a reasonable person would surely say I overreacted. They would also surely say that the person shouldn't have poked me in the eye. People like User:SummerPhD and a number of others (User:Wee Curry Monster and User:AlanS spring to mind) specifically set out to poke me in the eye, stalking my edits and reverting them for no reason. If that kind of behaviour were to be actually frowned upon, actually dealt with and actually considered harmful, we would never have had any problems at all. But it's been repeatedly established that their actions are condoned and encouraged by the community. If deliberate and constant provocations are permitted and encouraged, you have to expect that people will either a) leave or b) react. I am certain that most people simply leave. I've been contributing for more than ten years and I have no plans to stop. Every time I randomly browse a few articles I find very basic problems that need correcting. If User:SummerPhD wishes to continue stalking and reverting my edits to the obvious detriment of the encyclopaedia, while leaving immature taunting comments as above, then what is a tireless contributor who isn't going to leave expected to do? 186.37.203.20 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    Note the latest series of destructive and provocative edits by User:SummerPhD: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,; and two other unexplained reverts: , . 186.37.203.204 (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    Note the latest IP to inexplicably pop up after the first hundred were blocked. Epicgenius (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

    Dread Pirate Roberts (Silk Road)

    Dread Pirate Roberts (Silk Road) needs some attention. The article should probably get renamed to Ross William Ulbricht (the guy the FBI has identified as the person behind the Dread Pirate Roberts pseudonym). @Signedzzz: and a bunch of IPs have been edit warring over including Ulbricht's name in the article, even though no one seems to care that Ulbricht is named in Silk Road (marketplace). The article has become a mess and it's hard to clean up with an active edit war. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

    • The FBI identifying his real name really doesn't matter, we use what the sources use, and when we want to change the name of an article, we start a discussion or WP:RM on the talk page. That isn't something that admin decide, only editors decide names. Admin just mop up afterwards. As for edit war or such, I just looked and the amount of traffic on the article isn't that heavy. 13 edits in 24 hours is nothing. Dennis - 23:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    Signedzzz has reverted seven times in the past two days. That's some pretty blatant edit warring, but I'm ok with ignoring it if you are, Dennis. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

    1) No notification. 2) It's six, not seven. Arithmetic is one of several problems here. 3) This user and one IP (possibly two) have been restoring blatant WP:BLPCRIME vio material into the article, doubling its size with 3.5k of poorly written gossip and scandal about a criminal trial that hasn't even begun yet. (The mention of the name here is a deliberate red herring). 4) The matter has been raised at the BLP noticeboard a month ago. This editor apparently doesn't agree with that decision, and stated that I (not he) should therefore take it back there. 5) Check the user's talk page. He was blocked, and then unblocked (on Jimmy Wales' personal recommendation!) because, he says, "I don't want my main account associated with nude celebrity images (and my knowledge of them)". Since then, he has used the account solely for POV-pushing on this article, which has nothing to do with his great "knowledge" of nude celebrity images (which I'm not questioning). If he wants to continue editing, he should probably use a non-sockpuppet account. And then, possibly, he wouldn't be so inclined to insert large chunks of BLP vio material at will. I'm guessing it's mainly just a trolling account. zzz (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

    • This "alternate" was created to make a post on Jimbo's page, and Jimbo essentially gave his blessing. That use has expired, however, and the user needs to either connect the dots or go back to their original account, as using an undisclosed alternate account without good cause is also known as socking. Legit Alternate Account, I would also note that you do seem to be editing against a consensus at WP:BLPN and the talk page. As the reversions by Signedzzz seem to support removing BLP material based on previous consensus, I'm just not that concerned with the number of them. That is two strikes against you. Three if you count forgetting to notify. Dennis - 11:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    I notified Signedzzz with the {{ping}} template in my original statement, so I guess that you'll have to correct your scorecard. I don't think this BLP noticeboard discussion constitutes "consensus" not to include Ulbricht's name in the article, but the case has progressed since then. There was a rather important decision at near the beginning of the month and the case is going to trial in November. This is on top of a year's worth of reporting on the prosecution of Ulbricht. The IPs seem to want to label Ulbricht as a criminal and Signedzzz seems to be singlehandedly editing him out of existence. I only got involved in that article to inject some sanity. Let's skip the edit warring (and the threats) and just skip to the AFD of an article that names Ulbricht. Then we'll see what the consensus really is. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    You "got involved", and proceeded to do precisely what the IP was doing. And FYI, the trial is scheduled to begin Monday, January 5, 2015, as you would know from my version of the article if you hadn't repeatedly replaced it with the offending version without even reading it. zzz (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    I'm done here, trying to communicate with a sockpuppet. zzz (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    Ah. I'm not a sockpuppet (or a troll). I'm an alternate account. I hadn't even noticed you'd been editing

    User:SubSeven - Violation of Wiki Civil and more

    Used the comment box to refer to me as an idiot. When I warned him of 3rr revert policy he was going to soon violate.

    Used the comment box to speak to me in a demeaning manner, called me slow.

    Wikihounded me by following me into an article he has never edited at. .

    Is engaging in an edit war amongst many users in the Royce Gracie article. Seems to be have a claim of ownership. Engaging in Wiki:Own

    CrazyAces489 (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

    I have notified the editor in question for you. Please do so next time when you submit an ANI report. --Richard Yin (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not going to pretend to give a hoot about UFC, but stuff like this, while not a hanging offence, is really not on, regardless of the circumstances. Note that this discussion would have shown up on User:SubSeven's notifications since the editor who brought this here included his name in the opening post. Lankiveil 06:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC).
    • 1) an edit summary on my talk page is not a message directed at you.
    • 2) I didn't call you slow, you may want to re-read that.
    • 3) you may also want to re-read WP:HOUND, here is a quote with relevant parts bolded: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles."
    • 4) 'edit war amongst many users'. Nope. Just you, actually. --SubSeven (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

    Calling me an idiot was quite unnecessary. CrazyAces489 (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC) His response to another user who had the same issue was "take it up with the ufc" . CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

    Help Needed

    TParis has helped us, via NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

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


    Hi,

    I know that it's not the right place for it, but I would greatly appreciate if someone could help me with Scientific Errors in the Qur'an, an article that I created recently to make Misplaced Pages more neutral. However, I'm having trouble with some of the HTML here. Some of the quotes are not showing. Thanks in advance. Regards,--Helpwoks (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

    You enjoy looking for trouble, I bet. So are you going to write a similar article about the Bible? ←Baseball Bugs carrots01:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    1) You've exceeded the template hard limit, 2) Massive OR there, 3) What POV are you trying to push?--v/r - TP 01:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    (ec)I assume you're talking to Helpwoks. The core issue is that the Bible and the Quran are religious texts, not scientific texts. He might was well write an article about scientific errors in The Three Little Pigs. ←Baseball Bugs carrots01:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Tagged for {{db-g12}}. It's likely that this would stand for AfD as being largely or entirely unpublished synthesis or original research more generally. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


    Scientific Errors in the Qur'an should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because http://wikiislam.net/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Quran is like another Misplaced Pages where everyone contributes, and majority of the article in question was contributed by me. Also, this Misplaced Pages has articles such as Quran and miracles, a clear Non-NPOV article, as well as redundant non-NPOV articles such as Islam and science and Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts (a huge part of this article is about Quran). Deleting this article will delete this Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view towards Islam.--Helpwoks (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    I say to make this Misplaced Pages at least partially neutral regarding Islam, not only keep this article but also write a similar one such as http://wikiislam.net/Contradictions_in_the_Quran Otherwise people will call this Misplaced Pages totally non-neutral Jihadi Misplaced Pages--Helpwoks (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    Copyright issues aside, there is no way this article could possibly be kept on Misplaced Pages. It is unambiguous original research.. Blackmane (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Sorry About A Stupid Choice I Made Six Years Ago

    Six years ago, on this very day and date, I made a stupid post that caused a lot of grief and gave me unwanted attention. I suffered the consequences for my stupid post big time, on a bigger scale then any of you can imagine. I know it's a long time since it happened (and I'm not getting into details, those of you who were on here on that day might know what I'm talking about) but I would like to apologize to those that I hurt, which are mainly two people that worked at a school I was in at the time. I made a pretty bad post about them which got me in a lot of trouble. It was made on here, which is why I am posting about it on here. Once again, I am sorry. I will never do anything as stupid as that ever again; I never want to make anything that sounds like a threat ever again either. That's the grief and I am sorry about it; more sorry than any of you will ever know. StupidChoices (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

    Okay, we forgive you because we really don't know and don't care what you did. Now can we close this thread? It's not actionable. Epicgenius (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    Category: